Worst Presidents of all Time:

[Faun]

...

His Sec of State did.

.....

Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the ******* animals to agree.

Warren Christopher orchestrated it and made it happen while Jimmy Carter was still president.

 

[Faun]

...

His Sec of State did.

.....

Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the ******* animals to agree.

Oh you want his name?........

The name that made things happen after 444 days of Carter's weakness was: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan wasn't president yet and wasn't in a position to bring the hostages home.

 

[Unkotare]

Carter is already remembered as a weak, .

By a quickly dying number of people like you unapologetically [sic] making excuses for how bad Reagan was.

Even or odd?

 

[Unkotare]

...

His Sec of State did.

.....

Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the ******* animals to agree.

Oh you want his name?........

The name that made things happen after 444 days of Carter's weakness was: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan wasn't president yet and wasn't in a position to bring the hostages home.

The animals knew a real man was soon to take office, and they knew what that would mean, as criminals of such ilk have always known. Fully feminized liberals like Carter was (somewhat ahead of his time) can't even understand what the hell I'm talking about.

 

[Pogo]

...

His Sec of State did.

.....

Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the ******* animals to agree.

Oh you want his name?........

The name that made things happen after 444 days of Carter's weakness was: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan wasn't president yet and wasn't in a position to bring the hostages home.

The animals knew a real man was soon to take office, and they knew what that would mean, as criminals of such ilk have always known. Fully feminized liberals like Carter was (somewhat ahead of his time) can't even understand what the hell I'm talking about.

That's because you're talking about comic books. The world doesn't work that way. Superheroes and shit are pap sold to the gullible.

I pity you hero-worshippers and your slobbering all over your own shirts. At least invest in a bib.

 

[U2Edge]

Worst president ever
View attachment 258874 31% Obama
3% Jackson
And Reagan not even listed.

I'm white and this smells white to me.

Top Presidents of the last 98 years ranked:

01. Franklin Roosevelt
02. Harry S. Truman
03. George H.W. Bush
04. Ronald Reagan
05. George W. Bush
06. Bill Clinton
07. John F. Kennedy
08. Lyndon Johnson
09. Richard Nixon
10. Barack Obama
11. Jimmy Carter
12. Dwight D. Eisenhower
13. Gerald Ford
14. Donald Trump
15. Calvin Coolidge
16. Herbert Hoover
17. Warren G. Harding

 

[Pogo]

Worst president ever
View attachment 258874 31% Obama
3% Jackson
And Reagan not even listed.

I'm white and this smells white to me.

Top Presidents of the last 98 years ranked:

01. Franklin Roosevelt
02. Harry S. Truman
03. George H.W. Bush
04. Ronald Reagan
05. George W. Bush
06. Bill Clinton
07. John F. Kennedy
08. Lyndon Johnson
09. Richard Nixon
10. Barack Obama
11. Jimmy Carter
12. Dwight D. Eisenhower
13. Gerald Ford
14. Donald Trump
15. Calvin Coolidge
16. Herbert Hoover
17. Warren G. Harding

Four worst POTUSes since 1900, in chronological order:

1. Wilson
2. Hoover
3. Truman
4. Bush II

(anyone current is by definition ineligible)

 

[U2Edge]

Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.

WOW.
Hope I never get prescribed whatever you're snorting.

I'm a lazy vegan, no drugs. There are a lot of myths about Vietnam that fall apart once you see the facts. But some people have wrapped themselves up in these myths so tightly that they are unable to handle the truth when confronted with it.

What can’t be disputed is that it is a conflict that we never should have gotten involved in

Most Vietnam veterans believe the war was just and necessary including my own father who served there from December 1967 to December 1968 when U.S. casualties were the heaviest. Just over 16,500 US troops died and a little over 80,000 wounded in 1968.

Opinions are still heavily divided over the war 45 years later. Still a strong majority against involvement though, although for different reasons.

01. There is the faction that believe it was not necessary or unjust

02. Then the second faction who look back in hindsite and see it as a waste after the congress gave up and abandoned South Vietnam in 1973.

Those two factions are how a majority of the entire public feel. But when Vietnam Veterans are asked though, a slight majority believe the conflict was just and necessary and the war would have been won had congress not abandoned the effort in 1973.

Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell both feel this way. Both fought in the Vietnam War when they were Junior officers.

General Creighton Abrams who was the last commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam also felt this way.

Dr. Lewis Sorley wrote a great book "A BETTER WAR" in which he showed how much improved U.S. military and South Vietnamese military strategy and policy was in the later years of the war. By 1971, the rebel Vietcong element in South Vietnam had largely been eliminated. The war was no longer really the insurgent war of the past but took on the look of a more general conventional war. The was made abundantly clear in 1972 during North Vietnam's Easter Offensive. Despite there being few U.S. combat troops on the ground at that point, primarily advisors, U.S. Airpower combined with the South Vietnamese ground forces threw the North Vietnamese back and inflicted massive losses on their forces. This showed the way forward for the future. Limited numbers of U.S. advisors on the ground supported the South Vietnamese military combined with U.S. Airpower were now enough to defeat anything that North Vietnam could throw at them. Such a strategy or composition forces would not of worked in 1968 which shows the dramatic improve in the South Vietnamese fighting ability.

