The Worst President Ever??

  1. I got this via email today. I think it makes points that are both valid and interesting:

    The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. 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. 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. From 1965-1975, 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 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. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on!

    The 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 than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

    It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the 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!!!!
    More later, but I find the demand of some that "the war in Iraq, right or wrong, is over, now get out!!" to be VERY short sighted.

    Kevin McHugh
    •  
  2. 20 Comments

  3. by   SmilingBluEyes
    I do not think Bush is the worst President ever; I think LBJ is right up there with him.
  4. by   Elenaster
    Things went so well in North Korea too....

    Over a million people starving to death, a lunatic dictator that has essentially flaunted his WMD and sent countless weapons inspectors packing. Yep, that's a fine comparison and I certainly hope that's not what we have to look forward to from Iraq in 50 years.

    This editorial is the opinion of one man, who shares the opinion of many others, that this war was justified no matter what and GWB can do no wrong. I read letters like this on the opinion page of my local paper almost every week. Fortunately, the number of people that don't agree is growing rapidly, especially in light of confessions from people like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.
  5. by   2ndCareerRN
    especially in light of confessions from people like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.
    Confessions, opinions, or partisan politics? I suspect the words of any high level government apointee. They too, can have agendas we know nothing about. Afterall, the play the political game with the rest of them.

    bob
  6. by   jnette
    Quote from kmchugh

    More later, but I find the demand of some that "the war in Iraq, right or wrong, is over, now get out!!" to be VERY short sighted.

    Kevin McHugh
    Right or wrong about the war... we did the damage, now we must stay and mop up... regardless. I truly hate that death is still at the door for so many there.. ours and theirs both, but it is essential that we help now, and not wipe our hands of the mess we made and leave it to them to sift through.
  7. by   fergus51
    Kevin, this letter assumes that we believe Iraq is actually about the war on terror. If we believe invading and occupying Iraq will make us safer, then Bush is right and all is well even with the casualties. BUT, for those who don't see a real link and think Iraq is more distraction than anything else.... he is sucky, no matter how bad other presidents may have been.
  8. by   Mkue
    "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, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on!"
    This could be why he is disliked by the other party.

    Interesting letter Kevin.
  9. by   fab4fan
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the US was meddling with Viet Nam long before JFK. He wanted to get the US out of Nam, not embroil it even further.

    Hard to be much worse than Nixon.

    Can someone clarify for me...is there a war or isn't there? I mean, it keeps changing from day to day.
  10. by   fergus51
    No we already won it, mission accomplished Iraq-wise. Of course that hasn't stopped AlQaeda from killing folks in Bali, Morrocco, Turkey, Jakarta, Saudi Arabia and maybe Spain and Iraq. That's the selling point of the war on terror. It lasts forever, so it can always be used politically. It's like the war on drugs (and something tells me our strategy in the war on terror will be just about as effective as that one).
    Last edit by fergus51 on Mar 29, '04
  11. by   kmchugh
    Quote from Elenaster
    Things went so well in North Korea too....

    You miss a significant difference, Elena. We did not invade and overthrow the government of North Korea. Therefore, if you are going to to compare the Korean war to any part of our involvement with Iraq, you would have to compare it to the first Gulf war. We left Saddam in power, giving him the opportunity to regroup. It is possible by our latest action that we short circuited any chance of Iraq becoming a North Korea.

    Kevin McHugh
  12. by   Elenaster
    Quote from kmchugh
    You miss a significant difference, Elena. We did not invade and overthrow the government of North Korea. Therefore, if you are going to to compare the Korean war to any part of our involvement with Iraq, you would have to compare it to the first Gulf war. We left Saddam in power, giving him the opportunity to regroup. It is possible by our latest action that we short circuited any chance of Iraq becoming a North Korea.

    Kevin McHugh
    That may be true Kevin, but this "Iraqi conflict" is far from over and the entire region is destabilized. Over 11,000 Iraqi citizens are dead, and regardless of whatever number SH gets credit for, we have plenty of blood on our hands. IMO it's far to early to tell whether or not overthrowing SH's regime in Iraq is the smashing success that the Bush Administration claims it is.

    I know that you and I are never going to agree on this subject and we can simplify down to the most basic level: I am and always have been against military action in Iraq and you have always been for it. I sincerely doubt there is anything that one of us could say to the other to convice us otherwise.

    The OPs editorial contains some extremely presumptuous allegations as well as some interesting math. I had know idea we'd been Iraq for 20 years......
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl.../03/30/1522238

    U.S. Weapons Hunter: Still No WMDs In Iraq

    The new chief U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, is expected to tell lawmakers today that his teams have still not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But he said the search will continue.

    Iranian News Agency: "U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq"

    Meanwhile the Iranian news agency Mehr has published a report suggesting the U.S. may be planting such weapons in Iraq. The news agency cites an unnamed member of the Iraqi Governing Council who says that U.S. forces have been quietly unloading parts for long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction at ports in southern Iraq.

    In 2002 U.S. Shifted Resources From Al Qaeda Hunt to Iraq

    USA Today is reporting that in 2002 the U.S. pulled a team of special forces who specialized in the Middle East off of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden so they could be sent to Iraq. They were replaced by troops with an expertise in Spanish cultures.

    The report appeared one day after the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke told "Meet the Press" "If we catch (bin Laden) this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late." He added "Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq... al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently."

    Bush Advisor: US Invaded Iraq to Protect Israel

    The Inter Press Service is reporting that a former aide to President Bush who now serves as the executive director of the 9/11 commission said in 2002 that a prime motive for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to eliminate the threat Iraq posed to Israel.

    The comments of Philip Zelikow mark the first time a link has been publicly made by a member of the Bush administration between the invasion of Iraq and Israel. On Sept. 10, 2002 Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia QUOTE "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?

    I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel." He went on to say "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

    At the time of his comments Zelikow was serving on the influential President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which reports directly to the president.
  14. by   kmchugh
    Spacenurse, that's all well and good. But remember, no matter what the press and others want us to remember, the war was NOT about Iraq having WMD. See previous posts. You keep posting these reminders, and I'll keep reminding you of this salient fact. And no, it was not protection of Israel, for goodness sake. They are the LAST country that needed protection from Iraq. SH knew better than to take on the Israelis.

    KM

close