I dunno about absolute worst, but Reagan has to be in the discussion somewhere, even if this
“statute of limitations” vis a vis said discussion hasn’t passed yet. If nothing else I would say
that there’s a huge disconnect between his reputation in certain circles and his accomplishments.
For ex. ask any such Reagan-worshipper to discuss the significance of these following terms:
Iran-Contra
Bert Lance
James Watt
And you’ll likely get a sob story for the first one, and blank looks for the last two. And there’s
plenty more where that came from.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
xtisme: How was Woodrow Wilson a scoundrel?
[/QUOTE]
Attempting (and succeeding) to get us involved in a purely European dispute (in similar ways to how GW got us into Iraq IMHO) puts him on the XT short list of bad presidents. YMMV, but thats MY take on it. There are other things too, but thats the big one.
…
[QUOTE=BG]
And how was Buchanan a scoundrel?
[/QUOTE]
Already covered up thread…basically I DON’T give him a pass on his conduct leading up to the Civil War. YMMV of course.
It’s hard to think of another president that was as much and as spectacular of a failure as the current one. Has the man actually accomplished anything?
[/QUOTE]
The only thing I constantly hear from Bush supporters today is “How can you be so ungrateful to a man who has kept you safe over the past 5 1/2 years? Just how many terrorist attacks have we had in the United States since 9/11? You can thank your president for that! He’s tough on terror!”
[QUOTE=ASAKMOTSD]
According to this book, it seems that Woodrow Wilson might actually be a better choice. If you look at the US invasions into Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, Russia (yes, Russia), and others I might say that he has GWB beat. Then there would be Wilson’s intentional segregation of the US Government, the support for the KKK, etc. Yep, seems like GWB is a right upstanding individual by comparison.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget that he won re-election under the “He kept us out of war” slogan only to turn around and get us into World War I.
I know you said it was in your opinion, but you really think Wilson falsified intelligence to attack another country after the US was attacked by a group, not a nation? You think Wilson ignored advice from his generals and went in with no exit strategy? Europe is not Iraq, despite centuries of neverending war.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
I know you said it was in your opinion, but you really think Wilson falsified intelligence to attack another country after the US was attacked by a group, not a nation? You think Wilson ignored advice from his generals and went in with no exit strategy? Europe is not Iraq, despite centuries of neverending war.
[/QUOTE]
No, Wilson just falsified 1) that he was helping the Allies in Europe, 2) that he was a neutral, and 3) that he wanted to get us into the war, not keep us out of it. Do you think that the Zimmermann Telegram came from nowhere, that Germany wanted us attacked because we were there? Hell no. They knew what we were up to. Wilson lied in every way to get us into that war.
As far as an exit strategy, that was easy: beat the Germans and leave. He didn’t have to worry about it one way or the other. If it went bad he could simply call the troops home and that was that. It was a no-lose situation for him. Were that we could say that for the men that died.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
I know you said it was in your opinion, but you really think Wilson falsified intelligence to attack another country after the US was attacked by a group, not a nation?
[/QUOTE]
Well, its not a one for one comparison you understand. But yes…I think SOMEONE falsified reports (and a certain telegram from Mexico) to get us involved. I think Wilson did what he could to get the US involved in a purely internal European dispute that had absolutely nothing to do with us.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
You think Wilson ignored advice from his generals and went in with no exit strategy?
[/QUOTE]
No, I think he got us involved in a war we had absolutely no business being in…which is worse IMHO. Iraq at least has oil, and we had a history with Iraq and with military confrontation in the no fly zone. In addition we had recently been attacked by a terrorist organization and were feeling a bit squirrelly about ‘rogue nations’ and WMD. Rationally, we had no business going into Iraq…we had even less (orders of magnitude less IMHO) for fucking around in Europe during WWI. Then there is the loss of life thingy…just as a guess US casualties were at least an order of magnitude higher during WWI (and those lives thrown away IMHO in MUCH stupider ways) than Iraq.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Europe is not Iraq, despite centuries of neverending war.
