Which US President has done the most damage to America's standing in the world?

George W. Bush, he took a world that was sympathetic with the US after 9/11 and completely threw away that sympathy.

 

Obama Husein is both anti-Israel and a Ferguson (etc) Thug Supporter.

He is a disgrace and should be deported back to his village hut.

 

I can't in good conscience vote since your poll doesn't include Ronald Reagan.

 

Clearly Obama, anyone who wishes to dispute that need only list the countries we now have better relationships with than before Obama. They need only show places on the planet that are more stable today than before Obama. I'll wait...

 

I'd say George W. Bush. By far. He's what we deserve, tho, when we elect ignorant, Peruvian-blueflake and Jack Daniels-addled nancy boys and let appointees run the country.

 

You forget he wasn't elected. He lost that election by enough people to fill 10 football stadiums.

Bush started by practically inviting terrorists to kill 3000 citizens, then responded to that by invading the wrong country. When, impossibly, he actually pulled that off he then proceeded to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while bankrupting us in corruption. I cannot see why he and his cronies aren't in jail instead of still doing their level best to destroy the modern world.

 

Damn facts can be so irritating sometimes.

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/all/\

Seems Obama has done a pretty good job repairing the damage done by bush and the neo-cons as these multi-year global polling results indicate.

As to more or less stable, perhaps you can explain what criteria you are using?
I was not under the impression that prior to Obama, the world was politically and militarily and economically "more stable".

 

I'm not sure he didn't ACTUALLY invite the terrorists in.

 

Despite what the common American could think, Bill Clinton has been a tragedy for the United States at geopolitical level.

Even if it's debatable, it's possible to indicate Clinton administration with its laws as the primary source of the financial bubble which, exploding, has generated the greatest financial crisis ever.

Furthermore, if Clinton was more determined in fighting Al Qaeda and in hunting Bin Laden ... may be history would have been different. But President Clinton was busy playing his sax ...

 

please
respond to post no 7

 

It's really a tossup between Clinton and 0Boy. The tech and housing collapses started under Clinton, and Clinton said Osama wasn't important when offered his head.

0Boy is nothing but a joke that the entire world is laughing at. America has lost all leadership under that cocaine-addled, low IQ moron.

 

Opinion polls? Wow...

Now back to reality. Our diplomatic relationships with actual governments are worse under Obama than they ever were with Bush. Opinion polls do not reflect that. Seems to me that when Bush asked for a coalition he actually got one, when Obama tried to build a coalition the whole world balked, and the boy king was stepped down by Putin, first in Syria then in Crimea. Try again...

 

Clinton did that.............

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2001/18.html

CATASTROPHIC INTELLIGENCE FAILURE
THIS ISSUE:
CATASTROPHIC INTELLIGENCE FAILURE
BIN LADEN GATE By Cliff Kincaid
The CIA Connection
Friends in High Places
Damage Control
The Attack on the USS Cole
The Bush Response
What You Can Do
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR'S CUFF
In 1995, the CIA and the FBI learned that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as bombs to attack important targets in the U.S. This scheme was called Project Bojinka. It was discovered in the Philippines, where authorities arrested two of bin Laden's agents, Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad. They were involved in planting a bomb on a Philippine airliner. Project Bojinka, which Philip-pine authorities found outlined on Abdul Murad's laptop, called for planting bombs on eleven U.S. airliners and hijacking others and crashing them into targets like the CIA building.

The hijacking part of the plan got less attention than the planting of bombs. It required aviators like Japan's kamikaze pilots who were willing to commit suicide. Bin Laden had no such pilots in 1995, but he set out to train young fanatics willing to die for him to fly airliners. Abdul Murad, whose laptop had revealed the plan, admitted that he was being trained for a suicide mission. Bin Laden began training pilots in Afghanistan with the help of an Afghan pilot and a Pakistani general.

