Worst President in History?!?

[dsee8driver]

I got this on an emai thought it was interesting. Wonder what you guys think.

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,
crushed 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!!!!

Our military is GREAT!

 

[Snoopy58]

Blogger Gregg Easterbrook of the New Republic imagines an alternative history in which President Bush gets impeached for launching a pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan on Aug. 7, 2001:

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill." . . .

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004944

http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1545

 

[GogglesPisano]

Dick Cheney

 

[AeroBoy]

I'm sorry, but we haven't "taken" Iraq. We may have toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, but we have introduced near chaos into the country. Our military is barely in control over there. We should have finished up the job in Afghanistan first (something we haven't done as of yet) before going into Iraq. We could have Osama's head on a platter right now if we deployed the forces in Afghanistan that we sent to Iraq. Then we could have taken that same "super" Army (versus the split forces we have know--part in Iraq, part in Afghanistan) over Saddam's house and really take control and implement a stable, democratic government there in a swift fashion. Alas, Bush's eyes were bigger than his stomach, so to speak.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Oh, ho....so much to say...so little time....

I'm sorry, but we haven't "taken" Iraq. We may have toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, but we have introduced near chaos into the country.

We ARE NOT there to "take Iraq!" Why do people misunderstand this? We are there to give to the Iraqi people in a manner that will best represent their interests.

WE have NOT introduced "near chaos" and what's happening in Iraq can hardly be characterized as such. The so-called "near chaos" has been introduced by insurgents, radical islamo-facist clericks, Al-queda and other foriegn terrorists, NOT US.

Our military is barely in control over there.

They're not supposed to be in control...they are there to provide security, not to be in control....it's called democracy.

We could have Osama's head on a platter right now if we deployed the forces in Afghanistan that we sent to Iraq.

I'm certainly not willing to bet any money on that....and it's a moot point anyway because you have no evidence to back it up. What if he high-tailed it out of there and into Iraq?

really take control and implement a stable, democratic government

Heh, what? This is a complete oxymoron.

in a swift fashion

Completely impossible....democracy is a messy, loud system. There's nothing quick and clean about it...expecting it to be in place and working well by now or even five years from now is not realistic.

 

[pilotman2105]

Unsubstantiated Opinions

I'm sorry, but we haven't "taken" Iraq. We may have toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, but we have introduced near chaos into the country. Our military is barely in control over there. We should have finished up the job in Afghanistan first (something we haven't done as of yet) before going into Iraq. We could have Osama's head on a platter right now if we deployed the forces in Afghanistan that we sent to Iraq. Then we could have taken that same "super" Army (versus the split forces we have know--part in Iraq, part in Afghanistan) over Saddam's house and really take control and implement a stable, democratic government there in a swift fashion. Alas, Bush's eyes were bigger than his stomach, so to speak.

I'm sorry, but I need to set the record straight on your generalizations and assumptions. You do not quote one bit of fact in your post. Rather, you merely introduce opinions. You have not established yourself as a creditable source for your opinions, so why should anyone listen to you?

Bush's policy in the war on terror has been very commendable given the circumstances under which his administration was thrust into the lime-light. I suggest that rather than bash Bush with unsubstantiated opinion and liberal rhetoric that you look at the facts and learn a little bit about politics.

The facts are:
1-The US was attacked by terrorists
2-Afghanistan, Iraq, and others harbor terrorists
3-The world (and perhaps the US) is a safer without terrorists
4-The US attacked these countries on the basis of ridding them of terrorists

There are other facts, opinions, misconceptions, assumptions, etc. that you may introduce here, but the four points listed above are fairly undisputable facts.

Work your argument from those and try again.

 

[bobbysamd]

Worst President

Many would opine that Warren G. Harding was the worst President. He wasn't terribly intelligent and the Teapot Dome scandal happened under his watch.

 

[pilotyip]

Hi jacked thread

I think, Harding or Taft would answer the question

 

[Typhoon1244]

Worst President:

Karl Rove

 

[countbat]

I am wondering if any of such " Experts/Patriots/ Republican or Democrat before American " has a child or any kind of relative serving in Irak?????
If they do have relatives serving in Irak and still write all this BS that we witness in lately threads, they are stupidity at its best.