The Worst President

[island911]

Some fun stuff here:

"Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that
Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war
with them.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in
U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party.
Being an Independent I decided to take a look at history and see
if using that criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives

Harry Truman (a democrat) 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.
That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's
Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam.
That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000
American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us.
The Clinton administration 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 Sadaam
Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE
BRANCH DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! 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 LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE
HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE
VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took! Hmmm.....

[JTO]

Nice one Island!

Troy

[Shuie]

Island, do you have a printer happy version of this? This needs to be tacked to the bulletin board by the coffee machine at my work.

[Superman]

Oops, double-post. And sorry for the rant below. It just seems so incredibly obvious to me. It's the thinkers versus the Neanderthals these days. (I still think you're a thinker, Glenn, though you talk like a cave man sometimes)

[Superman]

Okay, neat piece of work, Glenn. Bully for you, but one of the stories rated Ted Kennedy's responsiveness in the Chappaquidic matter, and so if we're going to get off the topic of wars, then you left a BUNCH of stories out. Like how long it took Richard Nixon (a republican) to find the Watergate tapes. Sure these things make cute stories, but my opinion remains. No other United States president has ever done nearly so much to ERODE this nation's security, as this current "president." Let's say we're all living in a big field, in tents.

On the other side of the field there is a man who is reputed (or known) to beat his wife, and we suspect he also may have recently acquired a gun. How am I more secure, and how is anyone more secure, if I get up, march over there and beat the p!$$ out of that guy? To begin with, that guy's domestic agenda is arguably not any more of my business than my domestic habits are to him. (In reality, domestic violence should be everyone's concerns, but here I would point out that a punch on the nose of a wife-beater might seem like an effective strategy to a Neanderthal, and I hope most of us would agree that a better approach could be found) And to finish, a wife-beater with a gun and a sore nose probably will not be an ideal neighbor.

Okay, sure, the wife-beater here is Saddam, and he's in jail and (presumably) no danger. But quite a few of his supporters are still on the loose and will continue to be on the loose for decades. You're all expecting the nation of Iraq to throw a party for us and present us with a medal for "liberating" their country. Get real. Their country is in shambles today whereas it was liveable a few months ago. Mosques have been the best targets. We need oil, they have oil, and they know those two things.

Aw, what's the use. Those who are listening, are already listening. Those of you who shake your fists at the TV each night and say "Yeah, it serves 'em right, those diaper-headed camel-jockeys are being taught a lesson by GW now that they'll never forget," take a big drink of your beer and conclude you're safer now...well.....you're NOT safer now. You think you are, but you're not. You're less safe now than before.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman . . prior to edit
. . . but one of the stories rated Ted Kennedy's responsiveness in the Chappaquidic matter. . . .

ah. . .yeah. . .that "Chappaquidic matter" really wasn't the thrust of the point.

Maybe you should just re-read the post, up to the point of: "LESS TIME THAN
IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!"

[Neilk]

and HOW MUCH TIME HAS IT TAKEN TO FIND THOSE WMD? that everyone in the Bush administration was saying was the reason the US had to go to war immediately?

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
Oops, double-post. And sorry for the rant below. It just seems so incredibly obvious to me. It's the thinkers versus the Neanderthals these days. (I still think you're a thinker, Glenn, though you talk like a cave man sometimes)

"double-post." WTF!? You didn't double post. . .you pulled one reactionary post, deleted . . .arhhhg . .

talk about 'posting like a cave man'

[fintstone]

Like how long it took Richard Nixon (a republican) to find the Watergate tapes

At least Tricky Dick had the class to resign so as not to be impeached.....Little Willie didn't have the class to resign even after being impeached!

[island911]

So, Super, your position on this thread is; Let's talk about something else.

(?)

[island911]

So if the Japanese attacked us again THEN it would be okay to attack Iraq. . . is that what you're getting at?

[RickC]

Um, OK.....

But get your facts straight: Germany & Italy declared war on the U.S. in 1941 (remember when countries did that? No, neither do I, but it was important then) - What should FDR have done? Just let Hitler come on over?

