Good post, Steve
Worst president in history?
- Thread starter xusnret
- Start date
Sorry for breaking off the debate that you all seem to be having with Mr. Valentino, but I feel compelled to chime in. Frankly, it hurts me to see fellow Democrats use such extreme rherotic when it comes to attacking President Bush. It hurts me to see the terrible degradation within the political discourse of this nation on both sides. We have Democrats saying that President Bush is some pot-smoking, draft-dogging, ignorant man who has become the worst president in American president while Republicans say that John Kerry is some weak man who did not deserve recognition for service in Vietnam and who only married his wife in order to use her overwhelming wealth. These episodes of name-calling on both sides are terrible and are part of the breaking down of our democratic process. I think that it is time for our political leaders and those who speak out to halt these awful examples of partisanship. Whatever happened to the days when Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan were friends despite their immense political differences?
Now that I am off my soapbox, I would like to address the original post. The post is factually wrong I have to say based on what I recall from United States History class and the current political scene. First of all, not too many liberals are upset with the start and execution of the War on Terror (granted extremist liberals are); rather they are upset with the Iraqi War. Liberals do not consider the Iraqi War as part of the War on Terror (I do not agree with that premise, but ultimately there is some merit to such a standpoint).
Now on to the historical claims concerning FDR and Truman. The post claims that FDR led us into World War II when in actuality we were perfectly fine with staying out of it until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In response, the United States declared war only on Japan. Japan then declared war on the United States, and so did their ally Nazi Germany. With the declaration of war on us, we decided to declare against the Nazis, who already were attacking American merchant ships in the Atlantic. The post rightfully claims that North Korea never attacked the United States: it attacked the ally of the United States, South Korea. Once this happened, the United States decided to go to the United Nations and ask for the chartering of an international "police action" in the nation to push the North Koreans back into their nation. Truman did not start the Korean War.
John F. Kennedy did not start the Vietnam conflict, the first military advisers were sent there by Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. Kennedy had a plan to withdraw all Americans from Vietnam by 1965, but sadly he was not in office long enough to see that occur. I will say that the post is dead on about Lyndon Johnson leading the nation into a quagmire in Vietnam.
As for Bill Clinton's war in Bosnia - one that Republicans like Tom DeLay staunchly opposed - it was executed under NATO authority; not strictly American authority. We went into Bosnia for the most noble of causes: stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians before it reached the same proportions as the Holocaust of the Jews. Our nation learned from the mistakes of Rwanda and stopped another one from happening.
Now on to the claims about President Bush. Yes, President Bush's actions have liberated two nations: Afghanistan and Iraq. Their former oppresive regimes have been thrown out, but there are still many problems in both nations concerning the security and future of them. We do not know if the democracy we have established in Afghanistan or the one that is about to be created in Iraq will be long-lasting or whether they will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists the moment our troops come home.
I would not at all say that President Bush has crippled al-Qaeda. While the former structure of al-Qaeda has been destroyed, the terrorist group has reorganized. There is no longer a central leadership system for the group, but there is now a decentralized form of command. Rather than Osama bin Laden making all decisions regarding al-Qaeda operations, cell leaders themselves make them and the number of cells have increased across the globe, especially in Europe. Now if President Bush had really crippled al-Qaeda, a reasonable person would expect that the number of al-Qaeda operations would decrease. The number of al-Qaeda operations since 9/11 have actually increased. From 1994 to 9/11 there were twelve al-Qaeda attacks. Since 9/11 there have been thirty-three attacks by al-Qaeda. So much for crippling the organization.
It is absolutely great that we have nuclear inspectors in North Korea, Iran, and Libya, but these nations still have dubious nuclear weapons programs. The threat that they pose to the United States is still developing and something more than just inspections need to be done to stop the development.
