President XXXX

The thread title is a reference to another blog, where Democrats and progressives are not allowed to mention the name of the President that “served” from 2001 to 2009. Frequently, we are not even allowed to mention the years between 2001 and 2009, as if those pages have been wiped from history.

History, however, has a funny way of refusing to cleanse its self of unpleasantries. These days, in particular, the flow of information is so instantaneous and pervasive that there isn’t much that flies under the radar.

They say, “history is written by the victors” (Winston Churchill) but history is now written as it happens.

In my not so humble opinion, President XXXX, will go down in history as one of the most bumbling incompetents ever. The years between 2001 and 2009 will be viewed as a disaster for America, a disaster that President Barack Obama is valiantly trying to overcome.

How did we go from the relative peace and prosperity that was handed to President XXXX by President Clinton, to the full-blown train wreck that was handed to President Obama?

Unlike some, I do not blame 9/11 on XXXX, although he could obviously have paid more attention to the terrorism issue that he was warned about by President Clinton. The initial invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent defeat of the Taliban was necessary in light of the attacks by al Qaeda. After that, the train ran off the tracks.

The list of bad, horrible, disgusting and truly idiotic decisions that were made beginning in 2002 are well known, and there is no need for me to rehash them at this point. You know them all too well.

Despite all the evidence, there are still some that say that history will vindicate President XXXX and there are even some that say that he was a great President.

Hopefully, those folks are getting the mental health treatments that they obviously so desperately need.

My thought is that President XXXX is an American tragedy.

What are your thoughts?

(I am temporarily implementing a new rule for Pop Blog. Please limit profanity to a single curse word per sentence.)

William Stephenson Clark


Filed under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush

53 responses to “President XXXX

  1. The truth hurts:

    “Since 1982, the Siena Research Institute has polled presidential scholars on whom they view to be best and worst presidents in American history, based on a variety of issues from “integrity” to economic stewardship. This year’s poll of 238 scholars found that President Franklin Roosevelt was once again ranked on top, joined by Presidents Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt to complete the top five. However, President XXXX did not fare well since the last poll was conducted in 2002. He dropped 16 places to 39th, making him the worst president since Warren Harding died in office in 1923, and one of the bottom five of all time, according to the experts:

    “Today, just one year after leaving office, the former president has found himself in the bottom five at 39th rated especially poorly in handling the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Rounding out the bottom five are four presidents that have held that dubious distinction each time the survey has been conducted: Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce.”

    President XXXX was rated second from the bottom on “intelligence,” “foreign policy accomplishments,” and “handling of U.S. economy.” This despite promises from President XXXX’s supporters that “history will be very kind” to the former president, as his Attorney General John Ashcroft put it. President XXXX’s father’s legacy “held constant” in this year’s poll, with George H.W. Bush coming in at 22nd. President Reagan “dropped two places from 16th overall in 2002 to 18th today.” President Obama was ranked 15th.”

    (I am temporarily implementing a new rule for Pop Blog. Please limit profanity to a single curse word per sentence.)


  2. It did take a few years to begin seeing how truly bad President Reagan was! So, is this what they mean when they talk about “history will vindicate” bush the lesser? As we go along and time exposes even more we may see just how low he can go!


  3. It is laughable that it’s fine and dandy to constantly bring up President Clinton and totally unacceptable to bring up Bush 2!

    I am a firm believer that the only way to justify voting Republican is to ignore history!


    • WSClark

      Ha! I saw an Opinion Line comment to the effect that we need to elected “Jeb Bush in 2012 to clean up the mess made by Clinton and Obama.”


  4. tosmarttobegop

    I would be interested in reading what the history books will say about Bush in a hundred years or so?

    Bush’s actions I have came to learn mirrored FDR’s in many respects.
    The threat from Al-Qaeda hardly mirrors the threat we faced from either the Japanese or the Nazis!

    “Those who forget the pasted are doomed to repeat it!”
    But also Churchill did say “history will be kind to us as we are the one writing it!”.

    I do know that during his term I thought that Clinton was the worst president.

    It has been since and with the passage of time I learned of his achievements.
    Now my opinion has changed and I learned that the greatest deceptions were made about him.

    I fought hard to not accept what I heard of Bush’s actions on face value.
    Perhaps that is what makes them even worst to me, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”.

    But then if I had lived back then and heard of FDR’s warrant-less spying and violations of the law and the Constitution I would have thought the same of him too.

