sb_enail.com wrote:
William Jefferson Clinton
Two words: Monica Lewinsky. While he was in most other regards a good president, the affair has been argued by some historians as the worst mistake any president has ever made. Clinton's affair with the White House intern left a permanent stain on the presidency (and the carpet).
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
While he has been hailed as one of history's greatest presidents, and while I agree with that sentiment, the firebombing of Dresden and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in massive (and in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, potentially unecessary) civilian casualties. At least 20,000 people (mostly refugees from other German cities) died in Dresden. Between 100,000 and 200,000 died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of them civilians. While the bombings were hailed as premature enders of the war, Japan would have likely surrendered anyways, had they known that the Soviet Union had declared war on them. We had nothing to lose by waiting. The Japanese military was in tatters, and they were hardly on the offensive. Had we waited, Japan would likely have capitulated, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been spared.
I think we need to put the current presidency in perspective. After all, our country still exists, there isn't rampant unemployment, and the economy is on the upswing. Afghanistan, once under the Taliban regime, now has a democratic government. Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon in the Middle-east. After all, he invaded Kuwait, launched SCUDs at Israel, gassed is own people (he holds the Guiness world record for this, seriously), and impeded UN weapons inspectors on numerous occasions (think about it: why would he be hiding something if he had nothing to hide?).
In short, before making hyperbolic statements about the Dubya, take a look at some of the presidents of the past, and some of the decisions they made.
P.S. Bush didn't lie about Iraq. Our intelligence was wrong. After 9/11, I don't blame Bush one bit for not wanting to take a chance that Iraq might have nukes and the will and desire to put them in the hands of terrorists.
Ok, the fact that you would
a)Leave Nixon off the list and
b)Include FDR
leads me to conclude that you are either
a)Smoking crack a lot
or
b)A robot programed by the GOP to spread propaganda.
And Bush DID lie about Iraq. He lied that Iraq was trying to aquire weapons-grade plutonium (utter fabrication) he lied that Sdam still had WMDs (no WMDs were ever found), he lied that Sadam had ties to Al Quieda (no strong tie between Sadamm and any international terrorist organisation has ever been demonstrated), he lied that Saddam was a millitary threat to the region (that's completely laugable, ask any millitary stratagist.) He lied when he said that Iraq's people would welcome the "liberators" (Yeah, THAT's why they keep blowing them up and shooting at tghem..)
Bush lies so much that there's a whole section on Bushwatch.com devoted to when he lied, wheat he lied about, why it's a lie, how to prove it's a lie, and so on.
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
But let me break it down for you:
Nobody but Hillary actualy cared that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife in the white house. Perhaps you were'nt paying attention, but Bill got re-elected. The Republicans just made a big deal out of it becasue they knew their fake "moral outrage" sells in redkneck america. By any objective measure of his presidency (rise in GDP, drop in national debt, better rate of employment, didn't invade a forign country) he was actualy one of the BETTER presidents the USA has had in a long time.
But all you can do is cry "Monica Lewinsky!" becasue you can't find a single thing he did wrong that adversly impacted the real lives of americans.
As far as FDR goes.. well, you're just nuts. FDR provided world-class leadership through through the greatest crisis the world has ever known, and you wanna rank him as one of the worst presidents ever. I suppose you think Abraham Lincon was a bad president too. You cite Hiroshima and Dresden as your reasons for why he was a "bad" president. Now, granted: Dresden was an unjustifiable revenge bombing, but if you wanna blame someone for that, Blame Churchill! Dresden was a revenge bombing for the dammage inflicted by the Nazis on London during the Blizz. Do you really think FDR could have stopped the firebombing of Dresden if he tried?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were stratigic decisions, made after estimates of american casualties expected to be incured in an invasion of Japan were in made in the hundreds of thousands.
But more importantly, you've got the WRONG PRESIDENT. It was Harry S. Trueman, not FDR, who ordered the nukes to be droped. FDR was more than a little dead at the time. As in lying in a coffin and burried in a grave. I suppose they don't teach that little fact in school anymore, huh? Or perhaps you got the two mixed up. Anyways, you assertion that Japan would have surrendered and all the US had to do was wait doesn't hold water. You convinently ignore the fact that Japan was ruled at the time by a Junta of fanatical military leaders who were aparantly planing to fight to the death. At the end of the war when the Japanise stratigic position was cleary hopeless (they'd lost Okinowa and it was only a metter of time before the americans closed for the final offensive) the Japanise were still not making any sort of diplomatic overtures to the americans, even though Truman gave them the message that they could still surrender honorably in his public radio broadcasts. You say they would have eventualy surrendered, but that's a moot point: From the American point of veiw at the time, there was no sign that the Japanise would ever surrender. In fact, the Japanise had givven the american's every reason to belive that Japan would likely fight to the last man, After all, that's how they fought the when the americans invaded the chain of islands the lead to the Japanise home islands. The Japanise soliders litteraly fought to the last manin those battles. Couple that with the suicide attacks being wages by mini-subs and Kamakazie pilolts, and you had a really bloody clear picture of what an invasion of the Home Islands woukd be like.. at least thats' how US military planner saw it.
You can't apply the hindsight of a modern perspective and condem Truman becasue you think Truman "should have known" something he couldn't have known. Truman did what he thought was the lesser of two evils, and I'm sure if he could have seen a way to make a peacfull end to the war he would have.
It's a complete contrast to what your boy Dubya is like. The UN gives him a way to deal with Sadamm with sanctions and inspectors, so what does he do? He fabricates evidence and lies and lies and lies to trick people into belivieng there's a reason for war where there really isn't one, as if the one he's got going in Afganistan isn't enough. War, war, and more war, that's the Bush Family Motto.
But that's not why Bush is the worst president ever: Oh no.
It's his disregard for Congress with his "signing statements" that essentialy mean that HE decides if his actions are legal or not. He's the Decider. Torture? Spying on american civilians? Sure, it's perfectly fine: Bush said so.
Laws? Laws? He don't need no stinking laws. He's the Decider. He Decides. That's all there is to it.
Wakle up and smell the dictator, people.
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
or maybe that was some other dude. I dunno. I'm too lazy to do research 
