The Worst President?? I think not....

[firstpusk]

Did I say that it wasn't a Customs Agent that made the arrest? FrankJ is not exactly right. The agent was doing his job and the Clinton administration was doing its job, also. An alert was on for that border as a result of intelligence shared by Jordan. The Clinton national security people were actually working on the issue of terrorism before millennium bombing. This is the opposite of the Bush administration that had finally scheduled their first high level meeting on terrorism until the week before 9/11.

[Twocubdad]

Bob is right that the basic question is unanswerable. Had George Washington or Abe Lincoln served in the first half of the 19th century would we remember them any more than Millard Filmore? Had Nixon immediately fired Halderman and Erlichman when he found out about the break-ins, or if Clinton had kept his pants zipped would we be adding them to Mt. Rushmore now? Who knows.

 

As to Hops post, it was an e-mail that made the rounds back in the winter. Someone sent me a follow-up copy where someone had responded to the original. I didn't write it, so don't complain to me about any of the responses. Here it is:

 

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: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. So let's fight the war on terrorism. That would be in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. Dubbya's war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. A good case can be made that Iraq has taken time, attention and military muscle away from the real fight.

 

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. History lesson: Japan bombs Pearl Harbor. FDR declares war on Japan. Germany declares war on the US. US declares war on Germany. That used to be the way things worked. Besides that do you really mean to equate WWII with Iraq? (And Merlyn's above post explains this better -- TCD)

 

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. No, but North Korea did attack South Korea, an allied of the US with which we had a mutual-aid treaty. The Korean War was also fought under the umbrella of the UN and with the help of numerous other countries..

 

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. True. Maybe there is a lesson there for Dubbya to learn..

 

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Right again and yet another lesson for Dubbya. As a result LBJ fell on his sword and gave up the presidency in '68. Now there's an idea!

 

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. No, but the Serbs and Croats who were slaughtered did ask for our aid. If you're still hung up on naked aggression, consider that Bush 41 attacked Somalia and Panama. Regan went into Grenada and Lebanon. Your point? I seem to recall that at the time Clinton went into Bosnia the Republicans were more concerned with Clinton's sex life than his foreign policy. The couple times he bombed Iraq (remember the No-Fly Zone?) the Republicans screamed that he was only doing it to distract everyone from the impeachment hearings.

 

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three timesby Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If Wilson had only managed to off that little private with the goofy mustache during WWI...

 

 

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. We lost 600 soldiers. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! (See the last two lines of this message regarding the US military.)

 

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. An isn't it interesting how Reno was skewered over how badly the FBI screwed up Waco, although she had been in office only a matter of days when it began? An Leezy keeps whining that they had only been in office 200-and-something days when 9-11 hit.

 

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. Yeah, but she eventually found the records.

 

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroythe Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. Scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas now, aren't we?

 

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! And tell me again who was in charge of rigging, er, running the Florida election?

 

Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.

 

DAMN RIGHT! PASS IT ON. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[acco40]

Historians recently "ranked" our countries first ladies. I found it very interesting. Could not find it on-line (not 1994 study or book but academic "research" so to speak of this year.)

 

Bush II is the only President in my lifetime (Eisenhower on) that I've had a gut level dislike for. Don't know if it is because of his perpetual smirk, born again Christianity that he wears for all to see, inarticulate speech or what but if I was in a Bush focus group his handlers would be reevaluating his actions.

 

That said, who to vote for in the upcoming election will be a difficult choice for me.

 

 

[packsaddle]

If I were Osama and I wanted to inflict the most profound, lasting damage possible to the American people and to our constitution, I would wait until September and then allow myself to be taken by American forces - thereby guaranteeing a Bush re-election. Mere bombs couldn't possibly do as much damage.

[frankj]

firstpusk: Don't make assumptions about my radio listening habits. You attempt to associate me with a radio personality that some people hold in low regard as a way to dismiss what I say. Maybe you can examine one of your last statements and clarify it for us. You said Bush may not be the worst, but anyone would be better. If, as you say, "anyone" would be better, then isn't that the same as saying he is the worst?

[firstpusk]

It really doesn't matter where you got it from. It has the same callous disregard for truth as Limbaugh. It expresses the same willingness to abuse one small fact to support a malicious slander. I hold what you say in low regard. The statements you made are the same half-truths made by Limbaugh.

 

As the millennium approached, there were numerous warnings issued to the public through the media. Those followed an extensive intelligence effort by the US and its allies.

 

About the President. I said anyone would be better and I mean it. Any of the men or women that stepped forward this year would be better than him. I did not say he was the worst in our history, but we can easily do better than him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bush is not the worst President. He is, at his very best, mediocre or slightly below and will be remembered as not much more than a picture on the wall.

 

Iraq was not a good move but one that begged us in. Now that we are there, we will not get out without a huge payout with few goals attained. When we leave, it will remain as it was but with more rubble.

 

Changing a person's heart takes much more, if that was ever a goal.

FB

 

[CaveEagle]

This debate can (and will) go back and forth with very litle impact on any of your opinions. I sinceerly doubt that any of you taking the time to write in to this forum would be willing to change your minds no matter what anyone says.

