Worst President In History?

[HondaMan]

Found this on another site and thought I would post it here:

Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things
in perspective:)

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.

Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500
per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per
year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per
year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by
Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without
firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of
his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist
attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take
the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for
Less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm
Billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!

Relatively speaking, our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military moral is high! Terrorists are on the run! Civility and order
is being restored!

The so-called mainstream media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Are we?

[larchmont]

I don't think most of us are in a position to judge who's the worst president in history -- actually I don't think anybody alive is in a position to judge that fairly, because YOU HAD TO BE THERE. Right? Like, imagine about current times. Do you think anybody 100 years from now will really have a true feel for current times, even if they're "experts" on it, and even if they read every old book and newspaper? I don't think so. It's kind of like trying to compare today's athletes with athletes of the past -- e.g. Shaq with Wilt Chamberlain, Barry Bonds with Babe Ruth. People try to do it all the time, but I don't think you really can. With the presidents, we didn't SEE those guys, we didn't live during those times -- so we can't really know.

But I do think it's meaningful to ask something like, "Who's the worst president of the last 50 years."

And I have an opinion on that -- and it's the president we have now. BUT -- even besides how subjective this is, I'd say it's still uncertain even beyond that -- because you can't really tell about such things until long after. You need the perspective of how things work out in the future. But -- sorry, my choice at the moment would be W, by a very wide margin.

Anyway -- as usual, I think HM's examples and analogies are pretty dumb. :D

[HondaMan]

Anyway -- as usual, I think HM's examples and analogies are pretty dumb. :D

Well, personally I think it would be Carter hands down and sorry my examples & analogies don't meet up to your "superior" intellect. :D LOL

[larchmont]

Well, personally I think it would be Carter hands down and sorry my examples & analogies don't meet up to your "superior" intellect. :D LOL
Carter is a good example, I think, because opinions are so different (although nobody thinks he was great) and also, IMO, you can argue a lot about what criteria to use.

I think the main criterion that would argue "for" Carter being the worst is an abstract and theoretical one: IF anything really challenging had occurred during that time (which I don't think it did, at least not on the scale of the most challenging things of our times), based on how he ran things I think we'd have to say it could have been a worse disaster than anything that's happened. In other words.....I'm talking here about "worst president" in terms of capability or lack thereof, and the "might have beens," rather than things that actually happened. Which most people would say is pretty nutty. :jeffy:

And anyway you never really know how someone would respond to something, unless it happens. For example, few people in NY would have imagined that Giuliani was capable of being the way he was in the aftermath of 9/11.

If we're talking just about what actually happened, it's hard for me to see how you could say anything extreme about Carter, one way or the other.

[HondaMan]

Add this to the end of my first post:

Relatively speaking, our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military moral is high! Terrorists are on the run! Civility and order
is being restored!

The so-called mainstream media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Are we?




BTW Larch, you can keep trying to debunk the original post all you want but the main thing it is doing is putting the proper perspective on the Iraq war...something you liberals don't seem to understand. Once again you will find yourself on the wrong side of history, especially since you are (more or less) choosing to disregard it in this case.

[larchmont]

.....BTW Larch, you can keep trying to debunk the original post all you want but the main thing it is doing is putting the proper perspective on the Iraq war...something you liberals don't seem to understand. Once again you will find yourself on the wrong side of history, especially since you are (more or less) choosing to disregard it in this case.
No, debunking it once was enough. :D

I guess you like those examples/analogies better than I do.
I just don't see what they have to do with anything.

This is one of those examples where nobody is going to be persuaded either way (neither you nor I nor anybody else), because how they view it is determined by their existing point of view.

[HondaMan]

No, debunking it once was enough. :D

I guess you like those examples/analogies better than I do.
I just don't see what they have to do with anything.

This is one of those examples where nobody is going to be persuaded either way (neither you nor I nor anybody else), because how they view it is determined by their existing point of view.

So be it. :cool:

[TSX 'R' US]

One part of the article bothers me...

About FDR, how is he a bad prez that we invaded Germany? Germany and Japan were allies (known fact I think?).. I mean, if we attacked Japan, Germany is bound to attack us...think about it, they're allies. That was just one big war and once you're in, you're in...there's no lets just attack one country and pull out... We were forced into this war cause we were attacked first...not becuase we had a choice.

Question: are those lives lost of just Americans?

[HondaMan]

One part of the article bothers me...

