Best and Worst US Presidents

[onedomino]

militarily we DID win. Our troops were no longer involved in ground combat at all by 1972 and the South Viet Namese were able to contain the North with just our support from the air and naval forces.

I suggest you read what actually happened. The South defeated a Northern Invasion in 72 and was in the process of recovering the lost provinces when the democraticly controlled congress cut off funding. In 1975 the North conducted a probe in force and were shocked when the US did not aid the South with air power or naval support, they switched from a probe to an all out Invasion sending 25 Divisions against the 10 to 12 the South had. Outnumbered, with no supplies, no repair parts and no replacement ammo the South fought for a month against this invasion before surrendering.

If you don't believe me, do a little research on what the North Vietnamese generals and leaders had to say about it. Start with how they knew they had lost after the Tet offensive and were surprised the US couldn't see it.

Nixon did EXACTLY what people on the left are demanding be done in Iraq. he made the South take responsibility for their own defense, and yet we have these same people claiming he failed.

Some theorize that by 1988, if we had continued to fund and support the South they would have basicly won the so called insurgency as well. An interesting term, since after Tet there were almost no South Vietnamese insurgents, they were almost all North Vietnemese regular soldiers slipped into the country to pretend there was still an insurgency.

As for Invading North Viet Nam, umm you are aware of who borders them right? The Chinese hate the Viet Namese, but there is no way they would have allowed a US invasion of that buffer country.

Nixon had cut off ( virtually) the Ho Chi Mein trail and forced the North to talk. Sure the talks were a bid for time, but Nixon had also forced the South to do its own fighting.

None of what you have written contradicts my earlier post. I never said that the US lost any battles in SE Asia. The US military was in no way responsible for the American defeat in SE Asia. However, leaving South Viet Nam incapable of defending itself against the obvious Russian/Chinese/North Vietnamese threat cannot be described as anything other than an American defeat. It was for political reasons that the US abandoned the Vietnamese battlefield to the enemy. Yes, the South Vietnamese were there, and they collapsed when attacked in strength from the North. America lost its best chance to win in SE Asia long before it pulled off the battlefield in 1972, or when it disgracefully failed to support the South Vietnamese in 1975. If there had been a US combat commitment in the mid 60s to recover the ground lost by the French, then I believe that the communists could have been stopped at the Chinese border, Viet Nam would have been a non-communist country, and the atrocities committed by communists in SE Asia in the 70s might never have happened. Certainly, if there had been a strong US presence in SE Asia, Pol Pot could not have gotten away with genocide. Anyway, had we pressed forward to the Chinese border in the 60s, when Johnson had the chance, the history of SE Asia could have hardly turned out any worse than it did. Instead, Johnson chose to neither win or lose. He chose to "contain." Thereby uselessly draining the blood and treasure of America, and setting up SE Asia for the humanitarian catastrophes of the 70s. That is why I put Johnson on my worst Presidents list.

 

[Gunny]

None of what you have written contradicts my earlier post. I never said that the US lost any battles in SE Asia. The US military was in no way responsible for the American defeat in SE Asia. However, leaving South Viet Nam incapable of defending itself against the obvious Russian/Chinese/North Vietnamese threat cannot be described as anything other than an American defeat. It was for political reasons that the US abandoned the Vietnamese battlefield to the enemy. Yes, the South Vietnamese were there, and they collapsed when attacked in strength from the North. America lost its best chance to win in SE Asia long before it pulled off the battlefield in 1972, or when it disgracefully failed to support the South Vietnamese in 1975. If there had been a US combat commitment in the mid 60s to recover the ground lost by the French, then I believe that the communists could have been stopped at the Chinese border, Viet Nam would been a non-communist country, and the atrocities committed by communists in SE Asia in the 70s might never have happened. Certainly, if there had been a strong US presence in SE Asia, Pol Pot could not have gotten away with genocide. Anyway, had we pressed forward to the Chinese border in the 60s, when Johnson had the chance, the history of SE Asia could have hardly turned out any worse than it did. Instead, Johnson chose to neither win or lose. He chose to "contain." Thereby uselessly draining the blood and treasure of America, and setting up SE Asia for the humanitarian catastrophes of the 70s. That is why I put Johnson on my worst Presidents list.

By tomorrow I will start a thread dedicated solely to this topic. You will participate, I hope?

 

[onedomino]

By tomorrow I will start a thread dedicated solely to this topic. You will participate, I hope?

