Note to SamFisher and Mulder: have fun tearing this one apart! FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us (although they did declare war): Japan did. From 1941-1945, <b>450,000 lives were lost</b>, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, <b>55,000 lives were lost</b>, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy escalated the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, <b>58,000 lives were lost</b>, 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. 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, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. <b>We lost 600 soldiers</b>, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history?......................?
Apparently so. For the record, IMO Bush is easily the worst president I have known and also makes the top 5 as worst president ever.
This particular letter is part of the astroturf strategy of the GOP... manufacture letters to the editor and such to suggest a grassroots support of Bush... it appeared in the Albuquerque Journal almost word for word and is spreading around the country in other newspapers. (I do see you added the fact that Germany did declare war... MacBeth must be having some influence.) In short, this is simplistic propaganda designed to create a moral equivalency of the Iraq War with WWII and diminish past Dem Presidents. It will only appeal to idiots... and by that I mean the original Greek definition that meant people without enough knowledge to participate in government. If this is the best the great minds in the GOP smear machine can come up with, Bring It On.
Oh, absolutely. Couple of minor points; Germany did attack us, subsequent to declaring war. Have mentioned this, oh, 50 times or more. Operation Drumroll. Serious, repetetive attacks on our naval forces military and merchant, ranging from NY harbour to the Gulf of Mexico. That coupled with the declaration of war by the world's foremost military power might, in some minds, engender a greater threat than Saddam's mythical test tubes... NK attacked our allies, as did NV. Since the first GW, Saddam has attacked exactly no one. That might qualify as a worse action. For excample, you could attack Canada tomorrow, and lose less than Johnson did against Vietnam...Make it a better action, or a better President? The two worst Presidents before Bush, were, IMO, Kennedy and Nixon, and I could outline why Bush has surpassed them...but unlike giddy's post, mine would be weighed down by examining the shortcomings of President's in two parties, as opposed to the clear mindedness of only looking at one...
Please explain to me how what I posted is any different than the original post, besides the obvious fact that I mentioned a Republican.
Bingo! Good for MacBeth. I also changed the verb in the Kennedy citation to "escalated" rather than the original "started." Forgive me for tampering. What exactly is inaccurate or misleading about this piece?
How about it conveniently leaves out a Republican president despite noting seven years of his administration?
Just for the record I never stated that Bush was the worst in History. There are a few others that were worse. Secondly to compare WWII, Korea, and Vietnam to Iraq is a freaking joke and insult to thsoe who fought those wars. In regards to the Clinton stuff, I never said that Clinton was perfect, far from it. Does comparing those actions to Iraq make the Iraq situation easier to swallow? Hell no it doesn't. However, although Wille lied about where his Wille had been, I don't recall being lied to to justify putting troops in harms way. I'll respond to this point since I was called on personally, but since I'm not in the mood right now (just got some really sh*tty personal news...) to rehash Bush's "successes and failures" as seen by both parties I'll just stop there.
See my reply to MacBeth. It is primarily the Democrats who are the rousing critics of Bush's War on Terrorism. This is, in effect, a mirror for them to look into as their nostrils flare. In those tiny little openings amongst the nasal hairs, they may see the visage of FDR or JFK for a fleeting moment and slow down their diatribes.
Well, obviously the credibility of any post like this is lessened as soon as it becomes an obvioulsy partisan excercise in one upmanship...but are you going to respond to my post regarding the factual distinctions between the actions you mentioned and this one, notto mention your innaccuracies? ( Ex. Germany attacking, kind of a biggie, no?)
I am being a bit lazy by just cutting & pasting from a signature in this thread, but it is all that needs to be said. "What if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use this arsenal. In the next century the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." --President of the United States in February of 1998
