Bush's decision to invade Iraq will entirely swallow his reputation as president. He'll sink or swim with its successes and losses.

I don't believe that American troops or the existing Iraqi government will stabalize Iraq. It doesn't matter how many trillions we bleed away during the occupation. The sectarian conflicts of that region are centuries old and should not involve Westerners. Bush was simple-minded in his pre-war take on Iraq. It was if he saw the nation as a blank slate which he could mold and use without regard to its religious histories or ethnic make-up.

I'm in 100% agreement with the writer Camille Paglia when she said the following:

"Aside from its shocking and insupportable costs, long-term American occupation of a Muslim nation is a grievous affront to billions around the world. Our presence there has ceased to have any rationale except to stave off a series of "what ifs" and to avoid the appearance of retreat. Hypotheticals and appearances: Are they worth the death of even one more American soldier?"

If the troops stay, there is absolutely no evidence to support the argument the violence will end. Just this week, 200 people died in Baghdad in a series of attacks in a single day. Not a single one of the Iraqi government's 18 benchmarks for security have been met. And if we leave, god knows what will spring up in our absence.

I think Bush will be judged more harshly than Nixon, whose bungle had far less consequences. While Nixon was reviled upon resignation, at least his mistake is confined to our own country and at one point in time. Not so with Bush. The disturbing possibilities are endless.

All that, and that fact that despite Watergate, Nixon did have some pretty impressive foreign policy. He wasn't a "bad" president, so much as he was completely amoral (which may be what this country needs, at least to some extent, now that I think about it).

Yeah, because if China, probably Nixon. I never would have thought I'd say that back in the 70s though.

Leftist 'history', or the truth?

From a foreign point of view I guess it will be Nixon. As has already been said: he was amoral but his actions regarding foreign policy (i.e. 'the world') had much more positive effects than what Bush has done so far.

On 7/16/2007 4:20:38 PM Cryndigo wrote: Leftist 'history', or the truth?

That's so sad. You're so hung up in your partisan crap that you can't even just answer a question about two Republican presidents.

Nixon.

Bush can eat crap.

I'm going to say Nixon- Just because I really disagree with Bush.

Wasn't alive for Nixon... so I choose him.

Bush will be remembered better, but im not sure who will be remembered as THE BETTER one.

I think now, Nixon is remembered more because I learned about this in school, but in the future probably students will be learning about Bush's mistakes.

I will guess Nixon, even if everyone currently living will be dead when the question is finally answered.

Atleast they were both better than Carter.

Bush..he was terrible.

Think of it this way, They both used illegal wiretaps, but only one person spent all of our countries money and put is in a national debt on a war some consider an equivilant to vietnam

I think people are warming back up to Nixon. He's kitschy.

I won't shed any tears if I never hear from Bush again...

I think we should remember Bush for the crimes against the Iraqi people he led us in commiting.

I wasn't around for Nixon, and Bush is flat out horrible.