About FDR, how is he a bad prez that we invaded Germany? Germany and Japan were allies (known fact I think?).. I mean, if we attacked Japan, Germany is bound to attack us...think about it, they're allies. That was just one big war and once you're in, you're in...there's no lets just attack one country and pull out... We were forced into this war cause we were attacked first...not becuase we had a choice.

Question: are those lives lost of just Americans?

They were allies (see Tripartite Pact of 1940) and yes, those are American lives. Another statistic I have read...1,050 Americans died a day during WW2 compared to 2 a day during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[TSX 'R' US]

They were allies (see Tripartite Pact of 1940) and yes, those are American lives. Another statistic I have read...1,050 Americans died a day during WW2 compared to 2 a day during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
technological advances :nod:

[HondaMan]

technological advances :nod:

Sort of, but hi-tech warfare can kill far more people as well, and some folks love to dwell on the negative aspects of Operation Iraq Freedom i.e. daily body counts...etc...that's part of the point here.

[briny319]

HondaMan - I really don't agree with what you wrote about FDR and somewhat don't agree with JFK. But I did find your post to be very interesting.

"In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without
firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of
his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist
attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on! "

I'm not a big fan of bush but you did make a pretty good point.

[HondaMan]

HondaMan - I really don't agree with what you wrote about FDR and somewhat don't agree with JFK. But I did find your post to be very interesting.

"In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without
firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of
his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist
attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on! "

I'm not a big fan of bush but you did make a pretty good point.

I can't take credit for the original post...I found it on another forum. I'm glad someone gets the point of it all. :thumbsup:

[bob shiftright]

About FDR, how is he a bad prez that we invaded Germany? Germany and Japan were allies (known fact I think?).. I mean, if we attacked Japan, Germany is bound to attack us...think about it, they're allies. That was just one big war and once you're in, you're in...there's no lets just attack one country and pull out... We were forced into this war cause we were attacked first...not becuase we had a choice.

Question: are those lives lost of just Americans?Gosh! This isn't Medieval History!

I don't know where to start....

The United States has been messing with the Islamic World since Thomas Jefferson in the Tripolitan War (1801-1805, mostly) (or 1801-current, depending on how you keep your stats.)

Anyhow....following Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the United States!

The National Socialists (NAZI = NAzional-SoZIalist) had a LOT of support in the US, pre-Pearl Harbor. Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy were prominent sympathizers in the US. Many of the Nazi's programs were the same as the things the Socialists were advocating in the United States and UK. One major difference was that the Nazi sympathizers shut up after Germany declared war, they didn't stage protests in Washington!

We only found out about the concentration camps after we invaded Germany.

You might want to research the reasons that Pearl Harbor HAPPENED in the first place. The United States had embargoed Japan of strategic materials including OIL. (Sound familiar?) Also, the United States had been selling (on remarkably favorable terms) weapons to the UK and to the Soviet Union. Nothing "just happens", there was a LOT that lead up to Pearl Harbor and WW-II.

There have been more countries on board with the US in Iraq than there were in WW-II, the Korean War, Vietnam or Gulf War-I. Germany and France and Russia are not among them, but Japan is, and the Germans were shooting at us in WW-II. And the Rooskies were shooting at us in Korea.

In WW-II, the French were sympathetic enough to the Germans to cause the Brits to attack and sink the French Navy, and provide a French volunteer Waffen SS Division, "Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne".

http://www.merriam-press.com/images/sr004_cov.jpg

Interestingly, the United States suffered more casualties in WW-II than FRANCE did, which is interesting because much of WW-II actually happened IN France! God bless the French for the massive casualties that they took in WW-I and the Franco-Prussian war, but they've pretty much sat out every dance since WW-II. In Gulf War I their total number of casualties were 2 (TWO!) As with everything since WW-II the US will do the heavy lifting. BTW if anyone thinks the French or Germans are going to contribute any meaningful number of troops or serious money to help President Kerry in Iraq, they're completely nuts!

(Oh, and in WW-II, there were also Bosnian and Albanian Muslim Nazi Waffen SS units!)

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/bosnia8.gif

[larchmont]

Gosh! This isn't Medieval History!

I don't know where to start....

The United States has been messing with the Islamic World since Thomas Jefferson in the Tripolitan War (1801-1805, mostly) (or 1801-current, depending on how you keep your stats.)

Anyhow....following Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the United States!

