Without bashing the Yanks
the first Bush , was ok , he could string a sentance together- didn't agree with him, but at least he could talk.
Clinton was an excellent president - but I think that it will take 20 -30 years for people to realise this.
Regan was "odd" but likeable not quite all there but managed to carry it off
then you kinda going before my time
but the kennedies (I hope i've spelt this right) had moments that would have stood out as being excellent, however this family seems to have a distructive streak int hem - don't know why. but they do as to war time president, it is always hard to judge them, objectively (I include churchill in this as well)
from an outsiders view - why did the US get involved earlier in the War , then why did the US get involved - its a double edge sword this one
damned if you do and damned if you don't
and as you can tell from the posts here, the Americans should not got involved in xx and why did it take so long to get involved with xx
Clinton (being the most recent "decent" preisdent) managed to achive a lot on the worldwide circuits, and raised the profile of the US in a postive manner, Bush seems to be focus on internal polictics (which is not a bad thing in it self) bit then tries to force the world to support his decisions and that what he says goes. clinton tried the same but didn't put everyones noses out of place with his arrogance.
Bush, has managed to alienate the US from 80% of the world, just through being abrupt, when a quite word and a nudge would do
statements like your either with me or against me - does not go down well
Now you see that is what I like about him, he does not sugar coat anything. If you don't agree with him, don't let door hit you in the ass on the way out. It seems like everyone wants to hear, what they want to hear, not truth.
Now thats just me
its a selfish view to take and as we all know life is not black and white or yes and no there are degrees of agreements
now i am not bashing the Yanks on this - just a view on there presidents form a view outside of the States -
you guys will have a different view on our past
Prime minsters
as an example
a lot of americans seem to think that Tony Blair is ok
we (and I can use the collective we) seem to think he's an arse,
pre T.Blair we had John major - a nothing PM no soul , pre him you have maggie thatcher - now there are different views according to where you ask this question, genreally there is a north south dedvide on this.
its all objective - but as i have said before we treat our leaders differnetly than state side - ours are there to do our bidding - if they do soemthing i am not happy with them I slag them off , Stateside it does seem to be almost verging on worshipping your President almost as a demi god
which for a start will rattle a lot of peoples cages here as we see our leaders as public servants not as object to be worshiped
now here i go again - double standards - the Queen is head of state and is given respect and is worshipped by some as "demi-god" and i could argue this case ,but I see the double standard on this myself - but as an outline
she will not get any personal gain out of politics - she is meant to be above politics - but is probably more clued up on this than most , as an ambassored for the UK/commonwealth/canda/australia she has a lot of clout, a phone call from queenie will at least be listened to, even if it not agree, she has the power (respect) to make a statement and be listened too by a large percntage of the world . (when I say power, I mean that she has no power to do anything but the power to speak as a figure head of state )
I supported him, but dis-respect him as a person.