Now that I am off my soapbox, I would like to address the original post. The post is factually wrong I have to say based on what I recall from United States History class and the current political scene. First of all, not too many liberals are upset with the start and execution of the War on Terror (granted extremist liberals are); rather they are upset with the Iraqi War. Liberals do not consider the Iraqi War as part of the War on Terror (I do not agree with that premise, but ultimately there is some merit to such a standpoint).
Now on to the historical claims concerning FDR and Truman. The post claims that FDR led us into World War II when in actuality we were perfectly fine with staying out of it until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In response, the United States declared war only on Japan. Japan then declared war on the United States, and so did their ally Nazi Germany. With the declaration of war on us, we decided to declare against the Nazis, who already were attacking American merchant ships in the Atlantic. The post rightfully claims that North Korea never attacked the United States: it attacked the ally of the United States, South Korea. Once this happened, the United States decided to go to the United Nations and ask for the chartering of an international "police action" in the nation to push the North Koreans back into their nation. Truman did not start the Korean War.
John F. Kennedy did not start the Vietnam conflict, the first military advisers were sent there by Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. Kennedy had a plan to withdraw all Americans from Vietnam by 1965, but sadly he was not in office long enough to see that occur. I will say that the post is dead on about Lyndon Johnson leading the nation into a quagmire in Vietnam.
As for Bill Clinton's war in Bosnia - one that Republicans like Tom DeLay staunchly opposed - it was executed under NATO authority; not strictly American authority. We went into Bosnia for the most noble of causes: stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians before it reached the same proportions as the Holocaust of the Jews. Our nation learned from the mistakes of Rwanda and stopped another one from happening.
Now on to the claims about President Bush. Yes, President Bush's actions have liberated two nations: Afghanistan and Iraq. Their former oppresive regimes have been thrown out, but there are still many problems in both nations concerning the security and future of them. We do not know if the democracy we have established in Afghanistan or the one that is about to be created in Iraq will be long-lasting or whether they will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists the moment our troops come home.
I would not at all say that President Bush has crippled al-Qaeda. While the former structure of al-Qaeda has been destroyed, the terrorist group has reorganized. There is no longer a central leadership system for the group, but there is now a decentralized form of command. Rather than Osama bin Laden making all decisions regarding al-Qaeda operations, cell leaders themselves make them and the number of cells have increased across the globe, especially in Europe. Now if President Bush had really crippled al-Qaeda, a reasonable person would expect that the number of al-Qaeda operations would decrease. The number of al-Qaeda operations since 9/11 have actually increased. From 1994 to 9/11 there were twelve al-Qaeda attacks. Since 9/11 there have been thirty-three attacks by al-Qaeda. So much for crippling the organization.
It is absolutely great that we have nuclear inspectors in North Korea, Iran, and Libya, but these nations still have dubious nuclear weapons programs. The threat that they pose to the United States is still developing and something more than just inspections need to be done to stop the development.
vrai
My hate of Bush is the only reason that I am bothered by current world events...wow, I should have just said that. That is not really true, but it seems there is the idea that everyone else knows me better than I do, and of course I know everything about you all as well.
Steve
It was not about them being world leaders, it was about them being someone that in an overall sense seemed to stated as being our enemy, but was secretly being flown elsewhere. They are most likely not guilty of anything, but it seems that nobody even asked. Not sure we will ever know the details of that transaction.
rraley
Informative post...I learned a few things. I am not a fellow democrat however, and the thought that Bush is just an average person with sub-par mental abilities is not extreme rhetoric, just factual information.
Name calling just gets people on the defensive and I try to stay away, but of course I am just as guilty...
My hate of Bush is the only reason that I am bothered by current world events...wow, I should have just said that. That is not really true, but it seems there is the idea that everyone else knows me better than I do, and of course I know everything about you all as well.
Steve
It was not about them being world leaders, it was about them being someone that in an overall sense seemed to stated as being our enemy, but was secretly being flown elsewhere. They are most likely not guilty of anything, but it seems that nobody even asked. Not sure we will ever know the details of that transaction.
rraley
Informative post...I learned a few things. I am not a fellow democrat however, and the thought that Bush is just an average person with sub-par mental abilities is not extreme rhetoric, just factual information.
