<p>Robert E. Lee: W's reputation will grow only worse as time goes for two reasons. 1) He is increasingly at odds with a huge and growing majority of the American people regarding a war that the American people regard as a failure, a failure that will have cost over $1 Trillion. 2) He has no compensating achievement on any kind of a grand scale. Under him, defecits have spun massively out of control and, along with the Republican congress of his first 6 years, have cemented the his party's reputation as a big government, "defecits don't matter" party. For those who say that his response to 9/11 was heroic, Iraq is ultimately the final word on that. George Bush spent hundreds of billions of dollars to effectively give Iraq over the sphere of control of Iraqis Shiite brethren in Iran -- in a war that we had been better off avoiding.</p>
<p>Best: Eisehnhower or Johnson</p>
<p>Worst: Jackson or Bush</p>
<p>Best: Reagan by far. This guy had the most balls of any president of this century. There is a reason that Iran released its hostages TWENTY MINUTES after Reagan was inaugurated, after a year of Carter trying. He beefed up our military, out trash-talked the Soviet Union and single handedly won the cold war with one of the biggest bluffs in the history of international relations (SDI).</p>
<p>Bush elder comes in a close second for the near bloodless (for the American soldiers) way he dealth with Iraq while still leaving the power structure in place. Eisenhower comes in third.</p>
<p>Worst: Any of Carter/Harding/LBJ Hoover wasn't that bad imo, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.</p>
<p>Merely because Reagan was willing to send people to die doesn't mean that he "had balls". Most of us are also aware of the October Surprise, which I personally believe retains merit considering some of his future "policies". </p>
<p>Bush was merely a Reagan wannabe (why he would want to be I don't know) and incited the Iraqi hatred of the U.S. as described by UN sanctions.</p>
<p>I agree with your opinion regarding Carter/Harding/LBJ Hoover though.</p>
<p>Ultimately, our judgments are a matter of opinion and perspective.</p>
<p>LBJ will probably be remembered as worse than Bush because he escalated Vietnam to a level which killed 50K American citizens, and the war was still lost. Bush isn't even that order of magnitude.</p>
<p>People blame too much of Vietnam on LBJ. In reality, the conflict had started much, much earlier. There were already 50,000 American "advisory" troops stationed in S. Vietnam by the time of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolutions.</p>
<p>Exactly, gzhang. Few people realize or care to realize Kennedy's immense invovlement in the initiation of the conlict. As Nalcon stated, Johnson was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.</p>
<p>Agree with gzhang.</p>
<p>Andrew Jackson is one of the best Presidents this country has seen. He is arguably the best before Lincoln. He gave the office so much power and authority. He may have been a racist, but show me a President who wasn't before JFK.</p>
<p>Andrew Jackson and the party in the White House..what's better than that? :-P</p>
<p>Yeah, I mean who likes the native americans anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
People blame too much of Vietnam on LBJ. In reality, the conflict had started much, much earlier. There were already 50,000 American "advisory" troops stationed in S. Vietnam by the time of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolutions.
[/quote]
The at the time he assumed the presidency there were 16K in Vietnam (as per the wiki). For us uneducated heathens, you wanna clear this up?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's a bit cold to view as "Kenyesian" or "socialistic" the programs FDR instituted, programs that put poverty-stricken people back to work, gave them a support system in a terrifying time of need, and a plan for the future (Social Security).
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> As cold as these terms "Kenyesian" or "socialistic" may seem, Roosevelt's policies exemplified these traits exactly. In so many areas, FDR overstepped his circle of authority which transformed the US to a somewhat socialistic slant. FDR never bolstered the slagging economy, rather inflated it with federal funds and jobs. His strategies were merely "bandages", a tempory fix. Kenyesian in that FDR hoped that by pumping federal funds into the economy could stabalize the situation. Unfortunately, it never worked and the depression continued throughout the thirties. Then came WWII. And social security? Unfortunately, for most people today, they will have to find an alternate plan for their future.
</code></pre>
<p>Best- Teddy Roosevelt
Worst- Bush
PM and I'll show you why Bush is the worst president.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The at the time he assumed the presidency there were 16K in Vietnam (as per the wiki). For us uneducated heathens, you wanna clear this up?
[/quote]
I'm sincerely sorry for any condescending tone I may have had in my previous post. I don't believe that I called anybody "uneducated" or "heathens", but my fingers may have unconsciously spazzed out and randomly punched in those two words or something remotely reminiscent of them.
