WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY

Kalona News ^ | Feb 15, 2004 | Ethel Bontrager

[11th_VA]

The following appeared in the Durham, N.C., local paper as a letter to the editor on Feb. 15, 2004.

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 5800 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 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Think about it!

Submitted by Ethel Bontrager

[highlander_UW]

One could have added that the only leader in the history of the world to employ nuclear weapons on an enemy was a democrat.

[Die_Hard Conservative Lady]

Yea, and don't forget all the Cubans he allowed into this country.

[unspun]

W is not better than RONALDUS...

Reagan gets less than best marks from unspun for Sandra Day O'Connor (and George H.W. Bush, who gave us Kennedy and Souter, to fill out the devastatingly tepid "Wimp Bloc").

I think W and RR are turning out to be very similar in their achievements in foreign policy and the economy, while seeming to be very challenged in controling the growth of federal government. If W continues to hold his high moral ground about our judicial appointments, I think he gets my nod as probably our best president since father Abraham and the original George W.

[dalebert]

bump

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

I think W and RR are turning out to be very similar in their achievements in foreign policy and the economy, while seeming to be very challenged in controling the growth of federal government.

No offense but look at Reagans spending versus GW's. Not even close. I wish someone would put up the chart. Remember Reagan had a RAT congress/senate. GW has had Repubs in both houses. Reagan did great on economy especially after Peanut Butter Boy was in office.

[P.O.E.]

Bump

[Texas Federalist]

Best: Washington (prevented the U.S. from establishing a de facto monarchy through the chief executive); Reagan (best of the 20th century; won the cold war and was the first president since FDR who fought the growth of the welfare state)
Worst: Lincoln (plunged America into civil war and caused the deaths of 600,000 Americans (assuming you agree the war was unjust))

[The Wizard]

excellent

[yankeedame]

Rather myopic, Ms. Bontrager. Believe it or not there were US presidents before 1930, quite a few in fact.

[hermgem]

Do not forget the India/ Pakistan border- skirmishes, terrorist attacks in India, threats as well as near anihilations with atomoic weapons of either country.
Bush, supported by able negotiating tactics by Powell were not only able to prevent pending atomic war but in fact created a currently friendly cooperative engagement of both nations.
Perhaps the most valuable diplomatic victory since World War Two. Yet, forgotten and obscured by our media. Oh to not forget, also during explicit presidential debates by media questioners as well as presidential candidates.

[Iowa Granny]

I read the Kalona News every week. Ron does a really nice job with it.

P.S. Are you Ron?

[Dan from Michigan]

Wilson started the "League of Nations" - precursor to the UN.

[Iowa Granny]

Thanks for the ping, Molly. Interestingly enough, I subscribe to the newspaper this was printed in.

[unspun]

No offense but look at Reagans spending versus GW's. Not even close. I wish someone would put up the chart. Remember Reagan had a RAT congress/senate. GW has had Repubs in both houses. Reagan did great on economy especially after Peanut Butter Boy was in office.

I don't argue with your points, but even Clinton was able to do some things in controling federal programs (i.e., sign some GOP bills) that neither Reagan nor Bush 43 have (welfare reform, etc.).

Remember when we had GOP majorities with a bit more of a spine, if not a very good PR program?

I remember the Grace Commission and a-lot of talk about "waste, fraud, and abuse," but I don't recall that panning out very well, back then.

[Rennes Templar]

I'll throw in my 2 cents re the worst. LBJ! Why? He killed JFK to get the job!

[Carry_Okie]

I think W and RR are turning out to be very similar in their achievements in foreign policy and the economy, while seeming to be very challenged in controling the growth of federal government. If W continues to hold his high moral ground about our judicial appointments, I think he gets my nod as probably our best president since father Abraham and the original George W.

Reagan faced a Democrat dominated Congress, a Russian military on the advance, and Central America gone communist. W has barely addressed, much less reversed that Latin American threat. The vision and leadership that generated SDI, or the sheer chutzpah to call for the fall of the Berlin Wall are unequalled in the Twentieth Century. His leadership vs the UN was far more independent than Bush, who has, in some respects, strengthened that corrupt institution. Reagan rolled back many federal regulations, where in some cases they are worse under W than they were under Bubba. Although I will give you the point about O'Connor, W has refused to pursue his judicial appointments against what should have been an ephemeral opposition, rendering those appointments a possible empty gesture to conservatives, rather than a substantive commitment to judicial change.

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

I remember the Grace Commission and a-lot of talk about "waste, fraud, and abuse," but I don't recall that panning out very well, back then.

I am not saying GW has not done good things and I intend on voting for him.

[Qwinn]

Just curious, what is your objection to letting Cubans into this country?

Might I remind you, if it wasn't for Cubans being allowed into this country, you'd be coming home from voting in a primary against President Gore right now. Cubans are overwhelmingly conservative, and vote that way.

There's a hell of a lot of things I can't stand about Carter, but his letting Cubans who risk their lives to escape the communist gulag they're in into our country was not one of them.

And Clinton -not- letting them in, but shipping them back to Castro (no matter what their age), that's something that just makes him an entire order of magnitude more despicable to me. The wet-foot-dry-foot policy wasn't just a sick exercise in survival of the fittest, it was just outright murder.

If you've got a problem with illegal immigration, hey, so do I, but I wouldn't start with one of the few immigrant groups that really has life-or-death reasons to be fleeing their country, that has -no place else to go-, that consistently vote Republican, that really appreciate America, that have an excellent work ethic, and that have always been pretty darn good at assimilating into our culture (well, outside of Miami at least).

Qwinn

[TN4Liberty]

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that "growth rate" is going to be larger when you start at a very low point (the depression). We had been in a period of negative growth, so the good old concept of regression to the mean take hold. Simply put, any growth would be large when measured as a percentage because it started with a horribly small GDP.

[MurryMom]

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.

Clinton didn't pledge to obtain support from the UN or France before warring against Yugoslavia (not Bosnia as alleged). The canard about Sudan's offering of OBL to the Clinton administration is just another lie initiated and spread by apologists for Bush's failures.