Bush - "The Worst President in 100 Years?" - How So?

President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America, is complicit in committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Is this proposition true?

If it is and if Bush is not punished for these crimes, logic and reason dictate that we nonetheless refer to the 43rd as War Crimes President Bush. Why? Because if Bush is a war criminal, then Bush is a war criminal and we shouldn’t flinch from calling him that. Right? Indeed, it would be our moral obligation to remember him for posterity as War Crimes President Bush, the president who committed mass murder without being brought to justice. Wouldn’t it? Or do you think that in the special circumstance of a US president, one ought to rewrite historical facts to avoid such a designation? After all, if we acknowledge Bush is a war criminal, how are we going to write that into the history books in a way we can share with our children learning about the sanctity of the presidency?

I’ll return to this question but first let’s warm up to the idea by taking a critical look at what a mainstream Canadian magazine had to say about President Bush.

Maclean’s (April 17th, 2006 issue) dedicated its cover to a photograph of President Bush in the lower right corner while towering over him in bold print is the question: “The Worst President in 100 Years?” (Author: Steve Maich).

Maich doesn’t offer a comprehensive evaluation. Instead, he limits the discussion to four “narrow” criteria that “presidents are judged on”. These are: “fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or crisis at home, and the promotion of America’s interests abroad.” (p. 28) It would appear that a president could be the most flagrant war criminal in the history of international law but as long as he is promoting America’s interest’s, handling internal crises and making sufficient numbers better off financially, the narrow criteria will redeem him (or her) for all posterity.

read more