[/QUOTE]
No its not…it is (or was) worst than Iraq. BECAUSE of the centuries of constant and stupid warfare. And we had zero business getting involved in WWI. At least in Iraq you could say we had something less than zero business getting involved (for the oil if nothing else). Lets say we had .5 reason to get involved in Iraq on a scale of 100…thats better than the 0.00 we had to get involved in WWI.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
IMHO Johnson is nominally the winner of the worst of debate IMHO. His great ‘achievements’, so touted here, are of course a matter of perspective (mostly partisan perspective). I will grant the civil rights initiatives, but most of his Great Society crap was just that…crap. What many here fail to realize (because of the way this board skews) is that someone from the right wing could very well see similar ‘achievements’ from GW…because such things are a matter of perspective.
[/QUOTE]
Come on, we’re not even in YMMV territory here! Reasonable minds could differ on whether the Great Society was well-executed or whether the Vietnam War starved it of necessary funding, but I would have thought the value of the GS would be a no-brainer for all but the most radical Libertarians, which I’m sure you are not.
Anyway, I started a new thread to debate the GS. (After three attempts.)
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Come on, we’re not even in YMMV territory here! Reasonable minds could differ on whether the Great Society was well-executed or whether the Vietnam War starved it of necessary funding, but I would have thought the value of the GS would be a no-brainer for all but the most radical Libertarians, which I’m sure you are not.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry you feel that way BG but it IS a matter of opinion and perspective…from both sides. Certainly I don’t see a lot of value in what GW has done (though I could probably name a few positive things if I set my mind to it), but I can concede that from another’s perspective there are quite a few things he’s done. Same with Johnson. I don’t have much use, personally, with most of his Great Society initiatives…but I can concede that, perhaps from your and others perspective there was some value there.
Its moot however…whether or not there was great worth in his programs of a domestic kind doesn’t mitigate what he did on the military side during Vietnam…just like whatever good (and there is some) that Bush has or has not done won’t matter a fig when ‘history’ judges him. Iraq will be the thing he is judged on…and rightly so.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Much as I support your argument here, I do have to draw an exception – my own adopted state. NC was fiercely divided, but Unionists eked out a slim majority over “Seceshs” until Lincoln announced that loyal states would be required to put up troops to force the seceders back into the Union. That tipped the balance to Succession – and, in the last analysis, made the Civil War the drawn-out bloodbath it was. Consider what it would have been like if there were a minimum of 150 miles of Union territory between Virginia and the rest of the Confederacy.
[/QUOTE]
I’m hopped-up on cold medicine, so if this doesn’t really make sense, please forgive me.
I don’t really see how that would’ve worked, Polycarp. First off, Virginia connects to Tennessee directly. Secondly, How would Lincoln have been able to fight the war if he didn’t compell the loyal states to support the effort? Third, If NC wasn’t obligated to supply troops to fight the rest, how would their loyalty have mattered? Lastly, The confederates would have marched right through the turf anyway if they knew the NC-folk weren’t gonna fight them. And while I lack specific knowledge of which units came from where, I can’t imagine that their would have been a large group of Unionist military in North Carolina at the outset that could have done much considering they’d be surrounded by Confederate territory, and at least a good part of the military and militias in NC would’ve probably left to pitch in with Johnny Reb.
The one big difference I can see is that it would have made the Union’s eventual chokehold of the south via blockades a little easier.
Wilson. For the reasons above, and more. By a very very very wide margin.
Bush is bush league by comparison.
And Johnson was indeed far worse in terms of war and Presidential arrogance and all that. He is saved somewhat by his civil rights accomplishments, which were substantial and long-lasting, and have a lot to do with how the US is today, so that’s something. Kind of bipolar in his legacy, I suppose.
And, interesting argument about Lincoln, Polycarp. Hadn’t known that.
I’m going with Buchanan - people can talk about Bush dividing the country, but during Buchanan’s administration it literally happened.
As for Bush, his disrespect for the Constitution is no worse than Nixon’s; his fiscal irresponsibility is no worse than Reagan’s; and his foreign policy is no worse than Johnson’s. Bush is among our worst presidents, but he doesn’t stand out.
[QUOTE=Happy Lendervedder]
The only thing I constantly hear from Bush supporters today is “How can you be so ungrateful to a man who has kept you safe over the past 5 1/2 years? Just how many terrorist attacks have we had in the United States since 9/11? You can thank your president for that! He’s tough on terror!”
[/QUOTE]
I scatter rocksalt on the sidewalks to keep bears out of the neighborhood.
