WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY

Kalona News ^ | Feb 15, 2004 | Ethel Bontrager

[11th_VA]

The following appeared in the Durham, N.C., local paper as a letter to the editor on Feb. 15, 2004.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11!

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Think about it!

Submitted by Ethel Bontrager

[11th_VA]

Well said

[lafroste]

When I first saw the article title, I thought:

Wait a minute, Kerry hasn't even been elected yet.

[Kay]

Good find. Thanks.

[Blood of Tyrants]

FDR's policies (all of them were basically socalist plans) during the depression turned it into the Great Depression.

[PeteFromMontana]

Thanks for posting this...

Properly bookmarked

[Prodigal Son]

You know, I heard someone high up in the GOP in California give this very spiel the other day (listening on a radio station). It's very effective.

[Rummyfan]

Well said!

As for the worst President in history, my votes goes to Jimmy Carter!

[NCPAC]

It is very effective.

For the record (and to my mind), FDR was the worst President in history.

[mystery-ak]

Ethel has to be a freeper....

[Carolina]

PING!!!!

Is this what you're looking for?

[Prodigal Son]

I agree (re FDR).

[MegaSilver]

For the record (and to my mind), FDR was the worst President in history.

I tend to agree. However, someone pointed out to me that the GDP grew at unprecedented rates during his tenure in office.

I know there's ammunition against that argument; I'm assuming it's because most of that growth went into the hands of the aristocracy. Could someone confirm/clarify this?

[unspun]

Very good letter indeed.
Worst: Buchanan? FDR? Johnson? Clinton?
Best at least since TR: probably W

[antceecee]

Does anyone have the figures on lives lost during Clinton's Bosnia episodes? For that matter, how many American service men and women lost their lives in all of Mr. Clinton's military escapades?

[Dan from Michigan]

Woodrow Wilson.......

[You Dirty Rats]

Germany did declare war on us.

I guess that doesn't count.

[Dan from Michigan]

Woodrow Wilson - Worst in history.

[roadcat]

For the record (and to my mind), FDR was the worst President in history.

Ditto. Carter was the absolute worst. I still remember the price of bread and milk going up every week, people getting laid off, jobs lost, and he sat on his butt doing nothing (except making things worse). Then there was his fiasco sending helos into Iran to rescue our hostages, which should have never fell to the ayatollah in the first place. Reagan was a breath of fresh air once Carter got the boot.

[Check_Your_Premises]

Keep in mind, government expenditures are included in GDP figures. So the economy might suck, all things being equal, but if the government spends a bunch of cash...

...(which causes it's own growth, but not as efficiently because choices are made politically vs. economically)...

...it will manifest itself in a larger GDP.

Clear as mud?