Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This president worst in U.S. history? Hardly
Delta Democrat Times ^ | March 15, 2004 | Mary Shanks Guyton

Posted on 03/15/2004 8:17:58 PM PST by Cedar

This president worst in U.S. history? Hardly

To the editor: They are at it again! Liberals claim that President Bush should not have started the Iraqi war. They waste their time grousing about his prosecution of it, while President Bush does something about terrorists. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's just see.

We did not start the war on terror. Bin laden did — on Sept. 11. President Bush just did what any president with any sense and gumption would do. Remember there had already been several attacks in our country which were ignored by our then-leader Clinton. Had something meaningful been done by Clinton perhaps we would never have had 9/11. Because of that non-action we did have 9/11 and fortunately we had a president with some guts who is doing something about it.

Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) attacked Germany, who did not attack us.

Truman (Democrat) was in charge during the war against North Korea, who never attacked us.

Don't forget that quagmire Vietnam war under Lyndon Johnson (Democrat).

Enter Bill Clinton (Democrat), who sent soldiers to war in Bosnia. Did I miss something? Did Bosnia attack us? Did Clinton get U.N. or French consent? Clinton had several chances to get bin Laden.

President George W. Bush (Republican leader) has now liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea, and captured Saddam Hussein. So far we have lost some 600 soldiers. We have not had another terrorist attack on our land.

In addition, the economy isn't nearly as bad as the Democrats like Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, and others are screaming at the public. I am still trying to forget that great Democrat Jimmy Carter's presidency. He sure scared Iran, didn't he? And talk about the economy during his presidency!

President Bush the worst president? I think not.

Mary Shanks Guyton


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; ohnopostedagain; presidentbush; republicans; worstpresident
Great Southern lady full of wisdom.
1 posted on 03/15/2004 8:17:58 PM PST by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cedar
Didn't Kerry vote for the resolution giving President Bush the authority to wage war against terrorism as he saw fit?
2 posted on 03/15/2004 8:24:45 PM PST by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
President George W. Bush (Republican leader) has now liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea, and captured Saddam Hussein.

That's all well and good, but he was ten minutes late for a National Guard meeting thirty-five years ago. Get your priorities straight, for goodness sakes!

3 posted on 03/15/2004 8:26:11 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
DDT Online? Gotta love it.....


4 posted on 03/15/2004 8:28:54 PM PST by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Didn't Kerry vote for the resolution giving President Bush the authority to wage war against terrorism as he saw fit?

Yes, but depending on the day and/or lib apologist, he either A) was deceived by the data on Iraq that the administration manipulated, or B) didn't mean it as a vote in support for war, only as a vote in support of asking the UN if it was okay to act (i.e., as in help write another resolution perhaps?)

5 posted on 03/15/2004 8:30:02 PM PST by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
"That's all well and good, but he was ten minutes late for a National Guard meeting thirty-five years ago. Get your priorities straight, for goodness sakes!"

That's right. We can have a President late for a meeting over thirty five years ago reelected. I don't care what he's done for the economy, the protection of U.S. Citizens, the defense of a Nation, the War on Terrorism, the liberation of Iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the various things that will never get reported in the news.

It doesn't matter what he's done. He's got to go. :) HA! A little bedtime sarcasm for all on the East Coast.


6 posted on 03/15/2004 8:31:03 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
Posted: March 14, 2004
9:15 p.m. Eastern


By Joseph Farah
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry, who approved the use of force against Saddam Hussein by the Bush administration, but now, as a presidential candidate, claims he cast that vote only because he was deceived, was ready for war on Iraq in November 1997, according to statements he made on a CNN debate show.

Kerry sparred with CNN "Crossfire" co-host John Sununu Nov. 12, 1997, using language that sounded remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration six years later – criticizing the United Nations and allies France and Russia for not standing tougher against Iraq.

"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com

7 posted on 03/15/2004 8:33:40 PM PST by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) attacked Germany, who did not attack us

Germany had not yet attacked us, but they had already declared war on us.

8 posted on 03/15/2004 8:59:26 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Wouldn't it be right to say that the terrorists who were allowed to train in Iraq had already declared war on us too?
9 posted on 03/15/2004 9:04:48 PM PST by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
You don't even need that. As part of the cease-fire agreements the Iraqi's agreed to numerous things that they failed to live up to. Accounting for the numerous missing Kuwaiti citizens to start with.

On a more personal note the Iraqis were prohibited from placing strategic surface to air batteries in the no fly zones. They broke this agreement every F#%^ing day for 12 years. In the Spring of 98 Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors, another violation.

10 posted on 03/15/2004 9:22:53 PM PST by USNBandit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
True, all good points.

I really feel that with Saddam's record of killing his own people that that alone would justify doing something about it. (And then I think of the babies killed by abortion in this country, legally...)
11 posted on 03/15/2004 9:29:35 PM PST by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cedar; RKB-AFG; southern bale; dixiechick2000; jessies; onyx; flying Elvis; helen crump; ...
MS PING
12 posted on 03/16/2004 6:22:56 AM PST by WKB (3!~ Term Limits: Because politicians are like diapers., need to be changed for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
I just got this enhanced version from my brother-n-law in my e-mail.
------------------------------------

Subject: The Worst President?

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.
They point out that Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them.

One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party.

Being an Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan. Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives.

Harry Truman (a democrat) 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. That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Finally in the 1970's Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam.

That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000 American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

The Clinton administration 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 Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured Saddam Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE BRANCH DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! 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 LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...

IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took! Hmmm.....

** Copy and send this e-mail to everyone in your e-mail book! Try to at least send to 5 others. Let's set the record straight!**
13 posted on 03/30/2004 7:10:33 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (never surrender, this is for the kids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson