Best of luck making a coherent point, pal. When you’re discussing who made what blunders, something like this ain’t it:
Evil Captor, the overthrow of Mossadegh is a good call indeed, but it wasn’t the first or last US-led overthrow of a foreign government by far, or clearly the most consequential for that matter. Teddy Roosevelt’s creation of the “revolution” in Panama poisoned our relations with Latin America for generations in ways that are still being felt, for instance, Nixon’s overthrow of the democratically-elected Allende reignited those flames, as did Reagan’s campaign against the democratic Sandinistas in favor of the brutal Somoza dictatorship.
Eisenhower himself, since you mention it, has the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala and the failed overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia on his record as well as Mossadegh. Responsibility for getting us into the quagmire in Vietnam after France’s defeat lies first with him as well. But, you could also fairly say that the spirit of those things was in the air, and any other plausible President would have done about the same things as well - Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon showed it too.
I don’t believe anyone argued that a blowjob was a “high crime [or] misdemeanor.” They argued that perjury was.
I agree with you that perjury wasn’t a high crime or misdemeanor, and it should not have resulted in his impeachment, but it’s the purest partisan politics to try and pretend that his impeachment was the result of merely getting an oval office hummer. And I believe that if he’d copped to it – rather than lying, obfuscating, and breaking the law to cover it up – that the scandal would have died out in weeks.
I agree that the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco should not have made the top 10, but I doubt that most historians would agree with you that that overthrow of Iran’s supposedly democratic government was clearly such a terrible thing. That government may have been democratic in name, but it was also Communist and anti-Western, and was threatening American (and British) interests in the region. (That’s not to say that I think it was a great idea in retrospect, just that it wasn’t clearly such a bad idea at the time.)
As long as we’re working around the subject, maybe we should also bring up Carter’s $40 billion program to train Islamic militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Again, it made sense at the time – the Islamic militants were fighting against the Soviets – but in retrospect, it led to the increased strength of militant, radical Islam. Obviously, we’re still dealing with those consequences today.
And as long as we’re on the subject of Carter, I’m not sure how he avoided the list: freezing oil prices, boycotting the Olympics, (possible) 3 Mile Island cover-up, and the botched Iranian hostage rescue.
Put George Bush under oath and give me ten minutes with him and I’ll have him committing perjury. Same with any other public figure.
The disgrace was that a bunch of politicians didn’t like who got elected President and were in a position to go hunting for him. They created an investigation to look into a real estate deal, which was itself minor league even if it had been true, and when they found nothing there they just started turning over rocks. If the Democrats had the numbers in Congress they’d have done the same to Bush.
The rule should be simple: if you lost the last election, get over it and try better next time. A country is heading for trouble when its government spends a third of its energy attacking itself and another third defending itself from those attacks and trys to do its real work in whatever time it has left over. And it’s time for the rest of us to stop enabling this foolishness.
First, blunders like the ones listed here come at least in part from exactly the inability of a president to break out of his mindset. Second, even some attempt at relief would have helped things. Couldn’t even a Republican declare a bank holiday? It’s not that Hoover was a bad person - he became famous in WW I relief, but that once in the White House he lost connection with the misery around him, and his economic beliefs overrode doing what was right. He had plenty of time to realize his remedies weren’t working, after all.
The investigation wasn’t created by Republicans; it was created by the White House (in response to political pressure). The investigation wasn’t controlled by the Republicans; it was controlled by the independent counsel. The independent counsel wasn’t appointed by Republicans; he was appointed by an independent three judge panel (and at the time of his appointment, Starr was lauded as a great, non-partisan, totally fair-minded choice). The scope of the investigation wasn’t broadened merely because Ken Starr or the Republicans decided to investigate more and more stuff; it was broadened by statutory or executive mandate.
The independent counsel statute itself was overly broad. However, that was in part due to Democrats who wanted to use it to go after Reagan for his alleged executive abuses.
I sincerely hope this isn’t true. Not just because I don’t think Bush deserves it, but because it was a bad decisionby Republicans, and I hope the Democrats are smart enough to see that.
Isn’t that what party politics are all about? Attacking the other side, regardless of merit, in the hopes that you can win the next election?
I admit I don’t like party politics, but I don’t think that the politics of personal attacks is anything new. It’s been around at least since Aaron Burr shot one of his political opponents.
Errr, perhaps you didn’t see this part of what I wrote: “and was threatening American (and British) interests in the region.” Or are you contending that our interests none of our business?
I am shocked, shocked to hear that you don’t think much of America.
No argument there. But if we’re talking about the top 10 blunders, whether the decisions were obviously wrong should factor into the equation. There were enough obvious screw-ups that we don’t need to stick justifiable mistakes in the top 10.
Does the phrase “national sovereignty” mean anything to you, or does it only count for America ? If some other country overthrew our government and installed a bloodthirsty, torturing dictator, would we consider “you were interfering with our interests” as anything other than utter sociopathy ?
When America deserves something other than hatred and contempt, I will feel something other than hatred and contempt. I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.
Surely it is only time that bumps Bush up the list and Clinton down the list.
A blowjob or sex is a very stupid reason to be on this list, lying about it gets him on Hilarys list. There are many, many people doing a good job at their job while lying their arse of to the spouse. Clinton should be in that catergory.
The country should be embarrassed that they cared so much about Bill’s dick.
I don’t give a shit if Bush fucks donkeys. That is in HIS time. When he starts wars we all are affected.
I have to disagree with Clinton’s zippergate scandal. Relatively minor blip on the radar.
I nominate Truman’s decision to drop the bombs on Japan. Absolutely unnecessary slaughter of thousands of innocents. The Japanese were already trying to negotiate a surrender through the USSR, and the only condition they were holding out for (keeping the emperor) was granted to them anyway.
Andrew Jackson’s banking fiasco has to rate somewhere up there too.
The negotiations to surrender through the Soviet Union were effectively ended once the USSR declared war on Japan. Also, given that there was massive uncertainty about whether the military would accept a surrender, unconditional or otherwise, I doubt Truman really had very accurate intelligence on the inner workings of the Japanese cabinet (which was comprised of and run by the military).
Additionally, there was a coup attempt by some Japanese officers once they learned about the Emperor’s planned public announcement to surrender on the night of August 14, 1945. While the US did eventually agree to keep the Emperor around, things may have been fundamentally different and the occupation harder if the Emperor was left unchanged entirely. If the Emperor had kept his status as a god and as the ultimate authority over the Japanese government, rather than a figurehead, it may have kept the militarism fires burning a la the Wiemar Republic.
Who, it was soon clear, had been chosen for his partisanism, by …
Whose members had been selected by Jesse Helms, on the basis of their partisan Republicanism
Bullshit. Cite? The only comments I recall at the time were that his appointment would make the investigation credible because if even he, as rabid a partisan as there was, couldn’t find anything, then there wasn’t anything.
Bullshit again. It was broadened because he asked the “independent” panel to do it. Not, however, the linkage withi the Jones suit; that came late at night over a table at Denny’s.
“Alleged” my ass. What do you know about Iran-Contra, anyway?
No, it’s hardly what party politics is all about. There’s also the notion of public service, helping make the country a better place, helping people with problems, al that la-di-da stuff that’s so out of fashion lately. It’s disappointing but no longer surprising to find so many who think, however, like you, that the way the Republicans have chosen to do business is simply the way business is done.
The list in the OP describes blunders. It doesn’t attempt to quantify degrees of blame for the exploitation of those blunders. Buchanan doesn’t get off the hook for his “blunder” because of those nasty seceding Southerners. JFK doesn’t get a pass because the Cubans and Russians helped magnify his mistake into something bigger and more dangerous. Nixon isn’t excused because the Watergate burglary was a minor thing to start with.
In Clinton’s case, if you give your political enemies a gold-plated opportunity to attack and ultimately impeach you, you have committed a blunder. To provide an analogy, if you coat your arm with beef juice and hold it out to a hungry wolf, it is a blunder. It is rather silly to claim otherwise and instead point fingers and say “Bad wolf! Bad wolf!!”
I disagree on both points. Ford’s pardon of Nixon damaged Ford’s severely damaged his chances at being elected on his own in 1976, but it was an excellent discision for the country as a whole. As for the 2000 election fiasco, I don’t see how that counts as a presidential blunder. I’d agree that it goes on the list for Supreme Court blunders but that’s a separate list than the presidential one.
Back to Clinton’s blunder for a moment I do not think it is correct to compare Clinton’s BJ from Monica with JFK’s alleged dalliances mostly because the difference in the times. Sexual harrassment was winked at in JFK’s time, whereas it huge legal consequences in the present. If Clinton had received a bj from a Hollywood starlet, as opposed to a subordinate White House intern, then I’d agree that it was just a private matter between the Clintons.