  5. DavidB shared this on Facebook. It is very interesting to see what part of the current U. S. debt is due to bush the lesser — the wars (one is his war of choice), his tax cuts for the most wealthy… It isn’t the stimulus spending that ratcheted up the debt, it’s the legacy of bush policies that we’re still spending on! The graph says it all!


  6. WSClark

    I try to separate my thought of a politician’s actions and words and the individual themselves.

    I thought Clinton was an excellent president and a ridiculously sorry excuse for a man and a husband. I thought that impeachment was over the top, since there were not votes to convict, but I strongly disapproved of his action.

    Given that the man knew he was under a microscope, you would have thought he could of shown some restraint.

    XXXX, on the other hand, was a horrible president, but by all accounts, he was a decent man and good husband and father.

    Go figure.

    Given the choice in the matter, I’ll take the good president that is a scoundrel over the bad one that is a good family man.

    Heh? I just thought of sumptin’!

    WE HAVE a good president that is also a good family man!

    Glory be!

  7. tosmarttobegop

    In his book, Scott McClellan said of Bush he truly was a decent man and came to Washington with the same intend as stated by President Obama as to the partisan gridlock and all side working together.
    But that Bush got over his head with how bad it was once in Washington and then 9-11 totally threw him into a spin.

    That Bush had trusted the wrong people and was lied to often.
    I do not think Bush was one of the dyed in the wool Neo-Conservatives not that much for thinking in depth.
    “ I go from the gut!”, when it came to deciding things as he put it.

    A often used weapon against President Obama is an examination of his experience and the lack there of.
    Doing the same as to Bush it if done before the election would have showed a man who more or less was handed high ranking and responsible occupations. Head of this company or that team and he always ran them into the ground. His experience was being a failure at being the man in charge.

    A good natured frat boy suddenly trusted into power and responsibility often not of his own desire.
    Daddy caused this or that simply because sonny needed to do something.

    • I agree. If history vindicates him it will be because he wasn’t the one pulling the strings. Neither was Reagan history shows. With Reagan it was his illness, with Bush it will be his incompetence.

    • What does it tell you to know these two men are the heroes of the Republican Party?

    • wicked

      I’ve never believed XXXX ran for President of his own accord. I believe and always have that he was the chosen one. And Jeb, as the first choice, wasn’t in the mood to be bossed around, so he refused when asked.

      I have friends in FL who think Jeb walks on water. I refrain from talking politics with them.

      (effin ay)

  8. WSClark

    I look at the thread photo – one of my favorites – and can’t help but laugh. Just take a gander at the look on Barney’s face.

    “Get me outta here!”

  9. indypendent

    tstg said: I would be interested in reading what the history books will say about Bush in a hundred years or so?

    If the Texas Republicans get their way in rewriting all the textbooks for teaching history, GWB will look like St. George right next to Sr. Ronnie.

  10. indypendent

    George W. Bush’s main problem, in my opinion, is he thought he was on some mission for God. Didn’t he once say that God wanted him to be president (or something to that effect?)

    I do think Bush was sincere in his devotion to God as evidenced by his being a good husband and father.

    But the Neo Conservatives within his own family and surrounding friends were more than willing to use George’s simplicity in understanding the big picture and somehow convinced him that he was actually doing good work for God.

    Not that I am trying to excuse the man – far from it. But I am simply trying to understand how our country could go so wrong as to put this man in power once, let alone twice.

    But if you believe Bush and his supporters – it was God that put him in power.

    But the God I worship is not that stupid. And the God I worship would have made the election of 2000 not one to be decided in a court under suspicious circumstances.

  11. GMC70

    Do you people really beieve the shit you write? But if you believe Bush and his supporters – it was God that put him in power.

    Really? You know ANYONE who says that with a straight face?

    You folks really have this little straw man “conservative” that you attribute whatever flaws you can fathom to stick pins on – and without dissent. How convenient; aA ready-made scapegoat for all that’s wrong with the world.

    As to Bush’s – or Clinton’s – or certainly Obama’s place: call me in 50 years. Just remind yourself where Truman was ranking immediately after leaving office.

    Your “evaluations” are tainted with partisan hate. And History has yet to even begin to make its judgement.

    • WSClark

      “Your “evaluations” are tainted with partisan hate.”

      I’m curious, GMC, how do YOU rate XXXX as President?

      Do you feel he did a good job, managing foreign policy and the economy and other domestic issues?

    • WSClark

      And, yes, GMC, XXXX did say that God wanted him to run for president.