The National Socialists (NAZI = NAzional-SoZIalist) had a LOT of support in the US, pre-Pearl Harbor. Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy were prominent sympathizers in the US. Many of the Nazi's programs were the same as the things the Socialists were advocating in the United States and UK. One major difference was that the Nazi sympathizers shut up after Germany declared war, they didn't stage protests in Washington!

We only found out about the concentration camps after we invaded Germany.

You might want to research the reasons that Pearl Harbor HAPPENED in the first place. The United States had embargoed Japan of strategic materials including OIL. (Sound familiar?) Also, the United States had been selling (on remarkably favorable terms) weapons to the UK and to the Soviet Union. Nothing "just happens", there was a LOT that lead up to Pearl Harbor and WW-II.

There have been more countries on board with the US in Iraq than there were in WW-II, the Korean War, Vietnam or Gulf War-I. Germany and France and Russia are not among them, but Japan is, and the Germans were shooting at us in WW-II. And the Rooskies were shooting at us in Korea.

In WW-II, the French were sympathetic enough to the Germans to cause the Brits to attack and sink the French Navy, and provide a French volunteer Waffen SS Division, "Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne".

http://www.merriam-press.com/images/sr004_cov.jpg

Interestingly, the United States suffered more casualties in WW-II than FRANCE did, which is interesting because much of WW-II actually happened IN France! God bless the French for the massive casualties that they took in WW-I and the Franco-Prussian war, but they've pretty much sat out every dance since WW-II. In Gulf War I their total number of casualties were 2 (TWO!) As with everything since WW-II the US will do the heavy lifting. BTW if anyone thinks the French or Germans are going to contribute any meaningful number of troops or serious money to help President Kerry in Iraq, they're completely nuts!

(Oh, and in WW-II, there were also Bosnian and Albanian Muslim Nazi Waffen SS units!)

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/bosnia8.gif
A lot there that I did not know.

Larchmont, who knows a lot more about WWII than the average bear.

[HondaMan]

A lot there that I did not know.

Larchmont, who knows a lot more about WWII than the average bear.

Ditto! Very enlighting...excellent post bob!

Yeah, I read similar history about Japan and what lead them to Pearl Harbor on the forum where I found this topic. So. there is an error of sorts in the Germany/Pearl Harbor thing but I guess the guy had to start some where.

Wow, interesting history lesson this has become...history is important! :thumbsup:

[SAZABI]

I don't know....

but I like Reagan (sp?) and Clinton.

Reagan is just simply a smart guy and did the job well. /salute to him and hopes he will RIP.

Clinton... although some bad news ssssssss2 , I think he did a good job just on the president duties.

[pocketkiller]

worst president= Tricky Nixon

[larchmont]

worst president= Tricky Nixon
Not a bad choice. Certainly one of my most unfavorite of all time.

But oh, how we miss him. :D

[ClutchPerformer]

.....Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take
the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51 day operation. Yet the bulk of the time (and the casualties) in Iraq have been after the war officially ended. It took 3 times more troops than Rumsfeld wanted to get the job done, and we'll be there for another 40-50 years (see: U.S. military bases in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc.) 51 day operation my ass.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for
Less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm
Billing records.And didn't find a damned THING!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!See the response to how long the war took (and will take).

Relatively speaking, our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military moral is high! Terrorists are on the run! Civility and order
is being restored!BS. Military morale sucks.

The last Chief of Staff of the Army was basically fired because he didn't agree with Rumsfeld about how many troops would be required in Iraq. Consider that Rumsfeld is a guy who spent just a few years in the Navy thinking that he knows more about the Army than a 30+ year veteran with four stars. That Chief was replaced, of course. Most of the generals they asked to take the job refused because they resented what happened to their former boss. Rumsfeld ended up pulling a guy out of nowhere who'd been RETIRED for four years to do it because he couldn't get anyone else.

Not a great job in my book.

[Ferg]

As always, Bob Shiftright steps in with an enlightening post! Bob kicks ass!

I have to take exception to one part of the original post....

Found this on another site and thought I would post it here:

He (Clinton) was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by
Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.



Actually, this is not true. Osama was not offered by the Sudan. A private citizen contacted the US and offered Osama in return for favors (money). The US declined -- as they should have -- since US policy has been to work with heads of a government and not the private citizens of a government. When the US enquired to the Sudanese government about Osama's availability, low and behold, they did not have him. Turns out the person who did the "offering" was in no position to do so, and has many credibility problems based on past sneaky behavior.

People love to wave this little factoid around, but it is in fact, blatantly untrue. :nono: