I dunno if this is a joke or not, but I think Truman is the correct answer.
I personally believe Harry Truman was possibly the greatest president of the 20th century, top 3 for sure. He’s definitely the most underrated president in the history of the United States.
Given the current situation, I would trust Harry Truman to be able to bring peace and undercut terrorism more than just about any president, aside from Lincoln. He understood and sympathized with third world aspirations for freedom from imperialism. He was also willing to bring down the hammer when he felt it was appropriate.
Teddy Roosevelt may have said, “Talk softly but carry a big stick,” but it was Truman that put into practice.
Not to pick on Dio here, but he just happens to be the guy I quoted…
For all of you saying Clinton, what in his foreign policy actions do you see that shows he would be the best president for the job. Seriously. Better than the guy in there now? OK, yeah. For purely domestic issues? OK, I’ll entertain some arguments there. But foreign policy? You have to make some seriously good points to convince me there.
Clinton made significant progress in Israel. He finessed the turn-over of power in Haiti, he made exactly the right decision in Kosovo. He initiated the Summit of the Americas in South America and made a major good will tour of Africa. He’s extremely well liked and respected around the world, unlike Bush. We need someone who other countries are willing to have a conversation with now after all the damage that Bush has done to US credibility and BC is that man.
Can you think of any major foreign policy mistakes that BC maded in eight years as POTUS? I can’t.
I love Bill Clinton and would love to see him back in the White House, but you can’t deny that Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban all coalesced during his watch.
How about LBJ? He was great on domestic issues, and if I recall, he made an effort to get us out of the Vietnam mess Kennedy handed him.
I totally deny it. They coalesced during Reagan and Bush. Those are the guys who supported ObL and the Mujadin (aka the Taliban) in the 80’s.
Clinton was focused pretty heavily on terrorism and tried to warn Bush about ObL and al Qaeda but the Bushies couldn’t be bothered. They were more concerned about tax cuts and invading Iraq.
Not a joke, since you ask. Truman, or indeed any sensible and diligent person, would do an acceptable job. I have no disagreement with the rest of your reasons, and in fact would point out the contrast between his “The buck stops here” slogan and the current President’s refusal to accept true responsibility for, well, anything.
Well, a lot of people have second-guessed what he did in Somalia. He inherited the U.S. commitment there upon taking office, but it played out under his administration
Ditto that, Diogenes. Clinton was after al Qaeda ever since they pulled off the attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. That missile that Clinton fired into Afghanistan in 1998—you know, the one that Gingrich and Lott and friends claimed was a distraction from the Starr scandals—that had Osama bin Laden’s name on it. Clinton was the first president to actually try to do something about terrorism, and considering the resistance he got from the Republicans in Congress, who seemed to think that terrorism was a problem that happened in foreign countries, it’s remarkable that he was able to accomplish what he did. The incoming Bush administration was eager to get its missile-based defense program in place, and ignored the dossiers handed to them by outgoing Clinton officials. Condoleezza Rice, as National Security Adviser, failed at her job.
I guess for fighting terrorism, Clinton would be a good choice, since he was the best we’ve had so far. He had vision, and he was willing to work with other countries. Lyndon Johnson got things done, but I never liked the way he got them done, and a lot of things he did, I didn’t approve of, anyway. Harry Truman would also be a good choice.
For foreign (not domestic!) policy, why not Woodrow Wilson? He was a good idea man, anyway. He played kind of fast and loose with the Constitution, which I didn’t care for, and we’re getting enough of that right now, anyway. I do approve of some of the progressive reforms he put in place, but I’m not sure he’d be the right man for right now.
I stand by my choice of Grover Cleveland. (I wonder if he’d take up jogging?) Truman or Clinton would be fine, too. Hell, even George H.W. Bush would be an improvement…
sniff And to think I’ve been feeling defensive because, knowing full well his pecadildos, I voted for him twice and would’ve happily vote for him again.
A basically good president who had just enough flaws to make him interesting. Nixon could’ve made my list with just a few less flaws. He was TOO interesting.
Personal Choices: TR because I adore the guy, Grant because it would be interesting to see how he would work out without any of his old buddies around, and Garfield because I’d like to give him another chance. Yeah, they’re all Republicans. Bite me. But two of them had loads of squandered potential.
Clinton’s a guy (post presidency) who goes to the UAE, speaks before a large audience and reads them a riot act (It’s not Israel’s fault, etc) and gets a standing ovation. He could not only make cold, analytical, reality based decisions, he could sell it, and more importantly, he could sell America. The fact that we are losing a propaganda war with terrorists (or even aren’t winning by a landslide on the propaganda side) boggles the mind.
FDR might be a good choice too.
Lincoln might be my choice though. He did some squirrelly freedom/security trading like Bush 43 and FDR (and Adams, and Wilson, etc) but he seemed to understand what he was doing was, had to be exceptional. He was willing to ask for sacrifice for the common good, though the cause might be unpopular. He navigated successfully (though not without scrapes) through a difficult international situation. He also understood how and why the whole good-guy/bad-guy thing works. Yes he hired political hacks and political generals, but he fired them or minimized the damage they could do consistent with continued governance of the country.
I’ll go with Truman, and possibly LBJ. LBJ had good domestic policies that people tend to overlook due to the Vietman war. Besides, I would like a President who’d show me his scars and pick up his dog by the ears.
)