 

I certainly have my issues with our president, but I support him in most of his positions. Too many of us presume to know and understand all of the issues surrounding our national security. For me it comes down to trust. Despite some mistake that may have been made, I honestly believe that President Bush is trying his best to keep our country safe. Rail all you want about our prosecution of the War on Terrorism, Bush has done exactly what he said he would do in his Post 9/11 address to the country. Bush is TRUSTWORTHY !! Our enemies know it and you know it! Even if you don't like where it leads us.

 

Know for a consistancy check: How many of you "dubya" critics were complaining about Somalia, or Kosovo?

 

And as for the "anyone would have been better" crowd: How about Gore? Do you think he would have had the nerve to go into Afganistan? I don't think so. How about Kerry? His only suggestion (after suporting the invasion of Iraq) is to "Internationalize" the effort. Give me a break! The only way to get France there is if we buy them off. It was this type of International influence that enboldened Saddam into resisting multiple UN resolutions.

 

CE

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

hops_scout,

 

While there are many on this forum who agree with you, I'm afraid that most of the responses directed your way will be from bitter liberals who have yet to get over the last election. These folks are politically motivated and spend the better part of the day inventing new ways to demean our president. They superciliously stake claim to knowledge about foreign powers, military capabilities, and geopolitical events - as if theyre 70-year-old men with a life time of experience and training that includes the State Department, the CIA, and NSA combined. Trust me - they dont know what theyre talking about. Dont let them con you. We are in the middle of a very serious war, one that needs to be fought now - not later, and we are being led by a man whos well informed, intelligent, of good moral character, and loves both God and country. Don't be discouraged. In the end, truth will prevail.

 

[firstpusk]

"Bush is TRUSTWORTHY !! Our enemies know it and you know it! Even if you don't like where it leads us."

 

Capital letters and exclamation points won't make it so. Bush is the most dishonest man we have had as President. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and he knew it. Iraq had no significant WMD stockpiles and he knew it. Iraq had no ongoing programs to develop WMD and he knew it. How did he know it? We had inspectors searching the country going right to were his "intelligence sources" told them where to go and they found nothing. Since we have been there, we have found nothing to change this assessment.

 

On the consistency check, I supported both deployments. They had a rationale that made sense. They had wide international support and they were bipartisan in nature. None of these criteria were met with the current deployment. You do recall of course that the Somalia was initiated deployment was during Bush's term not Clinton's.

 

I think that either Gore or Kerry would have deployed troops to Afghanistan. On Afghanistan, you seem to forget that there was broader military support for that effort - including France. The difference is that these men would not have squandered the international consensus as Bush has done.

 

 

[Bob White]

Bush is the most dishonest man we have had as President.

 

Firstpusk, just saying it doesn't make it so.

 

"I am going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Bill Clinton TV Interview January 26, 1998

 

"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the--if he--if "is" means is and never has been, that is not that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."

Bill Clinton, Grand jury testimony, August 17, 1998

 

"I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now realize that I did not fully accomplish that goal." - Bill Clinton

 

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

The only thing that Rooster had correct in his last post was, "In the end, truth will prevail."

 

I don't need to invent ways to demean the President. He does very well on his own, thank you very much. A citizen has a duty to be informed. The information is there for anyone who will honestly consider it. The record shows the dishonest way this President and his administration has lied to the our allies, the UN, the Congress of the United States and most importantly the citizens. I guess that stacks up to good moral character in your book. Or does it only count as a lie if it is told by a Democrat?

[packsaddle]

I sincerely hope no-one decides to give us a comprehensive list of Nixon quotes.

While Clinton obviously engaged in a deception, the primary victims were his own family, not thousands of families of dead and maimed soldiers (and not to mention many thousands of Iraqi lives taken).

 

Long ago I detected a pattern in politics. It seems that the political world is a realm where deception is just another tool. However, the Democrats seem to lie to their wives whereas Republicans seem to lie to the people.

 

The Bush team has blood on its hands and it has put some of that blood on all our hands - for a lie, one of many. At one time I thought the most effective way to demean Bush was to quote him accurately. Then, after the election, it became clear that he could do much worse and take our great country down with him.

[Bob White]

Politics forces you to roll in the mud with a lot of pigs. It is impossible to never get muddy, regardless of in which direction you are politically bent.

 

For Firstpusk to try and measure "most dishonest" is a losing venture. For him to determine who has been lied to is psychic at best. I doubt he was privy to any of the actual conversations or security reports, from our own country and others that led to a military response, to make a valid deterrmination. While I believe him to be emotionally sincere, emotions rarely represent truth.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[firstpusk]

Read his statements over time. Look at what he said to the UN, to Congress and to the American people. Then compare it the information we now know he was given. Sorry BW, our President is a liar of the first order. He makes Nixon and Clinton look like understudies. Nixon lied to keep power. Clinton lied to hide the truth about his sex life. This man lied to send America to war - a war the nation did not need to fight. It is going to be pretty hard to top this man's record of dishonesty.