    • wicked

      I listened to 16 years of Clinton bashing, which still continues but has moved on to his wife. And have so far listened to 2 years of Obama bashing that I’m sure isn’t going to stop.

      Karma. Deal with it.

  12. wicked

    You know ANYONE who says that with a straight face?

    Other than George W. Bush himself and a few million fundamentalist Christians, no.

    If you don’t agree, that’s fine. However, I respectfully ask that you don’t come here and consistently use the term “you people.” If you want to know where this country is so divided, look at your own party.

    • And, GMC70, do you use the term, “you people” to mean what exactly? Because if we use the term, “you people”, we obviously mean the same people, whoever “you” is. Maybe it’s the mailmen/women.


  13. Freebird1971

    Those people who say Bush was a bumbling fool while at the same time being a master manipulator and those who think Obama will save this nation are not living in the real world.

    • wicked

      Freebird, I don’t think anyone here has even hinted that Obama will save the nation. We aren’t looking for a savior. We’re looking for someone who’ll begin to turn things around and take this country back from the corporations that it was given to over the past 8 years.

      I’ve seen Obama supporters here be honest and open about their opinion of the current president. We don’t wear blinders.

      • Freebird1971

        I wasn’t singling out anyone but you have to admit there are people like that out there.
        Also to catagorizie everything Bush did as bad or evil is just a little a little over the top as well. I’m really no fan of either one truth be told

      • wicked

        Bush’s problem was ineptitude. He was led to what he did and didn’t do. Nothing more than a puppet. Give me a few more years, and I’ll start feeling sorry for him. 😉

  14. Freebird1971

    Dem is good Repub is bad or vice versa is exactly why this country is where it is today.

    • wicked

      Change that to partisanship, and I’ll agree 100% with you. When do you think it began? At least this latest round of it. Reagan? Nixon? Could Watergate have been the cause of the current hate program?

      I remember hateful things being said about Kennedy when he was in office. And I was just a kid! I don’t recall anything like that about Eisenhower though.

      • Freebird1971

        Partisanship is a better term to use. I’m just so godamned sick and tired of both sides thinking there way is the only way while the country goes to hell in a hand basket.

      • wicked

        I doubt the Founding Fathers expected what’s been happening for the past few decades. I believe they set up the structure of our government so there would be discourse and…(wait for it)…compromise.

        We need to start over from scratch.

    • wicked

      Back in 2004, I remember reading something I’d noticed for myself.

      For that past forty-plus years, Democrats have pretty much stuck to the issues during campaigns. Republicans have become known to use attacks (often personal) and rarely debate the issues.

      Pointing fingers is a poor way to run the country, no matter what your politics. Unfortunately, we’re human.

      • indypendent

        I think Republicans have become much more partisan since 1994.

        Ronald Reagan had the gift of the silver tongue (too bad it was also a forked tongue) but he managed to get alot of Democrats listening to him – so it did not seem the country was partisan.

        But in 1994 the dynamics of the GOP changed. Actually, Reagan was the first one that invited the Religious Right (the Moral Majority – Jerry Falwell’s group) into the GOP tent and gave them a chair at the big boys table.

        And slowly, election by election, the RR’s have gained strength and in 1994 – the year of Newt Gingrich and the Contract ON America – their power and strength has only gotten stronger and meaner and more partisan.

        I remember Newt and the rest of his RR locksteppers proudly boasting that they will not compromise and they never did.

        Then, along comes GWB who was obviously not the ring leader of the NeoConservative group – that honor belonged to Dick Cheney.

        The Neocons have no problem at all with mowing over anybody and everybody and the Religious Right are so arrogant and ignorant, that they truly believe they are helping God’s mission and the Neocons are their own pitbulls with lipstick.

  15. Freebird1971

    Well now that I’ve vented going to go spend some PaPa time.

  16. Bob White

    No, the poor leadership and administrative performance by Pres. XXXX during the immediate past decade will not be remembered or recorded as any way other than a huge failure for the American people or the country. And, congratulations on the 25,139 ‘hits.’ It excites me to believe that so many populist progressives might live in “ruby-red” Kansas (although you did not state that all ‘hits’ were from Kansas. I would like to have some kind of access to progressives. Living in W KS is hard for a progressive.

    • WSClark

      Thank you for joining us, Mr. White. We are an eclectic bunch of progs, libs and general morons (me) that enjoy a relatively conflict free zone.

      Please come back and visit often. We enjoy new perspectives and a fresh POV.


