Mephisto2

I don't know. I honestly can't see why Bush could be seen as a "great President."

If it weren't for 9/11, I don't think he would have been held is such high regard. He certainly acted very well in the days, weeks and even months directly after the attack. I wholly supported his actions in invading Afghanistan and also his laudable and refreshing policies towards AIDS in Africa.

I'm certainly not a fan of his unilateralism and eco-unfriendly policies and the close ties he has with big-business and the Christian right. These however are just scalar; that is, he is not alone in this, but simply "further along" than most others.

Yet, I think it honestly all began to go wrong with his invasion of Iraq. I honestly believe he misled, or was misled, with regards to the invasion. I think he pandered to the neo-cons in his cabinet and allowed personal animosity to cloud his judgement.

It is patently clear that Iraq has gone, and is continuing to go, wrong.

So the only "great" thing that Bush has done is act Presidential after 9/11. His policy in Iraq is divisive in America, let alone on the world stage.

I don't think he's as bad as some paint him. Like most people, I honestly believe he's a good man. I just don't agree with a lot of his policies. On the other hand, so what? That's politcs.


I also don't believe Clinton (a man I greatly respect) qualifies as a great President. A good one, yes; but not great.

To be a great President you have to deal with great events. There were none in Clinton's tenure. In Bush's there have been, but he's fumbled the ball.


That leaves us to consider earlier Presidents. One could argue that JFK was a contender, due mainly to his actions with regards to Civil Rights; a great social upheaval in recent American history. But his record is also tarnished by scandal, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the beginning of the Vietnam War, that other great American misadventure.

Lincoln, without a doubt, stands head and shoulders above all others in my mind. Without his dogged determination and leadership the United States may have ceased to exist as we know it today. He had his faults, but they were minor to what he achieved; the preservation of the Union and the Emancipation of the Slaves.

One could argue that Nixon was great, especially in his engagement with China, but I don't think he qualifies. Again, greatness cannot be achieved without dealing with great events.

That leaves us with two other obvious examples.

President Roosevelt could be considered in this exalted few, for the New Deal, his leadership during the Great Depression and of course WWII.

President Wilson who led America through WWI and, more importantly and influentially, the subsequent peace. Unfortunately his brainchild failed and now America seems to view any kind of multi-lateral, trans-national representative and policing body as anathema, but his heart was in the right place.

What does this tell us? That to make a great President you need great events. And that these great events tend to be, more often than not, wars. However, and this is important, that being a President during a war does not automatically make you a great President.


Mr Mephisto