Name calling just gets people on the defensive and I try to stay away, but of course I am just as guilty...
I have heard this misnomer concerning President Bush's intelligence thrown around alot lately by liberals and fellow Democrats. But looking at the records show that President Bush was an above-average student. President Bush got a 1206 on the SAT in the 1960s - something that was quite an achievement. He went to Yale University, one of the most prestigous colleges in the nation, and he received B's and C's - quite an accomplishment. Yes he has a tendency to not say difficult words correctly and make terrible grammatical errors, but so what? You speak in front of thousands of people and with the thought that the entire world watches your speeches and see if you say something like "Is our children learning?" I doubt that many of us here on the forums could go speak without error in such a situation and I doubt that many of us could go to Yale and get the grades that Bush did. I disagree with the vast majority of the president's policies, but I would not believe that he is somehow dumber than average people.
Actually, he had a C average in school, was not admitted into state college because of academics. He has even made jokes about someone with a C average making it in the world. Not too funny to me, but I guess others accept it. He does not read his PDB's, someone else has to read them to him, if he sees or hears them at all.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Why do people really love or really hate both Clinton and Bush? There are aspects to their personalities that seem to push the emotional buttons, regardless of the good or bad they have done. With that level of emotion in the debate, who can really judge their legacies right now?
Otter
Nothing to see here
Originally posted by valentino
Actually, he had a C average in school, was not admitted into state college because of academics. He has even made jokes about someone with a C average making it in the world. Not too funny to me, but I guess others accept it. He does not read his PDB's, someone else has to read them to him, if he sees or hears them at all.
I'll give you the C in Yale, but where are you getting this quote about his C average?? and where are you getting that he's read the PDBs daily or not at all?? I just want the facts, not some BS like "everyone knows it" or a friend of a friend of a friend told me..
I do not "really love" Bush nor do I "really hate" Clinton.
Bill Clinton was an extremely poor President in my eyes - too concerned about Republican-bashing and sex with subordinates and not concerned enough about doing his job. He lies his ass off about everything under the sun, even when the truth would have served him better. I don't "hate" him but I despise the people that put him in office and subjected the nation to him. I could forgive the first time, but the second time was just too much.
Bush doesn't have the psychosis that Clinton had, but I'm not crazy about him, either. I think he alternates between great leadership and being a candy ass. This whole Abu Garaib prison crap, for example. I'm not into his world welfare programs, either.
But I think John Kerry is Clinton without the charisma - a lying, womanizing, anti-American, Communist sympathizer and terrorist appeaser - so I won't be voting for him in November.
Otter check this out. Looks like Bs and Cs with a possible D in Science (Astronomy). http://www.americanpolitics.com/bushgeorgewtranscript.jpg
BuddyLee
Football addict
Originally posted by Voter2002
Source???? You in the room with him everyday to see he doesn't read the paper?
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/columnists/7027902.htm
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16422
http://hnn.us/articles/1817.html
Does this suit your fancy?
What do you have to back these claims up with? How is a man that went to fight in Vietnam when he could have gotten a deferall un-American? How is a man who has promised to cut corporate income taxes and increase competition incentives for free businesses a communist sympathizer? How is a man who supports the War on Terror and the Iraq War a terrorist appeaser? Please explain, I am baffled.
I disagree with your assessment of President Clinton's term in office as well. Under Clinton's watch, 22 million jobs were created and there was a $200 billion surplus. Under Clinton's watch, ethnic genocide was stopped in Bosnia. Under Clinton's watch, the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and Palestine were signed. Under Clinton's watch, the millenium attacks planned by al-Qaeda operatives were stopped. Did Clinton have moral failings? Yes, he has an addiction to sex, but our nation under his watch made considerable advances and that is what makes the difference for me.