Project Bojinka was known to the CIA and the FBI. It was described in court documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Since the CIA had been mentioned as one of the targets in Project Bojinka, it should have had an especially strong interest in any evidence that bin Laden was preparing to carry it out. The most obvious indicator, and one that should have been watched most carefully, was the recruitment of young, dedicated followers to learn to fly American airliners. That would require keeping a close watch on flight schools where that training is given.

 

And the right was more interested in investigating that than worrying about terrorists.

 

Clinton never went after terrorists. He gave OBL a pass when he could have taken him from Sudan or when he could have killed him. Who you kidding?

 

That wasn't President Bush. It was the media, and you fell for it. The most damage was done by the most unAmerican, and that'd be Obama.

 

Now that's funny stuff. Outside of the western Euro trash, you can bet the rest of the world was praying that GW would kill all of those POS terrorists.

 

Perhaps you can provide some evidence of your claim, beside some anecdotal misinterpretations?

I thought not.

 

Say again? I'm talking about the real world, where actions mean something. Where were all our allies when Obama wanted a coalition? They stepped away. How are our diplomatic relations with any country better now than before Obama? Opinion polls mean nothing in that regard. Plenty of countries didn't want to go to Iraq, well their people anyway, yet did, and that tells volumes between public opinion and actual government actions. Clearly you are only interested in the things that don't matter, so I'll waste no more time on you. Unless of course you can actually show us all where our diplomatic relations have improved with any country since Obama got in office. I can't seem to be able to name one in which actions would reflect such a change, yet could clearly show the opposite...

Take Russia for example, Obama started with a clean slate even a 'reset' button, and here we are with near Cold War style relations today, that about sums up Obama foreign policy accomplishments...

 

What do you want from the right? Clinton was the President ... he had the responsibility, the opposition did its proper job, playing its proper role.

 

Nearly even?

People have emotion from weak to strong, plus a good to very good memory. Events for example Pearl Harbor and Vietnam didn't fade away in the collective memory of the world. Because billions have heard about it (or saw it on tv, or a documentary) or were alive when it happened.
And 9/11 and two bad presidential terms add up to the historical collective memory and emotion (all information over the last century adds up to this century)
This is why Obama's term feels much worse than the eight years of Bush.
Now wait and see how Obama's term will end (a bad end seems more common than a good end)

 

Are you seriously blaming Obama for Putin's visions of Russian grandeur and his subsequent actions?

Relations are worse with some and better with others. That' is how the world works.
OTHO, your dismissal of international public opinion polls without having ANY substantiating data for your claims is unsurprising. Apparently after Bush squandered so much American goodwill around the globe with his neo-con imperialism is inconsequential to foreign government attitudes towards America.

I do find it amusing that public opinion is only relevant if it supports one's position, otherwise it can safely be ignored. Cheney taught me that one.


Apparently

 

Didnt see all of the above option. equally ass hats.

 

bush, and its not even close...clinton and obama pretty much did not hurt the US standing in the world; the election of obama alone lifted the US standing quite a bit, so did the introduction of mandatory heath care; but it certainly has declined a lot since then, since he is seen in the world as just the same old conservative american president, overall his term probably has a slightly negative impact on the US standing.
Bush on the other hand transformed the US from pretty much a role model country everyone looks up to, to one that is regarded as criminal.
back in the days everybody in europe was happy the US were the worlds superpower no.1, cause they were the good guys, nowadays this is a pretty exclusive opinion, most people in europe think that the US does a lot more harm than good to the world these days; also nobody believes anymore that the US is just doing one tiny thing (related to foreign affairs) just because its the right thing to do, everyone thinks that everything the US does, they do cause they profit from it.

 

How can anyone possibly blame President Obama for betraying and insulting our allies like Israel, Columbia, Poland, Honduras, and Great Britain while sucking up to Venezuela, Hamas and Russia?

Would you trust President Obama if you were a Pole, an Israeli, or an American?