Worst President In History?

You mean like this:



or maybe, this:



or this:



or this:



or the worst one:

 

He's reviled for the reasons he sent our soldiers to their deaths, not how many he has. Had we lost a greater number in Afghanistan hunting down OBL, you wouldn't hear the criticism. How many protests did you hear regarding that war? People have pointed out the vast differences in those wars and the war in Iraq, and you've simply ignored them. And the one that's closest in comparison, Vietnam, completely ignored seven years of a Republican administration.

It's an idiotic e-mail.

 

I think the problem people have is the cause that the service people are dying for. It's why Viet Nam was unpopular, It's why people have a problem with this war. By and large the action in Afghanistan was justified in the minds of most people, and there was little controversy involving that action. People are willing to support putting troops in harms way when there is a real valid reason and threat involved.(like with many of those Democratic Presidents listed.) The fact that this letter has factual errors in addition to not addressing that letter makes it a poor defense.

 

actually, the extension is wanted by the commission. W wanted it now, or after the election. the commission wants to report in the summer i believe.

 

That's another thing, this e-mail/letter/crap GOP propaganda acts like no one protested the Vietnam War.

 

depends on what the definition of "shown" is. it''s been asserted by many here that these connections are false, but not proved. any your use of the word "minor" suggests you accept that there is a connection, but debate the degree of that connection.

 

It looked like a comparative piece to me.

 

THen why are the combat death figures bolded?

The question the thread purports to answer, I am asssuming from the title, is whether or not Bush is the worst president ever.

The subject matter that it talks about is to cite american combat deaths, bolding them as if they are the primary fact with which we should use to answer this question.

You have necessarily equated combat deaths with the measure of success by posting this bit of propaganda.

However, you deny it when you say this:

but yet you conclude with this:

which is a direct contradiction of what you previously said. Here you are stating that Democratic presidents have wrought havoc on American servicemen, and are thus comparatively as bad, or, given that the figures are bolded, possibly even worse, as president bush, who has done the same thing but to a lesser extent; accordingly, it is unlikely, in the opinion of the writer of this "piece" that President Bush is the "worst president in history" because other presidents have suffered large numbers of Combat deaths.

Of course, I haven't even begun to address the assinine assumption on which this entire argument is founded, that all criticism of President Bush as President and as "worst president" is solely or primarily based on his propensity to get American soldiers killed in Iraq, when there are any number of social, domestic, foreign, and political issues over which he is criticized as well.

Giddyup, you make this too easy sometimes.

 

Yup, and people just sat back quietly during the war, not protesting at all.

 

Especially that spineless John Kerry...what a sop.

 

The liberals just hate it when one of their centerpiece complaints is taken from them! They hate it!

Poor, poor liberals... what ever will they moan and groan about next?

 

Exactly! It's sickening and contrived.

 

Now who's being presumptuous?

However, I would be willing to be that the majority of anti-war protesters in the 60s were more liberal than conservative.

 

I accept that Saddam's government monitored and occasionally contacted members of Al-Q, as all national intelligence operations would do and did. No evidence has been brought forth that Saddam was in league with Al-Q and in fact, there is much to suggest Saddam and OBL didn't get along at all. And there has been nothing even close to marginal evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

Furthermore, I would say it's been asserted by some here that the connections are true, but not proved.

Again, point me to a thread where strong evidence is presented and discussed that ties Iraq to 9-11 or Al-Q.

You can't do it because it's not there. And saying that there may be, at some future point, some scrap of info that would "prove it" is not good enough.

 

My esteemed colleague is exactly correct. Despite "useful idiots" such as the always corrupt Joe Kennedy, who was a huge Hitler backer, the U.S. was still under assault by the Nazi goons, be in U-boats, sabotage, or even spies, of which the Nazi intel organs were awesome. So indeed we were fighting a covert war (the sinking of the Rueben James on "Neutrality patrol" comes to mind) even before it was declared.

As for FDR, he waged the best war he could despite our military being woefully unprepared. It was the isolationist GOP that hamstrung his efforts to more fully revitalize our defenses in the late 30's, but even they saw that the storm was brewing and that we needed to batten down the hatches, because we would soon become a part of it. I'm not going to discuss FDR's economic policies (a disaster, but that is fodder for another thread), but I will say that his governance was not without fault. Biggest one was on the diplomatic front, where I believe he trusted Stalin, who was no different than Hitler, more than he should have.

Truman was the same way towards Stalin and because of Truman's weakness, much of Europe descended beneath the Iron Curtain. Truman's military policies were also suspect, as he sought to gut our conventional forces in favor of too much reliance on nukes, which was to have horrible consequences in Korea. His fundamentally flawed leadership over Korea by handcuffing our forces and not allowing MacArthur to finish the job allowed us cost North Koreans their freedom to this day.

Back to the subject of the thread, Jimmy Carter was by far, the worst president ever. He allowed, through bumbling and an adamant refusal to help, a great American ally in Iran fall to a fundamentalist regime far more brutal than the Shah's far from perfect administration. He gave away the Panama Canal via treaty for no good reason but his silly and naive idealist view of international relations. He let our military go into the pisser, cancelling large numbers of new weapons systems and showing little faith in our military. Even though intel warned him of the planned taking of American hostages in Iran, the bumbling Carter did nothing to prevent it and instead approved a highly flawed rescue plan that was an abject disaster of epic and biblical proportions.

Add to that Carter's econonic woes and his p***y-footed kowtowing to the Soviets, who saw us as weak and ineffectual and built their military at a frightening rate and you have the ingredients of presidential stupidity. But thankfully, Reagan was the genius that he was, be it cutting taxes, building a fine military or simply just bringing back the pride of being an American.