Still, the South Vietnamese military was totally dependent on re-supply from the United States U.S. advisors at the battalion level, as well as U.S. airpower. In March 1973, the last U.S. advisors left. In August 1973, all U.S. airpower and other military activities were ended. Then from August 1973 through all of 1974, congress cut back on supplies for the South Vietnamese military.
By early 1975, the South Vietnamese military was running low on ammo and fuel to support their divisions in the field. By contrast, the Soviets and Chinese had poured Billions of dollars into the North Vietnamese military to rebuild and replace its losses from the 1972 Easter Offensive. So in early 1975, North Vietnamese regulars faced a South Vietnamese military with little ammo and fuel to put up a fight, nor the U.S. advisors that were still needed, or U.S. Air Power. Naturally under these conditions, the South Vietnamese military collapsed after a couple of months. But had the United States kept supplying the South Vietnamese military, supporting its Units with U.S. advisors and kept plenty of U.S. combat aircraft in the region to support the South Vietnamese military, the North Vietnam offensive of 1975 would have crushed just as it had been back in 1972.

Difficult to admit 60,000 were unnecessarily killed

Even Robert McNamara in the Pentagon Papers admitted the desire to not have to admit a mistake was a driving force in continuing the war

Robert McNamara lost his nerve and forgot about what was at stake. The policy to confront and contain the spread of Soviet Communism around the world was sound. The consequences of not defending South Vietnam early on were too great to consider. The Soviets may have judged the United States was losing its resolve. Another Soviet attempt to starve out West Berlin might have occurred and Lyndon Johnson often mentioned this. This time though the Soviets would have a certain level of nuclear parity with the United States and would likely shoot down any NATO aircraft attempting to bring supplies into Berlin. The only way to save people in West Berlin would then be to either surrender the city or invade East Germany and try to save the city by force. Conventional war in central Europe. Then the possibility of escalation to nuclear war.

So you can't separate out U.S. policy in Vietnam from the greater conflict of the Cold War. Ultimately, by 1972, U.S. policy in South Vietnam was succeeding. Congress then abandoned the effort the following year leaving South Vietnam to be overrun by the Soviet supported North Vietnamese in 1975. The most shameful action taken by the United States government in its history. The complete and total abandonment of an ally and failure to fulfill its treaty obligations! Responsibility for this though Is on the 1973 congress which essentially highjacked policy from the President through veto proof majorities when it came to funding.

 

[U2Edge]

Some of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.

An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.

He seems to offer proof of his theory

Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.

Agreed and a very dark assumption that those politicians cared more about their reelection chances than sending American soldiers to their deaths.

If one believed Saddam was an evil that needed removed that's one thing. But to not believe that and voting to start a war so they could get reelected is quite an accusation.

Read Obamas opinion of the war sometime

Although I can't prove it, I think if Obama had been in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted for the war as well. Obama's views on defense policy and foreign policy evolved a lot over his time in the Senate as well as when he was President. A very different person in January 2017 from the man in the early 00s.

 

[U2Edge]

That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.

But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.

In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three

View attachment 258597

I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.

WOW.
Hope I never get prescribed whatever you're snorting.

I'm a lazy vegan, no drugs. There are a lot of myths about Vietnam that fall apart once you see the facts. But some people have wrapped themselves up in these myths so tightly that they are unable to handle the truth when confronted with it.

Apparently so.

I don't subscribe to those myths, but sense that you do.

 

[U2Edge]

An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.

He seems to offer proof of his theory

Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.

Agreed and a very dark assumption that those politicians cared more about their reelection chances than sending American soldiers to their deaths.

If one believed Saddam was an evil that needed removed that's one thing. But to not believe that and voting to start a war so they could get reelected is quite an accusation.

Read Obamas opinion of the war sometime

I have. And agree with him it was a dumb war with an undetermined cost and consequences. I also agree that Saddam was an evil and brutal dictator who committed genocide, killed hundreds of thousands, tortured thousands including women and children and should have been deposed.

I don't think it was a either go in now or let him rule forever, and a better solution involving the UN should have been taken, emphasizing the atrocities he was committing and a plan after the war. I think sanctions tend to hurt the most vulnerable who are the ones that should be being protected.

But also I know I don't have a plan to solve that, so without seeing one in place I have faith in, I wouldn't go in.

It was not a dumb war. It was a war the United States was already in. It started the day Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait essentially. The United States was already engaged in military activity against Iraq on annual basis from 1991 to 2003 and for good reasons. But starting in 2000, Saddam began to wiggle out from under sanctions and the weapons embargo. That meant war in the future would only get costlier as time went by. The containment policy was broken and the only option left was to remove the Saddam. Iraq, the region, and the world are far better off today because of the removal of Saddam. The dumb thing to do would have been to leave Saddam in power.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I voted for:
John Adams (Sedition Act and XYZ Affair)
Pierce (civil war)
Bush Jr.
Obama

It's ironic that our last two president both make this list.

