George W. Bush vs Richard Nixon

[Sol]

Nixon was a foreign policy great

[Sol]

Anyway, I'm voting for the president who didn't support Genocide in East Timor or Bangladesh, thanks.

[Sol]

Anyway, I'm voting for the president who didn't support Genocide in East Timor or Bangladesh, thanks.

Bush's foreign policy aims were less sinister and very idealistic, but very costly for the US and very destabilizing to the world thus far.

Nixon's foreign policy aims were ruthless, cold and calculating Realpolitik, but arguably helped stabilize the Cold War chessboard in the West's favor.

Nixon supported genocide in East Timor and Bangladesh. Bush pursued policies that are allowing genocide to happen in the Middle East as we speak. Does intent really matter?

It pretty clearly does in this case, since Nixon was basically supporting the mass killing of Bengalis whereas Bush pretty clearly was not trying to kill Yezidis and Assyrians. That's like arguing Pol Pot and Kennedy are equally responsible for the Cambodian Genocide.*

*Obviously Nixon isn't as responsible as say, Yahya Khan, but still.

[Sol]

I expected better of this forum. Seriously, let's compare the "big flaws/failures" of each:

Bush:
-Iraq
-Afghanistan
-Katrina Response
-Campaigning on Homophobia
-Guantanamo

Nixon:
-Chile
-East Timor
-Bangladesh
-Secret Wars in SE Asia
-Watergate
-Greece/Cyprus
-Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks
-War on Drugs starting
-Manipulation of 1972 Election Process
-Appointment of Warren Burger to SCOTUS
-Campaigning on Racism

[Sol]

Nixon at the very least is probably the most evil president the United States has ever had. Basically there's no logical reason to vote for Nixon is if your dislike of Bush outweighs the facts. Which is fine, but also completely ignores facts.

And the most negative aspects of Bush's legacy are fairly constrained to the Middle East, while Nixon's are all over--from Chile's disappearances to Laos's still pervasive unexploded bomb problem to the partition of Cyprus