It would be my pleasure. Hope I have the time to give my best responses to your posts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fact is, we were in the onset of a recession when Bush took office and he staved it off. I don't care if he borrowed the money. The fact is, on 9/11 and succeeding days, our economy could have gone straight down the tubes, and it did not.

I agree with you that Bush did not listen to the military where Iraq is concerned. However, NO politician would have listened to the REAL answer, nor would any politician be willing to be the one giving the orders that would be required in order to remove Saddam from power AND simultaneously secure Iraq.

I'm not making Bush out to be some great guy. He just isn't as bad as Bush-bashers try to make him out to be, and there are far more deserving Presidents who sucked a lot worse than he to make the 5 worst list.

You want to villify him; yet, revere a President who violated the Constitution at will, invaded a sovereign nation and forced its continued inclusion in the United States when he had absolutely NO legal right to do so.

Interesting.

Have to disagree. The South had no Constitutional right to unilaterally leave the Union. And more to the point Lincoln only raised an army AFTER South Carolina attacked Federal troops in a Federal fort. Prior to that he tried to find a peaceful means to solve the issues. Since the South had no inherient right to form a new Country Lincoln never invaded a Sovereign Nation. It is called a "Civil" war for a reason.

Furthermore the JOB of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the United States. His oath of office required him LEGALLY to solve the issue, the desire of the South to resort to armed conflict gave him no choice but to raise Armies and subdue insurection against legal, Constitutional authority.

Of the States that left the Union only Virginia, North Carolina,South Carolina and Georgia had any technical claim to having freely joined. The other States were purchased by the Federal Government or formed from Federal land given to Settlers. Even Texas was in effect purchased by the US, Texas owed the US a HUGE sum of money and part of the agreement for their joining the Union was that debt was forgiven as well as certain lands ceded or agreed to not contest as US Federal Property.

The only Unconstitutional action taken was the forming of West Virginia as a State. That was clearly Unconstitutional. I believe that eventually the US paid Virginia a compensation for that action.

 

[liberalogic]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. If you want to learn about the American effort in Viet Nam, I recommend Triumph Forsaken, by Mark Moyer, and for the countervailing viewpoint, Fire in the Lake, by Frances Fitzgerald.

After WW2, France tried to reclaim its SE Asian colonies. They did not have either the economic or military capacity for such an effort. At the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 (where Americans provided ineffective logistic support), the French were soundly defeated by the Viet Minh communists. Then France surrendered its SE Asian colonies to the people with the guns, and fled North Viet Nam after the 1954 Geneva Accords, which divided Viet Nam in two. For awhile, the French administered the South, but ran away for good in 1956. This left the Americans in support of the South and trying to hold the line against the Communists. America took over the responsibility of training the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (the South). Then JFK increased the number of American support troops from 500 to 16,000. And then finally Johnson dispatched very large numbers of combat troops. People forget that the French had been influential in Hanoi, and the people there were by no means enthralled with communism. But the communists had the guns. Johnson did not try to liberate the North. Instead, he confined US combat operations to the South. Thereby allowing the northern areas to be a base for communist combat operations against the South, and a collection area for supplies sent from China and Russia. Had the Americans attacked North Viet Nam when Johnson first sent in combat forces (or especially had JFK done it earlier), and pushed the communists back to the border with China, then the course of SE Asian history would have been completely different. Would the Chinese have counterattacked? Probably the same way they did in Korea. But they would have been pushed back just like Korea. But our politicians had no stomach for another Korea. As I mentioned in the post above, Johnson favored communist “containment,” and did not show the will and political determination necessary to defeat them.

I might say that in fairness to LBJ, by attempting to contain communism, he was merely reinforcing the truman doctrine, which did not call for the elimination of existing communist states but only containment. Whatever the case, too many people died no matter what the policy was and the commander in chief is responsible.

 

[onedomino]

I might say that in fairness to LBJ, by attempting to contain communism, he was merely reinforcing the truman doctrine, which did not call for the elimination of existing communist states but only containment. Whatever the case, too many people died no matter what the policy was and the commander in chief is responsible.

Interesting point, but I do not believe that the Truman Doctrine pertained to regional conflicts such as Korea and Viet Nam. I am certain that many people in North Korea and North Viet Nam do not think it should have applied. Might not the Truman Doctrine (or containment of Soviet expansion and development of proxy states, i.e., the Cold War) be interpreted to mean that America should not have let the proxy Soviet state of North Viet Nam exist?

