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.

 

[sqwkvfr]

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.

So, If my brother were in Iraq, that would somehow make me more credible and cause my opinion to carry more weight?

Or would that put me too close the the issue to make an objective judgement?

 

[vclean]

Woodrow Wilson gave us; Federal income tax, 18th Amendment (prohibition) and got us into WWI.

 

[pilotman2105]

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.

Apparently having family in Iraq somehow lends oneself to being able to compose a better argument.

 

[Typhoon1244]

So, If my brother were in Iraq, that would somehow make me more credible and cause my opinion to carry more weight? Or would that put me too close the the issue to make an objective judgement?

My compliments, sir. We have little in common politically, but I believe this is an outstanding question you've raised.

Originally posted by countbat
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.

So what would be stupidity at its worst? Not being able to spell "Iraq?" Referring to "lately threads?"

I know, I know, "grammar and spelling aren't important," right? Wrong! They speak volumes about the level of education that formed the poster's opinions. I may not agree with the political opinions of people like bart, Timebuilder, TonyC, etc., but they express themselves impeccably, which gives them a great deal of credibility.

I may not agree with Bush supporters, but I have a lot more respect for an educated one than an uneducated one.

 

[Timebuilder]

Children, no.

Friends, some.

All republicans.

They think not being there would be stupid.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

My HS best friend has spent about a year and a half in Iraq and Afganistan (combined). In another month or two he will be redeploying for Iraq, Afganistan, or Colombia (hasn't been told yet). He is an Air Force MP that specializes in defending bases in hot zones. Over Christmas, he spun some tales of the "red mist club" and getting plastered in the 'stans for his (belated) birthday.

The reason I support the war in Iraq is because it needed to be done. The only difference between Saddam and Al'Q was that Al'Q had the ability to strike the US and thought they could get away with it. And while what Al'Q was bad enough as it was, Saddam could pull off something 1,000 times worse.

I know how easily it is to get bioweapons and/or chemical weapons because I know lots of people that have worked with the supplies to make them and are pure civilians. You guys all know how bad of a clusterf*ck the TSA is and the goverment agencies that are in charge of stopping people from getting the supplies to make chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons are just as bad.

My $0.02

 

[typhoonpilot]

Stephen Wolf

 

[Snakum]

He is an Air Force MP that specializes in defending bases in hot zones

Sorry ... he's an SP, and the only thing he specializes in is pulling gate guard.



Minh

 

[AeroBoy]

Re: Unsubstantiated Opinions

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

re:1--well, duh?

re:2--Does "others" include the U.S.? Did we not willingly allow the 9/11 terrorists into our country? Did we not willingly "harbor" them until they attacked on 9/11?

re:3--One man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter." If Bush had his way, all Americans that are anti-Bush would be labeled as "terrorists." Since he can't do this, he'll just have the IRS audit their tax returns. Welcome to the McCarthy era, part deux.

re:4--I thought we went into Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass desctruction...err, I mean liberate the people of Iraq? Yeah, that's the ticket...

And whatever we do, "we must stay the course," even if we've f-ed up big time...

 

[Chunk]

Worst president in history

U.S. Grant

 

[B1900DFO]

My big question that never seems to be answered by anybody in the Bush administration. What does the "war on terrorism" and invading Iraq have to do with one another. Contrary to popular wisdom Iraq and 9-11 had nothing to do with each other. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam represent two opposing ideologies and were definintely not collaborating to attack the US. That was Al Queada's agenda not Saddam's. Bin Laden is a fanatical religious zealot and Saddam is a secular dictator. Totally different people with different agendas. Now that we have attacked Iraq and created chaos terrorists are flocking to the country to kill Americans. If we were serious about fighting the war on terrorism we would have focused on Afghanistan and Al queda.