In any case, thank you for providing the accurate statistic. Let me correct myself: at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions there had already been sixteen thousand American "advisory" troops stationed in Vietnam. Sixteen thousand troops obviously does not indicate not a significant presence, so all the blame for Vietnam properly falls on LBJ! See, we agree! Yay!</p>
<p>"As cold as these terms "Kenyesian" or "socialistic" may seem, Roosevelt's policies exemplified these traits exactly."</p>
<p>Why do they seem cold? And why are they bad when used to the extent they have been? The creation of safety net for the less fortunate and government driven work programs are not evil, just humane. What would you have done? Would you allow people to die? Why is that a better policy than FDR's? What would you have done? </p>
<p>"In so many areas, FDR overstepped his circle of authority which transformed the US to a somewhat socialistic slant."</p>
<p>Absolutely. FDR saw the government as an entity that assists it's people. Are you saying GW was wrong for sending any help for Katrina? or is government assistance only bad if brought about by a democrat in office? BOTH parties have at different times used US policies in a socialist way. It is not fair for you to pick and choose the time and reason and say one is better than the other because my party's in charge.</p>
<p>" FDR never bolstered the slagging economy, rather inflated it with federal funds and jobs. His strategies were merely "bandages", a tempory fix."</p>
<p>Reganomics, trickle down, Bush's deficiet spending? FDR did what the times dictated, which was putting peoplet to work on public projects to get them working as the private sector was not providing enough jobs for the demand. One of my parents worked as a young man in several government sponsored projects. He learned his trade there as the government at that time was the only one really working in building then. His last government work job was on Wake Island. He did get a break from government work for a while, since he was a POW. </p>
<p>"Kenyesian in that FDR hoped that by pumping federal funds into the economy could stabalize the situation. Unfortunately, it never worked and the depression continued throughout the thirties."</p>
<p>How do you know if it worked or not? How do you know if doing nothing to employ a large segment of the population would have made things better? Pencil it out. A small loss is better than a large one, even though both are losses. Sometimes you can't help but make money, it doesn't mean the person at the top actually made it happen, they were just there. Sometimes the loss is small because the person at the top kept it that way. </p>
<p>"Then came WWII."</p>
<p>And many of those government projects from the 30's helped us win the war. Cheap hydro power developed in the 30's helped us mass produce aluminum and airplanes and other weapons of war to win the thing. Do you really think that if none of those government works projects had not been done, we would have been able to produce a large army AND a large workforce to build the means to create manufacturing and produce war materials all at the same time. As it was we needed "rosie the riveter" to get it done. If you really thought about it, how would we be able to all of it at once? </p>
<p>IF we didn't spend those dollars in the 30's we would have been in our 60th year of occupation at this point split between germany and japan. How many years does it take to build a hydro dam anyway?</p>
<p>"$377,000 was comitted to the project by the State of Washington in 1933. This was followed soon afterward by a promise from president Franklin D. Roosevelt to provide initial funds to the tune of 63 million dollars to begin work on the dam as a project under the Public Works Administration. "</p>
<p>"Initial excavation of the dam site began in December of 1933 with work toward improving the local infrastructure proceeding in parallel. On August 30, 1935 congress authorized the construction of the full high dam and no low dam version was ever completed. By 1941 the main dam was essentially finished with construction of the powerhouses and pumping plant underway. "</p>
<p>"Ironically, because of the Second World War and the importance of the Northwest's aluminum industry to that effort, the production of electricty became the overriding priority for the dam. Irrigation was deferred until later. During the war six Grand Coulee generators were brought on line as well as two generators borrowed from the yet to be completed Shasta dam. "</p>
<p>So we would have finished this project around 1948, if the Japanese occuping army would allow us to. :) What an ass, that FDR. </p>
<p>And social security? Unfortunately, for most people today, they will have to find an alternate plan for their future. "</p>
<p>Or we can make adjustments and be fine. It's not an absolute. </p>
<p>The hard part with reading alot of your stuff is roughly in your view America goes the wrong way when a democrat is president and goes the right way with a republican. Nothing could be further from the truth than that concept as they are only part of the equation, not the whole. </p>
<p>You also fail to consider presidents like FDR saw into the future and projects like Grand Coulee lead to millions of private sector jobs as well as national defense, so yea, what a dick, that FDR.</p>
<p>I think reagan is pretty bad because he closed all the state mental facilities in California, and many across the country, then he further took away funding for mental health programs. This is why California, and most other large cities, have such a large homeless population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sincerely sorry for any condescending tone I may have had in my previous post. I don't believe that I called anybody "uneducated" or "heathens", but my fingers may have unconsciously spazzed out and randomly punched in those two words or something remotely reminiscent of them.
In any case, thank you for providing the accurate statistic. Let me correct myself: at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions there had already been sixteen thousand American "advisory" troops stationed in Vietnam. Sixteen thousand troops obviously does not indicate not a significant presence, so all the blame for Vietnam properly falls on LBJ! See, we agree! Yay!
[/quote]
Yeah. A troop increase 500K+ and 50K American dead. A tad more than Bush.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah. A troop increase 500K+ and 50K American dead. A tad more than Bush.
[/quote]
Oh yeah, there was totally a significant American presence in Iraq before the invasion in 2003.</p>
<p>I think you are missing my point. By comparison, Iraq is a little league compared to Vietnam in terms of missteps. And the majority of blame for Vietnam goes to LBJ.</p>
<p>Mr. Payne: Iraq, little league? We will have spent over $1 trillion to have given Iraq clearly over to the Iranian sphere of influence. This will take away a "Sunni cushion" that the Saudis have been happy to have between them and their Shiite counterpoint in the world's most volatile region, Iran. Not even mentioning the fact that our actions in Iraq have strengthened and deepened support across the Muslim world for Al-Qaeda, a sworn enemy that like Iran in the future may well opt to use nukes against us or our allies -- and that may well have them. The only basis with which to say that Iraq is little league is the loss of 50,000+ soldiers of the US versus 3,000 and 600K-1 million Iraqis vs. 2 million Vietnamese. But geostrategically speaking, the blunders of Iraq will have grave, grave consequences the likes of which will play out over decades. That's why going in there -- unilaterally, under false premises, with active disregard for the likelihood of failing to win the occupation -- stands as what conservative columnist George Will calls "the worst foreign policy blunder of the last century." Remember, Vietnam occurred within the last century. Oh and by the time Junior Bush decides to actually withdraw our forces the death tolls themselves will be closer to Vietnamese outcomes.</p>
<p>We have the benefit of retrospect to understand in Vietnam that we were fighting communists who were really much more nationalist in perspective than ideologically communist. Meaning they were a lot more interested in fighting against Chinese hegemony in their land ultimately than American. So ultimately there wasn't really a lot at stake in Vietnam geostrategically.</p>