Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Franklin D. Roosevelt a Good President?
WND.com ^ | 06-08-04 | Farah, Joseph

Posted on 06/08/2004 6:19:25 AM PDT by Theodore R.

Was Roosevelt a good president?

Posted: June 8, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Condoleeza Rice said in a newspaper interview last week that President Bush will some day rank in leadership history alongside Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

Which begs the question: Was Roosevelt a good president?

If Roosevelt is George W. Bush's model for leadership, his first term begins to make sense.

Roosevelt led the nation through World War II and certainly contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan – for which we should all be thankful.

However, Roosevelt also arguably presided over the creation of more unconstitutional domestic action by the federal government than any of his modern predecessors. As such, he remains the hero of modern-day socialists and an icon for today's Democratic Party extremists.

Is that what Bush wants to be remembered for?

If so, he must give himself extremely high marks. Yes, he has ably led the nation in the war on terrorism. But his administration has also given us unprecedented domestic spending increases.

Perhaps Rice and Bush should also be reminded that while Churchill provided great leadership of the United Kingdom in World War II, he was quickly turned out of office at the war's conclusion.

My guess is Bush will be turned out of office long before American achieves a victory in the war on terrorism. So, perhaps there is some validity to that comparison as well.

Notice that Rice did not compare Bush to a more recent popular Republican, two-term president – Ronald Reagan. Perhaps she understood that such a comparison would be laughable to too many Americans – especially those Bush still hopes to win over before Election Day.

"Statesmanship has to be judged first and foremost by whether you recognize historic opportunities and seize them," Rice said in an interview with Cox Newspapers.

I would agree. But I would not agree that Bush has met the challenge.

He came into office with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and Senate. He saw that control strengthened in mid-term elections in 2002. Yet he governed like a Democrat – expanding spending for the Department of Education and other agencies the GOP once swore to eliminate.

"When you think of statesmen, you think of people who seized historic opportunities to change the world for the better, people like Roosevelt, people like Churchill, and people like Truman, who understood the challenges of communism. And this president has been an agent of change for the better – historic change for the better," said Rice.

Roosevelt and Truman understood the challenges of communism? Who does she think gave us Alger Hiss? And who does she think sold Chiang Kai-Shek down the Yangtze River?

Until I read this interview, I had an extraordinary amount of respect for Rice's intellectual achievements and her understanding of history. No longer. But it gets worse.

It was Bush, she said, who first recognized "that it was time to stop mumbling about the need for a Palestinian state" and spoke out in favor of a two-state solution to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.

Indeed he did – one of the foreign policy tragedies of his administration. In fact, he has retreated from that position recently, suggesting there was no longer any rush to create a Palestinian state. And why should we want to create a new Middle East state that was founded on terrorism? Why should we support a state whose official policy is "no Jews allowed"? Why should we want to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?

Does Rice really believe all she said in this interview? Or is she just being a good political soldier? It's hard to know for sure.

But now I know why the Bush administration has achieved so little in four years. Apparently, from the get-go, it never had the right goals.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; churchill; communism; condirice; democrats; fdr; fdrwasasocialist; hst; nazism; republican; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-212 next last

1 posted on 06/08/2004 6:19:27 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

The answer to the main question - NO!


2 posted on 06/08/2004 6:21:30 AM PDT by 7thson (I think it takes a big dog to weigh a hundred pounds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

FDR was the worst president we ever had.
It was his administration that set up all the socialist/communist programs that are sucking money from the tax payers to this day.

I believe the guy was a commie.


3 posted on 06/08/2004 6:21:43 AM PDT by Chewbacca (There is a place in this world for all of God's creatures.....right next to the mashed potatoes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

No..


4 posted on 06/08/2004 6:22:21 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com - The next World War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Farah needs to get over his hatred of Bush. He brings up some legitimate points but greatly overstates his case and ignores many of relevant points.


5 posted on 06/08/2004 6:23:58 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Was Franklin D. Roosevelt a Good President?

No.

6 posted on 06/08/2004 6:24:40 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

In a word: No.


7 posted on 06/08/2004 6:26:31 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

Just my two cents. I don't want to slam FDR, as many here DO regard him highly. Every other issue aside, I would rank Reagan ahead simply because he ended the Cold War, which FDR did his best to help the Soviet Union begin.


8 posted on 06/08/2004 6:26:59 AM PDT by Types_with_Fist (God Bless Ronald Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

A leader can only be judged in the context of time. FDR was right for the time but wrong for today. I believe that many of the programs he set up to address The Great Depression were intended to be temporary.

I judge FDR to be the best and worst on any given issue. Carter has the distinct "Worst Overall" title.


9 posted on 06/08/2004 6:27:44 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Everything that really matters I learned from a song when I was 3. Jesus Loves Me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.



check out

original political satire

10 posted on 06/08/2004 6:27:48 AM PDT by counterpunch (<-CLICK HERE for my CARTOONS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Was Franklin D. Roosevelt a Good President?


Hmm, a trick question. Ok I'll play.....

For the USA and world freedom - a resounding NO

For Marxism & Stalinist Despots - YES

11 posted on 06/08/2004 6:31:47 AM PDT by Condor51 (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. -- Gen G. Patton Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca

I agree. Read "Treason" by Ann Coulter. If Roosevelt wasn't a supporter of Joe Stalin, I'll eat my hat.

He thought Uncle Joe was the best thing Russia ever had - the man who murdered more people than Hitler than did.

Also, I think Roosevelt deliberately engineered the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and was responsible for all those dead Americans because he wanted a reason to enter the war after having promised America to keep us out of it.