North Korea attacked South Korea and (under U.S. pressure and because of a USSR walkout) the UN asked us to go in.

Vietnam - OK, that was a mess that (at least in hindsight) could/should have been avoided.

Hillary is a lousy human being, and the Clinton legacy of shame let GW win, so why the anger if you're on the conservative side?

Ted Kennedy is a sad, shadow of his very capable brothers (that's why we don't like aristocracy here, remember?).

Waco? - their leaders deserved to die, as did those kooks at Ruby Ridge (even liberals can't let the locals rise up!) A shame about the kids though.

GW is far from the worst US president. But stop this simple-minded trash-talking, or the "liberals" will have to bring out the undeniable fact that all you armchair "conservatives" never had the guts to unleash our nuclear arsenal like Harry did!

[dd74]

BTW: Kennedy didn't start Vietnam. We had CIA operatives in the country when the French abandoned their efforts there. That was about 1956.

Island with an "I" politically? I don't know, man: you sound increasingly to the right, but then we're all a little mixed up politically these days, aren't we?

[dd74]

Good job, Lynne. See? Even I'm off a couple years. But then what the hell: I only unknowingly embellished history a bit, as opposed to MISQUOTING IT ENTIRELY...

[RickC]

WWII = France falls, later US joins the war.

Vietnam = France leaves, US takes over.

2003 = France dares a blue-blooded Yankee/proud Texan (both oxymorons, I know) NOT to go into Iraq.

Maybe there's something to this right-wing hatred of France.

I say we go get France!!!!

[Zeke]

I guess no one considers what we were doing for England in WWII?

It does seem like some facts were left out.

The real point here is that this is not WWII, Korea or Viet Nam. What resources (think oil) were we after in the other wars? Were our actions seen as unpopular by so many in the other wars?

History has it's place in analyzing current events, but there are a lot of differnces between the current situation and previous conflicts. I don't have the answer, I truely wish I did. But that kind of logic is not going to help. That's not a crediable defense for Bush. I think the orginal post is just coffee room fodder.

[RickC]

Real question about Hoover is why after perfectly overseeing aid to Belgium just a few years before, he was unwilling/unable to do the same in the US? Could have, and was capable of, much more than he did.

[island911]

LOL Rick

Note: this thread (starter post) is dedicated to widebody, 350HP930, Bleyseng, and others whom cut and paste half-truth crap off the internet. (aint it ffffuuunnn?)

Oh, and I'm glad Superman can spot "cave man" posts. . . though, strangely only those counter to his caveman possition. Hmmmm.

[RickC]

aint it ffffuuunnn?

Yes. it's fun!!! I'm really in the mood today to laugh and blow off some steam with half-truths!

What next? I suggest the reports about common sexual requests from hookers at the summer political conventions? Even as a Democrat, I'd prefer they dress up as Liz Dole rather than Hillary. Actually might prefer the Margaret Thatcher look to Hillary! How'd she get into our party anyway!?!

[Superman]

A little testy, Glenn?

Yes, I believe the current administration is exploiting the immature, brutish, vengeful appetite of the American Neanderthal for the purpose of securing a source of vast quantities of oil, not to mention his place in history by finishing daddy's job. Or the job that daddy had the good sense to conclude when he did. So, if that seems to you like the theory of a Neanderthal, then so be it. But...you know....whenever this concept is pointed out in these threads there is always a very strong emotional reaction. Could it be that......? No, it couldn't be. Could it? Is it just possible that our nation's leader is an egotistical opportunist? Those would be such odd characteristics for someone in the world's top political position. C'mon guys. Fess up. If you're going to pretend like this guy is a clever strategist, or a well-meaning public servant, or even a guy who can pronouce most of the names of countries appearing in a fifth grade geography testbook, then you're going to catch some flak.

And yes, it was a double-post. I had hit "Submit Reply" LONG before I was finished with my post. If you're looking for the concealment of an agenda then you can accuse me of that, but you need look no further than the White House.