  17. indypendent

    My, I did not know I was setting off such a firestorm when I said George W. Bush thought God wanted him to be president.

    The GOP has been hijacked by the Religious Right (the Moral Majority in Reagan’s terms) and this group does believe that God made GWB president.

    Just as the C Street Christian Family believe that God has placed their members into their respective seats of power.

    You don’t believe that GMC – then just do some research (that is – independent of Fox News or talk radio) and then come back and we’ll talk.

    I’ve heard GWB several times reference God in his decisions and plans for the country during those long, long 8 years.

    So let’s not try to pretend that these folks did not use God as the leader of their parade.

    • indypendent

      BTW – Whenever an American president references God and then turns around and invades a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 – you can expect alot of people to question his motives.

    • tosmarttobegop

      FYI Romans chap.13 said:
      “Let every person be subject to the governing authority.
      For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

      Therefore he who resist the authorities resists what God has appointed.
      and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to those of bad.”.

      The point is that any one elected to authority is by God good and bad.
      That is what covers the statement that God wanted him to be president.
      The same goes to President Obama as well all those who object and demonize him.

      A little more Romans 13:4

      “For he is God’s servant for your good,

    • klaus

      But the point is, GWB did say that God wanted him to be president.

      Pointing that out is not partisan. It’s a fact. If facts have a liberal bias, well, that’s how it goes.

      To me, the true mark of the partisan is to a) deny facts; or, when that doesn’t work, b) to claim that discussing the actual record is somehow being shrill. My god, man, the Wrong Wingers were calling people traitors for raising questions about the invasion of Iraq, or suggesting that our strategy (sic) might not be optimal. That is pretty much the definition of partisanship.

  18. indypendent

    GMC – if you’re reading this (and I know you are), you have your point of view and I have mine. We’ll see which one is correct when history judges George W. Bush.

    At least, until those Texas Republicans rewrite history to just make up all their own good stuff about him.

    BTW – the only people that have ever called Obama the Messiah has been the Republicans. And then they are saying it to demonize the man.

    So perhaps the party with the Messiah complex is the Grand Old Party?

  19. Freebird1971

    Somebody should have at least taught XXXX the ettiquete of saluting. For the CIC that is a piss poor salute.

    • At least he’s not holding hands and smooching with that guy in the sheik dress! He did put himself in several silly poses for the cameras!

  20. lmao atthe cuss limit. ok, this is how i see it. Clinton was a great politician but totally morally corrupt. If we are to believe Gore lost, perhaps it was due to Clinton’s debauching the White House and many Americans were disgusted. Family values reared it’s head again and made both moderates and the far right believe all dems were as morally corrupt as Clinton We all became the party of destroyed families in many people’s eyes. Monica wasn’t the only one left with a bad taste in her mouth.
    Then Bush won re-election in 3 ways. Most important was fear of terrorism. Second, Kerry had all the warmth of a glacier. Third, the supposedly unpatriotic acts he did when he served the USA in Vietnam and after he returned to protest. Much of the Swift Boat Vets were lying too, but the damage was done.
    The ravages of Dubya, mainly the economy going quickly to hell and our troops being stuck in the Middle East ushered in a new progressive era. Obama may or may not be the political savior we hoped he would be, but he has years of refuse t0 clean up.

    • indypendent

      Actually, Gore did win the popular vote – so I don’t know if Gore and the Democrats were being punished for Bill Clinton’s lack of family values and morals.

      To be fair here, the deciding factor was in the State of Florida where George W. Bush’s younger brother just happened to be governor and where the woman who was working on George W. Bush’s campaign just happened to be the one that would certify the vote results.

      Picture this – if this had happened in any third world country that we had sent in advisers to watch for a fair election – wouldn’t we be questioning how this election was handled?

      • klaus

        Also, let’s not forget: I believe it was Bush’s cousin, a commentator on Faux News that called FLA for Bush in the first place.

        It had been given to Gore by one of the networks, but they retracted b/c the vote was too close. Then, in the early morning hours, Fox called it for Bush. Then the other networks piled on, not wanting to be scooped too badly.

        This created the public impression that Bush had won the state when no such thing had happened. This, in turn, allowed the GOP to cast Gore as a sore loser in the media battle for hearts and minds.

  21. indypendent

    jammer – that woman Bush gave the neck rub to was the German Chancellor – and she certainly looked like irritated. I’m surprised she did not tell GWB where to put his grubby hands.