Rank the last five U.S. presidents

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Virgil, Sep 1, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'd like to get Arrse input on how you'd rank the last five U.S. presidents overall; number 1 being the most effective and best to number 5. Whose term did th e U.K. benefit from the most (if any)?

    I'll review your answers when I get home tonight. Obama is not listed since he's not been in for a year. Comments on some or all welcome of course.

    In chronological order of term:

    George Bush I (the Older)
    Bill Clinton
    George Bush II (the Younger)
  2. 1-Ronald the Great-helped us out with intelligence & missiles in the falklands, helped end the cold war
    2-George the First-showed good leadership over the first Gulf war
    3-William the Lusty-didn't really harm us in any way I suppose
    4-Jimmy the Unready-made the west look weak in front of the Soviets and Middle east
    5-George the Stupid-tried to do the right thing, just wasn't very good at it
  3. I can't say as how any of them have particularly 'benefitted' Britain except in the most generic way.

    Carter? Left an indelible blank as President. Hard to think of anything he did for GB, for good or bad.

    Reagan? There was the Int supply during the Falklands I suppose, but set against that we did have them over a barrel on Diego Garcia and the Ascension base. And sorry, but sending a negotiator to mediate between your supposed staunchest ally and the cnuts who'd invaded their sovereign territory? Nah, sorry. That's not how an ally should behave. And let's not go into Grenada.

    Bush 1.1? Handled international affairs with rather more aplomb than any of the others, especially GW1. Probably the best of a bad lot.

    Clinton? Gave us someone to laugh at, but in all honesty who amongst us wouldn't have done Lewinsky if it was on offer? Less abrasive internationally than most US Presidents, but screwed the pooch over Somalia and his love of dropping bombs from a great height then leaving someone else's squaddies to catch it in the neck still rankles.

    Bush 1.2? That's his IQ, by the way - not the software edition. He's done more to wreck the US's credibility, not to mention moral authority, than any other individual in US history. Thanks to his Presidency, a generation of the world's population are wondering if that's really as good as the 'last, best hope' actually gets? He's certainly got a lot of Brits thinking 'ungrateful cnuts' after the blood we've spilled.
  4. I'd agree with that. Clinton would be at number two had he not stood by over Rwanda. But I don't think that, aside from taking some good soft-power decisions, it can be over-stated how bad Carter was.
  5. Carter - brilliant man who couldn't build a coalition to save his life, thus failed as a politico

    Reagan - vastly overrated, left office with budget deficit larger than the combined total of all of his 39 predecessors

    Bush Sr. - more of a place holder than anything else

    Clinton - overrated. In reality, did not do much for US economy and moved the Dems more to the right and away from unions and the working class.

    Baby Bush - an absolute eejit of staggering proportions. Got US into unnecessary war with Iraq, gave tax cuts to those most able to afford paying taxes, cut social programs, disregarded the Constitution etc. etc.
  6. Reagan won the Cold War but gave the Yanks the maschinary to enslave the rest of the world.Including us it seems as we followed them like sheep into Iraq and Afghanistan.(2nd place)

    Bill Clinton got the poor working and paid off Reagan´s massive debts.At least Clinton had the sense to produce and encourage alternative energy instead of fighting wars for a declining commodity,should have been made President for Life.If the country can prosper whilst you have a BJ or spend most of your time in Court you must be doing something right,or did the others do to much?(1st place)

    GB 1 pillock that started GW1 but left the Kurds to be massacred.(4th)

    GB 2 worse than bad,spent all of Clinton´s savings, malleable as putty and way out of his depth.Should have stayed a junkie and died in the Air Force reserve.(100th!)

    Jimmy Carter should have bombed the Iranians,they wouldn´t be so cheeky now If he had,so we´re still inheriting his shortcomings.(3rd place as he didn´t do any real damage!)
  7. Carter: Morally and Intellectually by far the best. Cruelly and fatally undermined by the Iran Hostages.
    Clinton: Human and exceptional communicator. First rate intellect and philosophy. No harm done by bonking Monica IMHO.
    Bush 1: Hardly inspiring.
    Reagan: Seemed a decent enough fella but lacked a grasp of the details.
    Bush 2: Demented psycho straight out of Dr Strangelove.
  8. Amazing - you and I agree for once 8) - apart from your comments on Clinton who frankly apart from mates with our Tony did feck all.
  9. 1. Reagan
    2. Carter
    3. GB snr
    4. Clinton
    500. GB jnr

    Recently read "Guests of the Ayatollah". Made me change my views about Carter considerably.
  10. I think time will prove Bill Clinton to be the best of them. It was his courage to intevene in Boznia, eventually, that brought that war to and end.
    He is well respected around the world and his human frailties may have been exposed with the Monica Lewinsky affair, but he is one of the few politicians that, if his mouth were open, it was not necessarily all lies.

    As for Bush 2, well his IQ and shoe size were remarkably similar and it proves money can buy you anything.
  11. A collegue of mine started a project where he tried to quantify and measure presidential greatness. How we laughed at his attempts. Mind you, it was just the thin end of the wedge. He thought that Sony was an acronym- State Oil of New York- which itself was a cover-name for the cabal that ran the world. (Had great fun when I got the spare key to his office and made a point of going in and moving one object a week and leaving notes like "They're watching you- act normally." under his door.)

    Personally, I don't think it can be done. Greatness really depends on your own personal political predilictions. I think Bush II has to be a consensus failure though- even if you agreed with his principles and policies, the fact that everything he's touched in his life has turned to runny shit should be a warning sign that he's going to end up bottom of the heap. Same has to be said about Carter was the same too, I guess- lots of ideas, just crap at carrying them through. Clinton and Bush- from a policy (NOT political) point of view- were either consensus-builders or real studies in mediocrity, depending on how far on the extremes you are and Reagan's brilliance for oratory and being able to relate and inspire the electorate is tempered by the face that he was an intellectual pygmy who at times was dangerously ill-informed and badly handled by his advisors.
  12. Interesting. Jimmy Carter was very under rated imho as well. Ex Navy fighter pilot as a starter for 10.

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    That's probably kinder to Clinton than he deserves - we are living with the consequences of his failure to engage constructively with Russia as well as his failure to stamp on Al Qaeda. Rwanda was a blot, as too was his performance over Kosovo, which arguably belongs in the same legal bucket as Iraq regarding the legitimacy of the intervention.

    Like him or loathe him, and by no means untarnished, Ronnie won the Cold War and restored US self-confidence - the budget deficit was partly the result of a strategy of overheating the Soviet economy. He also understood how to make a modern Presidency work and he was wise enough to surround himself with good people and go on holiday for long periods rather than interfere for the sake of it.

    Of the other four, in my humble, Clinton comes a very distant second with GB Snr an even more distant third. Carter and GWB are somewhere down in the basement - both were completely out of their depth (though I don't buy the GWB IQ shoe size point, the facts say otherwise), surrounded themselves with clowns and got it terribly wrong as a result.