 

[liberalogic]

Interesting point, but I do not believe that the Truman Doctrine pertained to regional conflicts such as Korea and Viet Nam. I am certain that many people in North Korea and North Viet Nam do not think it should have applied. Might not the Truman Doctrine (or containment of Soviet expansion and development of proxy states, i.e., the Cold War) be interpreted to mean that America should not have let the proxy Soviet state of North Viet Nam exist?

North Vietnam declared its independence from France in 1945 and the Truman Doctrine wasn't declared until 1949 (I think). So the US could not have applied it to the creation of the independent N. Vietnam. Nevertheless, the idea of containment was on the minds of Churchill, FDR, and Truman at Yalta and Potsdam.

 

[onedomino]

North Vietnam declared its independence from France in 1945 and the Truman Doctrine wasn't declared until 1949 (I think). So the US could not have applied it to the creation of the independent N. Vietnam. Nevertheless, the idea of containment was on the minds of Churchill, FDR, and Truman at Yalta and Potsdam.

The Vietnamese communists, specifically Ho Chi Minh, persuaded (threatened) the Vietnamese Emperor, Bia Dia, to abdicate in 1945. But this was not recognized by any non-communist government, since there were no elections, and the Chinese were occupying the country, supposedly to administer the expulsion of the Japanese after the end of WW2. After 1945, the Viet Minh accepted French rule as a way to get rid of the Chinese. Anyway, why would the US or any non-communist country agree to the proclamation of an unelected communist government of Viet Nam? It was not until after the 1954 Geneva Accords that North Viet Nam was recognized by non-communist governments.

Further, consider that Ho Chi Minh spent most of his time before WW2 in Paris (not Hanoi), after which he spent years in Moscow. He was a Soviet proxy through and through. Whether or not the Truman Doctrine was proclaimed after Ho Chi Minh's bogus announcement of a communist Vietnamese state is not the point. The important thing is that Ho Chi Minh was a Soviet proxy and under the Truman Doctrine should have been attacked when JFK and Johnson occupied the South, if not before. But of course he was never threatened by either of those politicians, because they did not have the political will to confront communism in North Viet Nam. On a different battlefield, it was the enactment of the Truman Doctrine which had driven the North Koreans all the way to the Yalu River, the border between North Korea and China. Of course that is where Truman made his greatest blunder, but that is another story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the Korean conflict we were in no real danger of Nuclear war. The Communist Chinese had no nuclear weapons and the Soviets had no real capability yet to deliver a devastating strike against the US. In fact Truman threatened the Soviets with nuclear strikes if they openly involved themselves in Korea. That was some of the back story on Krucshev and his " I will bury you" rant with the shoe.

In the 1960's this was no longer true. War with China would have meant war with the Soviets and the very real possibility of Nuclear war. NO politician was going to risk that. Ground combat in North Vietnam was never going to happen. And it didn't have to happen to ensure the survival of South Vietnam.

We had accomplished saving South Vietnam only to have the Democrats cut them off and cause the loss of the country.

 

[Annie]

How much damage did JFK actually do and what would've other presidents done in his situation? The Bay of Pigs and the beginning of Vietnam were, of course, disasters, but within the context of the Cold War, I see almost any other President taking similar actions. I wouldn't argue that he was a great president or anything, but people in this thread seem to just throw him in the "worst" category without explicit justification.

Actually I was quite explicit on the reasoning. Best or worse isn't matter of 'relative to what some other hypothetical person would have done', it's a matter of what THAT person did in HIS term. For Kennedy that involved personal choices such as drugs and other distractions and public choices such as how the Bay of Pigs was handled.

 

[akiboy]

Name, if you’d like, the three best (or favorite) Presidents, and the three worst Presidents. My choices:

Best:
Abraham Lincoln - a true genius, saved America.
George Washington - could have been King, yet preserved the Republic and transferred power.
Franklin Roosevelt - lifted America from the Depression, defeated the Nazis and Japanese and saved the World.
Honorable mention: Ronald Reagan - helped nail the coffin of the Soviet Union shut. Knew we were the “last best hope.”

Worst:
Andrew Johnson - racist oppressor of the South after the Civil War.
Lyndon Johnson - created the ill-conceived “Great Society” program, micro-managed Viet Nam causing defeat.
Richard Nixon - continued Johnson’s tactics of defeat in Viet Nam, lied and covered it up, resigned in disgrace.
Dishonorable mention: George Bush 43 - blew 500 billion, disregarded the advice of his generals, delivered no viable energy policy when it was desperately needed.

