Jefferson.
But that’s my answer to everything.
“More coffee, vibrotronica?”
“Would Thomas Jefferson have more coffee?”
I wonder if the folks who say Clinton was weak on terrorism (because he didn’t “get” Osama Bin Laden while in office) apply the same criticism to George W. Bush.
At least Clinton authorized Bin Laden’s assassination, instead of waving him off as an “unconcerned” loose end…
I am a fan of Thomas Jefferson, but I shudder to think what he would do to the current US government. How much did he shrink it in his day? I don’t think what was a good idea then would be a good idea now.
I’d be inclined to go with Jefferson, too, as long as someone brought him back to the dead a couple year ago and given him fair chance to catch up on what’s going on in the world today. The man was intensely intelligent and concerned with ethics, from what I’ve read of him; while I disagree with some of his decisions, I don’t think he played politics. And I can’t think of a president from my lifetime about whom I could say the same.
Daniel
Why, yes. Yes, he would. (insert jittery 
here)
I second that.
Well he was good buddies with the terrorists. Too bad about those exploding deficits of his…and the corruption and the stupidity.
Why are you excluding GWB? Why are you assuming he isn’t the right man at the right time?
I disagree with Bush’s plan, but I understand and respect it and hope it succeeds.
Of recent presidents, I think Clinton and Reagan would do a good job of charming all parties, but Reagan would enforce the agreement if one party did not follow through whereas Clinton would weasel - which is part of why the US suffered 9/11.
Because this is a “choose someone else than who’s running” thread. We’ve already heard waaaaay too much from and about Bush and Kerry by now.
Sorry, Eve, it was Johnson who escalated VietNam from Green beret “advisors” to on the ground troops.
Remember “Johnson’s 100,000?” 100,000 draftees who wouldn’t normally qualify? The only thing Johnson made any effort to do was save his own sorry ass.
And Clinton? besides infidelity and useless firearms bans what did he ever do?
Oh, you meant Hillary? 
Seriously: Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln. Both leaders who were willing to put their protection of principle on the line.
Balanced the budget, created 24 million new jobs, built a truckload of international goodwill, stopped terrorists from bombing LAX and Seattle…
You telling me that anyone would have a problem with Harry Truman? Everyone would love Harry Truman. He’s got the down to earth charisma of Bush (minus the arrogant smirk), he was actually a pretty dang humble guy, he was really smart and he was really earnest. But not in the false earnestness of Clinton, where you knew he was probably snowing you but you didn’t care, the real true honest-to-goodness knowledge that he was being up front with you.
I think everyone would love Harry Truman. Everyone should love Harry Truman. The man gets no respect. :mad:
OK, to bring this away from my cyber-fellation of Truman and down to a more serious level, I can think of a couple.
First off, there was the Sudan aspirin fiasco. You can claim bad intelligence on that one, but then you’d sound like a Bushie, and you don’t want that. Just as in the Iraq fiasco of the current administration, there were questions being raised in the CIA and the Defense Department regarding the veracity of the intelligence being given. When lower level analysts began objecting to the plans to hit the factory on the grounds that they weren’t very sure it was actually a legitimate target, they were quashed by the Administration. All of this is detailed in the Kennedy School’s Case Study on the topic.
Then there was his love of strategic bombing, perhaps one of the most counter-productive tactics for the task at hand. The bombing of Belgrade was a terrible decision, and the we were lucky it didn’t completely backfire. Then there was his approval of putting spies in with the UN weapons inspectors, completely undermining their authority and ability to do their job - which led to inspections being suspended and eventually opening the way up for Bush to have yet one more BS excuse to invade (blah, blah, they kicked the inspectors out, blah, blah). Then he bombed it, leading to even more resentment against the US in that country.
His turnover of power in Haiti was a farce. He did nothing to solve the underlying problems there, and it was inevitable that the stability of the country would continue to decline. All he did was put a band-aid on things and forced the sides to make pretenses of being friendly until the troops left and things got riled up again.
The Israel-Palestine thing was another failure. He didn’t do what was necessary to get final peace. He let Israel make a completely and totally unacceptable offer on the Palestinian state. The end result was that it only gave Israeli hawks the ability to say, well, we offered them their own state, they rejected it, so now we’re justified in doing whatever we want - since, y’know, the Palestinians obviously won’t be happy until they kick us completely off the land.
I don’t want to make it seem like I think Clinton was a terrible president in the foreign policy department, because he wasn’t. He was just, I guess, fairly unsatisfactory from my viewpoint.
He wouldn’t be my first choice, let me put it that way. Truman would be.
How about Andrew Jackson? He’d put those towel-headed Iraqis in their place, to hell with any pansy-assed complaining about “human rights”. Ptttt, they got dark skin, they ain’t Christian, and they got resources we want.
Hmmm … now that I think about it, that really wouldn’t be any different than the administration we’ve got. Never mind, then!