Is there any particular reason you left out the ACTUALLY worst president of all time?

Imbecile trumpkins are hysterical

The WORST president of all time. Barack Milhous Benito Obamugabe is on the list.

You're just stupid and couldn't grasp it/

 

[U2Edge]

He seems to offer proof of his theory

Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.

Agreed and a very dark assumption that those politicians cared more about their reelection chances than sending American soldiers to their deaths.

If one believed Saddam was an evil that needed removed that's one thing. But to not believe that and voting to start a war so they could get reelected is quite an accusation.

Read Obamas opinion of the war sometime

I have. And agree with him it was a dumb war with an undetermined cost and consequences. I also agree that Saddam was an evil and brutal dictator who committed genocide, killed hundreds of thousands, tortured thousands including women and children and should have been deposed.

I don't think it was a either go in now or let him rule forever, and a better solution involving the UN should have been taken, emphasizing the atrocities he was committing and a plan after the war. I think sanctions tend to hurt the most vulnerable who are the ones that should be being protected.

But also I know I don't have a plan to solve that, so without seeing one in place I have faith in, I wouldn't go in.

Thé UN urged Bush not to invade

He ignored them and used a UN resolution to justify his invasion

There were multiple UN resolutions approving military action in Iraq. The United States had already been engaged in military action within Iraq every year since 1991 by the time of the 2003 ground invasion.

If the UN did not approve the war, they had many options to protest. The General Assembly could have attempted to pass a resolution condemning the invasion. They could have passed another resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. No one did that though. But they did do it when the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Also the General Assembly is not the Security Council, so resolutions can't be vetoed by the permanent five.

 

[the other mike]

It was not a dumb war. It was a war the United States was already in. It started the day Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait essentially. The United States was already engaged in military activity against Iraq on annual basis from 1991 to 2003 and for good reasons. But starting in 2000, Saddam began to wiggle out from under sanctions and the weapons embargo. That meant war in the future would only get costlier as time went by. The containment policy was broken and the only option left was to remove the Saddam. Iraq, the region, and the world are far better off today because of the removal of Saddam. The dumb thing to do would have been to leave Saddam in power.

Thank you Dick Cheney.

 

[U2Edge]

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.

The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.

Some of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.

An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.

It's not unproven that members of Congress often vote to please their constituents, against their own interests. That's how they get elected. And its not a coincidence Bush pushed for that vote just weeks before an election, knowing he would get at least a few votes from folks running for re-election who wouldn't want to look weak against a call to reign in Iraq. In the shadow of 9.11, no less.

Ok, so prove it. Prove to us which Senators were against the war but voted to support because they were afraid of the election. Were waiting.

 

[U2Edge]

It was not a dumb war. It was a war the United States was already in. It started the day Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait essentially. The United States was already engaged in military activity against Iraq on annual basis from 1991 to 2003 and for good reasons. But starting in 2000, Saddam began to wiggle out from under sanctions and the weapons embargo. That meant war in the future would only get costlier as time went by. The containment policy was broken and the only option left was to remove the Saddam. Iraq, the region, and the world are far better off today because of the removal of Saddam. The dumb thing to do would have been to leave Saddam in power.

Thank you Dick Cheney.

Dick was right that Saddam needed to go. But I wouldn't expect Saddam defenders to understand that.

 

[Pogo]

It was not a dumb war. It was a war the United States was already in. It started the day Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait essentially. The United States was already engaged in military activity against Iraq on annual basis from 1991 to 2003 and for good reasons. But starting in 2000, Saddam began to wiggle out from under sanctions and the weapons embargo. That meant war in the future would only get costlier as time went by. The containment policy was broken and the only option left was to remove the Saddam. Iraq, the region, and the world are far better off today because of the removal of Saddam. The dumb thing to do would have been to leave Saddam in power.

Thank you Dick Cheney.

Dick was right that Saddam needed to go. But I wouldn't expect Saddam defenders to understand that.

When did Iraq become our 57th state? Refresh me.

 

[the other mike]

Dick was right that Saddam needed to go. But I wouldn't expect Saddam defenders to understand that.

Saddam defenders like the ******* CIA and Pentagon that propped him up ?? Dick was and is a war criminal and can't leave the country without fear of arrest.

Shocking Details About CIA Asset Saddam Hussein

 

[rightwinger]

...

His Sec of State did.

.....

Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the ******* animals to agree.

Oh you want his name?........

The name that made things happen after 444 days of Carter's weakness was: Ronald Reagan.

Are you implying that Reagan negotiated with the Iranians before he took office?

That is a criminal act

 

[rightwinger]

...

His Sec of State did.

.....

Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the ******* animals to agree.

Oh you want his name?........

The name that made things happen after 444 days of Carter's weakness was: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan wasn't president yet and wasn't in a position to bring the hostages home.

The animals knew a real man was soon to take office, and they knew what that would mean, as criminals of such ilk have always known. Fully feminized liberals like Carter was (somewhat ahead of his time) can't even understand what the hell I'm talking about.

Those animals negotiated with Jimmy Carter on the release