Worst ruler of your country?

no, judgement can be heaped on Bush because of the goof ups.  Never in US history before now have we pre emptively invaded a natio on flase pretences.  We already know it was qrong, that the reasons were lies, we already know we have more enemies now then we did before.  Hosni Mubarak said if we invade Iraq there will be a thousand Bin Ladens created, he was wrong though, its more like 1 million.  I believe as time goes on Bush will only continue to look worse, unles the theocracy gets power and makes him their patron saint that is.

ANd how possibly Janus, could he further your personal agenda? Unless of course you mean make the US government easier to overthrow?

He was one of the greatest presidents of the 19th century.

He founded the Modern Democratic Party.

He was the first President not from Virginia or Massachussetts.

The first President not from the East.

The first President of humble origins.

The first President who won a majority of the Popular vote and electoral vote in 1828.

He defeated the British at New Orleans in 1815, suffering less than 20 casualties.

He aquired Florida for the United States. Even though he killed Ambrister and Arthbutnot in an arbitrary way, his actions showed that Spanish Authority in Florida is an empty shell, and strenghtened J.Q. Adams hand against the Spanish diplomats. So, the good that he did for the United States outweight the bad that he did for some British traders in Florida. I won't justify it on moral grounds, but on ground of American self-interests.

He was the symbol of the new democracy in the United States, whereby the vote was spread from those with property qualifications, to that of almost all white males.

He represented the temper, the likes, and dislikes, of his countrymen in the early nineteenth century.

He vetoed more bills than all his predecessors combined.

He was the worst president the Indians ever had. Especially with regards with the Indian Removal Act.

He took a stand against nullification twenty eight years before the Civil War. This is when S. Carolina espoused the dangerous doctrine that any state can nullify any law passed by Congress that it deemed unconstitutional, thus fatally weakening the Central government. Had this action gone unchallenged, it would show the hollowness of the federal government.

He killed the Second Bank of the United States. Though it's financial effects was not all that good, the fact is, it was very unpopular with the people, and he just acted out the popular will.

Under his administration, the national debt was expunged.

He got most favored status with Great Britain with regards to trade with the West Indies, something that his six predecessors was unable to do. It is interesting to note that J. Q. Adams failed to do so when he demanded the trade as a right, but Jackson succeeded by requesting it as a privilege.

He got the French to pay the debt to the United States incurred during French seizure for American Ships seized during the Napoleonic Wars, though he courted a storm in his method of doing so.

In conclusion, Andrew Jackson is one of the greatest Presidents of the United States. He stands head and shoulders above other presidents such as Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Van Buren, W.H. Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, and other nineteenth century mediocrities. He invented the theory that the President, with the character of its election, represented the whole United States in its person, while Congress only represented states or districts. He remade the Presidency into an infinitely more powerful institution. He made the Presidency an organ for the expression of the common people.

He was the worst President the Indians ever had. But he was one of the greatest Presidents America ever had. And I believe, if you weigh in his accomplishments against his failings, his accomplishments would weigh more.

But of course, he was not a great man. He was a bastard, a dueler, a troublemaker, and such, but he was a great general, a great politician and a great president.

Otherwise, we can't consider Diocletian a great Emperor because of his persecution of Christians even if he extended the life of the Roman Empire by 200 years, we can't consider Philip II of Spain a great king of Spain, or at least a good one, because he murdered Protestants, or consider Shi Huangdi a great emperor of China for creating the Chinese empire even though he deliberately killed scholars, or Peter the Great for killing many others.

Greatness isn't measured by how moral you are while you are in office. It's measured on how you leave the country as contrasted by how you found it. Greatness should be measured as the sum of his achievements, not on how good he is to some peoople. If you don't do anything bad, if you didn't kill any particular group of people, but let your country be invaded or destroyed, is he greater than someone who killed a lot of people but left the country more prosperous and more powerful? No he's not.

Andrew Jackson's achievements more than compensates his Indian Policy. He left the country more democratic, without debt, more unified, more respected, and more powerful. Yes, his Indian policy should not be ignored, but it should not overshadow his other achievements.

So Andrew Jackson is a great president of the United States.

Otherwise, let's all say that Diocletian is not a great Emperor and the worst Emperor!

Genghis Khan is a great Mongol Khan.
Atilla is a great Hunnic Leader
Julius Caesar is a great Roman Leader
Napoleon is a great French Emperor
Louis XIV is a great French King

and

Andrew Jackson is a great U.S. President base on his other achievements.

All of the above committed some atrocity against some people. But that doesn't mean they aren't great.
To say that his Indian Policy prevents him from being great is to ignore the lessons of history.

Morality doesn't equate greatness, and making atrocities against some people isn't a disqualfier to greatness. Otherwise, most of the historical leaders we consider great would not fall on the great category.

Why should we hold a different standard for U.S. Presidents?