IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER?

Points against him:

He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

>>9, I am a different poster from the OP.
1: since Bush has at least alienated several countries, the first point is not completley wrong, and you know it.

2: I'm not going to dignify the idiocy of this one with a response.

3: gj sport.

4: I will leave this for someone else to do.  I can admit when I don't have enough knowledge at my disposal even to do a simple thing like this. 

5: It is wrong that your initial response to this point is anything other than indignation at the administration.  Again, you display a basic naivete for how government works, and is supposed to work.  as the Executive branch, the president is the ultimate coordinator.  It was he who appointed Michael Brown, and it was he who was on vacation when it struck.  As the Executive, you have various responsibilities.  Among them: appoint competent people-do your best to arrange things to protect American citizens and interests-etc.  No one government official can completely do everything.  The president, like others, had host of options available to him, which he did not pursue.  And that's just reprehensible.  You are not allowed to reply in the vein that he's a busy man-he's had a lot of vacation.  "But he can do working vacations!", you might reply.  True, but although the president should basically be able to employ power from anywhere in the country, this did not seem to materialize on 9/11.  Have some reading on past incompetence, which, although not limited to Bush, definitely includes him:
http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/terrorism/september_11/
Bush has had two occasions to effect operational relevance and save lives, and has utterly failed.  Could Clinton or Carter have been victims of similar fate?  Certainly.  But in this administration, when it rains, it pours.

6: 1. employer/federal-related retirement plans and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, ass.
Also: attempting to use socialism as an scare-word is so ten years ago.

7: Nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about here.  All you're doing is applying platitudes about the government's role in religion and business regulation into a sphere where the result is nonsense.  It IS the business of the government to legislate certain aspects of new technology (environmental regulations on computer production, piracy, stem cell research), because they get into issues of property rights and human rights.  Whatever opinion people have of all this, the government has a de facto role, and a prepared, appropriate role, as outlined in the preamble of the Constitution. 

8: Here you demonstrate willful ignorance of how the american military works, and is supplied. 

You of all people should know that grades are not a criterion of presidential success.  Carter was a fucking genius, and a poor president.  So, you can't have it both ways.  Overall, you seem to suffer from an adolescent misreading of liberatarianism.