BEST:-
Abraham Linclon-Laid out the foundation for the word "Equality" in democratic institutions.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt- As One Domino mentioned he lifted the American economy back to its glory 20's days.Very popular locally as well as in the international level.
Woodrow Wilson- His "14 points" will always be remembred in history.
And surprisingly George Bush 43- No one could face terrorism hands down like him.He truly represents AMerica. America will never be as safe as it is now. He stopped Saddam from getting the nuke and becoming another Hitler , N.K can never be tamed if not for him. Adn I strongly support his policy on Iran.
John F Kennedy- The Cuban missile crisis was handled very well by him.

WORST-
Richard Nixon- Watergate finished him and the trust of the AMericans on the leader of the worlds most powerful country.
Bill CLinton- Made merry in bed. Nothing else to say.

 

[Gunny]

Have to disagree. The South had no Constitutional right to unilaterally leave the Union. And more to the point Lincoln only raised an army AFTER South Carolina attacked Federal troops in a Federal fort. Prior to that he tried to find a peaceful means to solve the issues. Since the South had no inherient right to form a new Country Lincoln never invaded a Sovereign Nation. It is called a "Civil" war for a reason.

Rights not specifically granted/controlled by the Constitution are granted to the states. States vountarily joined the union as an "experiment." No language in law prevented any state from leaving the union as voluntarily as it joined.

IMO, the Southern states had the right to seceed if that was what the voters wanted. I will add, that this argument has been ongoing since the 1860s by the greatest legal minds, with no real conclusion ever reached.

The CSA was a sovereign nation by its own declaration, and only force of arms prevented it from remaining that way. It's only a "civil" war because the North won.

Lincoln hardly was going to find a peaceful solution since his winning the
election is what precipitated secession.

Furthermore the JOB of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the United States. His oath of office required him LEGALLY to solve the issue, the desire of the South to resort to armed conflict gave him no choice but to raise Armies and subdue insurection against legal, Constitutional authority.

It is the job of the President to protect the United States. Since no law precluded states from leaving the US if they so desired, that did not include keeping states as members by force of arms with no legal basis to do so.

Of the States that left the Union only Virginia, North Carolina,South Carolina and Georgia had any technical claim to having freely joined. The other States were purchased by the Federal Government or formed from Federal land given to Settlers. Even Texas was in effect purchased by the US, Texas owed the US a HUGE sum of money and part of the agreement for their joining the Union was that debt was forgiven as well as certain lands ceded or agreed to not contest as US Federal Property.

Texas had every right to seceed, debt or no. Texas was as sovereign nation that joined the US voluntarily, as did all of the Southern states that were part of the original 13 colonies.

You bring up a good point worth considering if and where the US purchased land. Guess it depends on whether or not tha tland was actually purchased, or someone got dispossessed of it.

The only Unconstitutional action taken was the forming of West Virginia as a State. That was clearly Unconstitutional. I believe that eventually the US paid Virginia a compensation for that action.

Suspending the writ of habeus corpus was also unconstitutional.

 

[liberalogic]

Actually I was quite explicit on the reasoning. Best or worse isn't matter of 'relative to what some other hypothetical person would have done', it's a matter of what THAT person did in HIS term. For Kennedy that involved personal choices such as drugs and other distractions and public choices such as how the Bay of Pigs was handled.

I'm not a JFK lover, but to insinuate that he was a drug addict like you would find in the street is absurd. He was physically a mess with back problems (part of which resulted from his service in WWII) and stomach problems that plagued him his entire life. The doctors that cared for him shot him up with all different kinds of shit in order to keep him going so that he could serve as President. Maybe that did lead to dependency, but out of physical necessity. He was not a "drug addict" according to the connotation that we assign to the phrase today.

I agree that the Bay of Pigs was a mess. At least he took responsibility for it on national tv, something many other presidents never would've done. Also, don't forget that he openly negotiated with Khruschev rather than ignoring him because he deemed the USSR "immoral."

And part of the reason why everyone loves Reagan is because he presented a calm, soothing image to the country. The image of JFK and Camelot (at the time) served a similar purpose. JFK, the youngest elected president, embodied the energy and determination of a country that was approaching the 21st century. My favorite JFK quote is when he's talking about the moon landing and he says something to the effect of: "...By the end of the decade, we will land a man on the moon. We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" (with that Bostonian accent). He gave hope to a nation that was living in turbulent times.

Regardless, he wasn't the best nor was he even close to the best. I just don't think it's fair to call him one of the worst.

