Thread: worst prez?
10-03-2004, 01:38 AM #1
this was posted by john benz in the mob at sbi.
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.
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.
Let's 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.
From1965-1975, 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 3 times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2.900 lives were lost on 9/11.
In the 2 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.
In doing this, 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!
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 time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd infantry division and 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!
10-03-2004, 09:30 AM #2
Anyone who has any sense at all realizes that Bush is not the greatest president we have ever had......but hes far from the worse. Lyndon Johnson began many of the social programs that essentailly pour money down the drain, and now we can't get rid of thanks to the bleeding hearts. Even when the economy was great during the 90's, there were even more people in poverty and homelss than before, and the percentage that it was in the 70's was exactly the same........Clinton effectively did nothing in office, yet he is hailed as one of the best we have ever had thanks to the media. I'm not saying he was completely wrong to do nothing, I'm just saying lets call it for what it is. Had he actually done anything a lot of the problems we have now would never have come about.......
That being said, even if Bush gets re-elected, his legacy will be far from stellar at this point unless there is a complete 180 from his last term, which is unlikely IMO. The economy will improve, but Iraq is going to be an uphill battle, which is why we need him in office in the first place.
10-03-2004, 10:14 AM #3Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
Carter was the worst prez of the post ww2 era, policy-wise. Bush isn't too bad, at least not a miserable failure like his naysayers believe. Clinton did good on welfare reform. The more important part overall is always congress. But let's face it. Dick Cheney is God. They should reshape Mount Rushmore into 4 Dick Cheney heads. From now on, on all AR posts, he must be referred to as master Cheney.
10-03-2004, 11:53 AM #4Originally Posted by carbs-rule
10-03-2004, 01:26 PM #5
A better thread would be the worst Congress. The mid 90s were somewhat productive. I had really high hopes for the 108th. These reps have so many easy things they could do that would reform and downsize the federal gov't in so many ways but they sit on their hands, play partisan games, and get bullied around by lobbyists.
They should all be shot, drowned, or burned alive. That way we could start over.
10-03-2004, 05:31 PM #6Originally Posted by inheritmylife
there are those kinds of idiots watching everything said
10-03-2004, 06:10 PM #7
Bush isnt the worst. my vote is for Nixon
10-03-2004, 07:38 PM #8Originally Posted by symatech
10-03-2004, 07:51 PM #9Originally Posted by Badgerman
I'm sure they have bigger fish to fry.
10-03-2004, 08:10 PM #10Originally Posted by DF2003
1. Yes, FDR led us into WWII and yes it was Japan that attacked us and not Germany...BUT Germany, Japan and Italy(the axis powers) were essentially 1 and the war couldn't be won by just defeating one of them. So this claim of FDR being a bad president based on this is unjustified
2. Now I think Truman was a complete moron, but not because of Korea. He went to Korea because North Korea(a USSR satellite)was invading South Korea(our ally) and for this I think he was justified for defending them. But he was an idiot because once the U.S. pushed the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel, he decided to try to unify Korea by taking over the North. So essentially he was fighting a war that was already won. Another reason he was a idiot was because he used 2 atomic bombs in a war that was already over. These 2 bombs nonetheless were used on civilian targets as a "message" to the USSR and the rest of the world that we wouldnt be messed with. It was more of a deterent for future conflict than that of winning a war.
3. On Clinton....Ok people, since when did we care what the French think. Thats all I have to say about that.
So yes, there have been worse presidents than W. but there have been better ones as well.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)