So why did we attack Iraq? Now they say it was just to get rid of a brutal dictator. Is that worth 700 American lives? There are a lot of brutal dictators in the world. Should our country's sons and daughters die liberating these countries too? Now that we are in Iraq we have no choice but to stay, but don't be naieve enough to believe that STARTING that war was part of the war on terror. If we decided to attack Mexico tommorrow I'm sure that terrorists from around the world would head to Mexico to kill American soldiers. That does not mean Mexico is a terrorist country.

 

[JJJ]

Some of you are starting to sound like Andy Rooney.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Unsubstantiated Opinions

Did we not willingly allow the 9/11 terrorists into our country? Did we not willingly "harbor" them until they attacked on 9/11?

Yeah. Our customs agents read "TERRORIST" stamped across their passports and said, "Come on in, make yourselves at home. Let us know what we can do to make you more comfortable."

To say that we "harbored" terrorists belies your utter ignorance of vocabulary and reality. Try looking in a dictionary and working on the former deficiency; I don't have much hope for the latter.

 

[Flyin Tony]

Right now I think they will get bin ladin about a week befor the voting starts. I think they know where he is. Just waiting untill a few weeks before the voting starts. Then Bush will get alot of votes. Its going to be my first time voting (18 on the 21). I cant wait. I just hope Howard Stern doesnt get fired because of bush. Hope this doesnt start a flame war

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Stern got fired last week when the half million dollar fine got put on paper.

 

[AeroBoy]

Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated Opinions

Yeah. Our customs agents read "TERRORIST" stamped across their passports...

Actually, all INS had to do was a simple background check before letting these people into our country. Am I asking for too much here??

To say that we "harbored" terrorists belies your utter ignorance of vocabulary and reality. Try looking in a dictionary and working on the former deficiency; I don't have much hope for the latter.

By our government's deficiency in checking people coming into this country, we might as well had a banner up at the airport customs and immigration facilities that said, "Welcome terrorists." I stand by my statement that we willingly let them in (i.e.-"harbored" them), without any real background checks or other scrutiny before letting them through our border. That's a fact, Jack.

When you say that I have "utter ignorance of vocabulary," you couldn't be more wrong. I write and edit stories for a magazine that you probably read religiously every month.

 

[Flyin Tony]

Stern got fired last week when the half million dollar fine got put on paper.

O NO! im voting for the other guy. D@mn Bush and Powell and his son

 

[ArcticFlier]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated Opinions

Actually, all INS had to do was a simple background check before letting these people into our country. Am I asking for too much here??



By our government's deficiency in checking people coming into this country, we might as well had a banner up at the airport customs and immigration facilities that said, "Welcome terrorists." I stand by my statement that we willingly let them in (i.e.-"harbored" them), without any real background checks or other scrutiny before letting them through our border. That's a fact, Jack.

When you say that I have "utter ignorance of vocabulary," you couldn't be more wrong. I write and edit stories for a magazine that you probably read religiously every month.

Hmmmmmm..........hopefully, you proofread your work at the magazine. You may want to try that here before you hit that pesky 'Submit Reply' button.

AF

 

[Typhoon1244]

And I thought I was picky!

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated Opinions

I stand by my statement that we willingly let them in (i.e.-"harbored" them), without any real background checks or other scrutiny before letting them through our border. That's a fact, Jack.

When you say that I have "utter ignorance of vocabulary," you couldn't be more wrong. I write and edit stories for a magazine that you probably read religiously every month.

I don't care if you write the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Zondervan edition of the Holy Bible, harbor does not mean "let them in."

You might feel self-important and all, but that doesn't change the meaning of words. Sorry, you might be used to being able to make stuff up and people believe it because you're so important, but I don't buy into that hogwash. And for your information, there is no magazine that I read religiously.

Harbor means to give shelter or refuge to, or to hold especially persistently in the mind. Afghanistan gave shelter and refuge to terrorists, KNOWING that they were terrorists. Iraq did the same.

Go twist words to some unwary, unlearned idiots - - it doesn't wash around here.