 

[Annie]

I'm not a JFK lover, but to insinuate that he was a drug addict like you would find in the street is absurd. He was physically a mess with back problems (part of which resulted from his service in WWII) and stomach problems that plagued him his entire life.

not true. More so legitamate excuse would be Addison's. But if you look closely, he was just a drug addict as was Jackie, for different reasons.

The doctors that cared for him shot him up with all different kinds of shit in order to keep him going so that he could serve as President. Maybe that did lead to dependency, but out of physical necessity. He was not a "drug addict" according to the connotation that we assign to the phrase today.

Yes he was.

I agree that the Bay of Pigs was a mess. At least he took responsibility for it on national tv, something many other presidents never would've done. Also, don't forget that he openly negotiated with Khruschev rather than ignoring him because he deemed the USSR "immoral."

bullshit. The deal between him and Kruschev was off the board at the time. You are a revisionist.

And part of the reason why everyone loves Reagan is because he presented a calm, soothing image to the country. The image of JFK and Camelot (at the time) served a similar purpose. JFK, the youngest elected president, embodied the energy and determination of a country that was approaching the 21st century. My favorite JFK quote is when he's talking about the moon landing and he says something to the effect of: "...By the end of the decade, we will land a man on the moon. We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" (with that Bostonian accent). He gave hope to a nation that was living in turbulent times.

Regardless, he wasn't the best nor was he even close to the best. I just don't think it's fair to call him one of the worst.

You are just off the wall here.

 

[Psychoblues]

The denial of benefit to the prisoners of war by gwb of the Writ of Habeus Corpus and the subsequent projection of the same denial of that benefit to American citizens is perhaps the worst act ever committed by a sitting United States President and Commander In Chief.

Suspending the writ of habeus corpus was also unconstitutional.

It is beyond disgraceful to this nation and it's peoples.

 

[Cynic-American]

Best:
Abraham Lincoln - a true genius, modest soft spoken gentleman
George Washington - could have been King, yet preserved the Republic and transferred power.
Franklin Roosevelt - lifted America from the Depression, defeated the Nazis and Japanese and saved the World.

Worst:
Andrew Johnson - racist oppressor of the South after the Civil War.
Lyndon Johnson - created the ill-conceived “Great Society” program, did half ass job with Viet Nam causing defeat.
George Bush - butchered our language, sent soldiers to Iraq to get slaughtered for no f****** reason

 

[Gunny]

Best:
Abraham Lincoln - a true genius, modest soft spoken gentleman
George Washington - could have been King, yet preserved the Republic and transferred power.
Franklin Roosevelt - lifted America from the Depression, defeated the Nazis and Japanese and saved the World.

Worst:
Andrew Johnson - racist oppressor of the South after the Civil War.
Lyndon Johnson - created the ill-conceived “Great Society” program, did half ass job with Viet Nam causing defeat.
George Bush - butchered our language, sent soldiers to Iraq to get slaughtered for no f****** reason

It's already been explained in detail why most of your choices are wrong. Try reading the thread next time, or reading up the Presidents and their adminsitrations, accomplishments and failures.

 

[Cynic-American]

It's already been explained in detail why most of your choices are wrong. Try reading the thread next time, or reading up the Presidents and their adminsitrations, accomplishments and failures.

Dont like my views, dont read them.

I know more about history than you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The following is to address the erroneous claims as to what was and was not allowed during the Civil War.

I suggest one read the US Constitution.

In Article I section 9 you will find the following..

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in the case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Since the Congress agreed with President Lincoln that in fact rebellion was occurring this section would apply to any suspense of said habeas corpus.

So much for the President had no authority or right to suspend it.

As to specific "rights" of the States to simply leave the Union.

Read Article I section 10.

It clearly removes from the individual States the ability to make any deals with other States and is a list of proscribed powers. None of these proscriptions are worth the paper they are written on if a State can simply announce they are leaving the Union.

It is clear that it takes an act of Congress to allow a State to leave the Union. Further the matter IS settled now, it was settled by the Civil War and later rulings by the Supreme Court.

Article IV section 3 states that in order to join the Union an act of Congress must occur, coupled with the restrictions and specific protections stated in the Constitution it is reasonable to assume the intent is clear that in order to leave one must ALSO get permission of the Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dont like my views, dont read them.

I know more about history than you.

Actually I , for one, do NOT know your knowledge of History is better than Gunny L. I would bet a lot of people do not know that to be true either.