If I'm not mistaken, Roosevelt was Secretary of the Navy during WW1 and helped engineer the successful German attack on the Lusitania, with the connivance of Churchill, in order to accomplish the same thing he did at Pearl Harbor in WW2.

Roosevelt always envied his relative and great American Teddy Roosevelt. He was a poor excuse for Teddy Roosevelt in every way.


12 posted on 06/08/2004 6:33:47 AM PDT by ZULU (They weree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

I don't think FDR was great in terms of policy, but he exuded some needed confidence for his first term. And he may have been a safety valve against the country going even further left out of despair. That said, his legacy of paternal government is a burden. I need to read more about him, hopefully from a concise, historical point of view.


13 posted on 06/08/2004 6:33:50 AM PDT by Puddleglum (Defy the media elite - vote Bush in 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Two things

He deferred entirely too much to his wife, (an unelected individual)

He sent Stillwell to Asia and cast him to the wolves with America's hide bound and debilitating 'Europe First' policy in WWII. I always wonder how a more realistic policy with China in WWII would have affected the current state of affairs there. Also: He was too much of a populist and played to the crowd TOO much.
14 posted on 06/08/2004 6:34:28 AM PDT by SMARTY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

You gotta give FDR credit for the one good decision he made: developing the atom bomb.


15 posted on 06/08/2004 6:36:10 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (God bless Ronald Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I'll add my NO to the chorus.
16 posted on 06/08/2004 6:36:11 AM PDT by pt17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
I believe that many of the programs he set up to address The Great Depression were intended to be temporary.

"Temporary government program," an oxymoron.

17 posted on 06/08/2004 6:37:15 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
"......Was Franklin D. Roosevelt a Good President?......"

No. One of the things he is supposedly remembered for - getting us out of the Depression, he failed miserably at. It took a world war to get the economy going again, and he had been on the job 8 years by that point in time. In addition, in trying to pull us out of the Depression he abrogated and nullified many of the principal structures of our system of government and economy, unleashing a collectivist virus that, to this day, chronically infects us.

.............Besides, he couldn't keep that damned wife of his shut up.

18 posted on 06/08/2004 6:39:04 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

he threw japanese in camps, tried to load the supreme court w/ extra leftists and gave away eastern europe to russia


19 posted on 06/08/2004 6:39:21 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch (I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

he threw japanese in camps

But don't Japanese Americans still pay total fealty to the Democrat Party and hold FDR and HST in the highest rating?


20 posted on 06/08/2004 6:41:45 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

Still, you are aware that the (once popular among Republicans) Newt Gingrich is a big booster of the FDR legend.


21 posted on 06/08/2004 6:42:37 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
But don't Japanese Americans still pay total fealty to the Democrat Party and hold FDR and HST in the highest rating?

i don't know, do they?

22 posted on 06/08/2004 6:44:29 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch (I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

He deferred entirely too much to his wife

Really, I was under the impression that he paid no attention at all to Eleanor. She did as she pleased, and what about Joseph Lash? What about Lucy Mercer Rutherford? Eleanor is lionized mainly by the popular Hillary Clinton and some of her feminist minions.


23 posted on 06/08/2004 6:44:57 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

No. Terrible, but famous, and a favorite of the Socialists and One-Worlders. Poor Mrs. Reagan, Bless her heart, is just echoing what she has heard for many years from the liberal socialist managed media. Anyone who knows the truth about FDR, Wilson, etc., would not utter Ronnie's name with the likes of them. Ronald Reagan was much better.


24 posted on 06/08/2004 6:45:28 AM PDT by Designer (Sysiphus Sr. to Junior; "It was uphill, all the way, both ways!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

Carter has the distinct "Worst Overall" title.

Yes, but, GA Jimmy did not preside over the death of so many Americans as did his Democrat predecessor, the popular LBJ.


25 posted on 06/08/2004 6:46:16 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

The best thing I can say about FDR is that he kept even more radical figures from getting power during the dark days of the depression.

Of course, that is like saying a mugger isn't that bad because he only robbed you, and didn't kill you.


26 posted on 06/08/2004 6:46:24 AM PDT by DreadCthulhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People

FDR was an economic disaster as well as imposing dozens of unconstitutional laws on us.

27 posted on 06/08/2004 6:46:26 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Yes.

We can't be right 100% of the time, now can we.

28 posted on 06/08/2004 6:47:00 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

As I recall, the CA GOP ran an Asian American for the Senate, and he was creamed by the popular Barbara Boxer.


29 posted on 06/08/2004 6:47:15 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca

Second worst, after Lincoln.


30 posted on 06/08/2004 6:48:51 AM PDT by petro45acp ("Government might not be too bad...................if it weren't for all the polititians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

I need to read more about him, hopefully from a concise, historical point of view.

The late John Flynn wrote a book exposing FDR years ago, but I don't think it is in print. Maybe you can get it from an inter-library loan source. I cannot think of the title right now.



31 posted on 06/08/2004 6:49:13 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

(Defy the media elite - vote Bush in 2004!)

Puddleglum, this mantra has already been used UNSUCCESSFULLY. Some supporters of GHWB used the slogan "Annoy the Media: Reelect Bush" in 1992. The result: the popular "Bill" Clinton.


32 posted on 06/08/2004 6:50:39 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca

The post should have read........

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FDR was the worst president we ever had.
It was his administration that set up all the socialist/communist programs that are sucking money from the tax payers to this day.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Second worst, after Lincoln.


33 posted on 06/08/2004 6:51:26 AM PDT by petro45acp ("Government might not be too bad...................if it weren't for all the polititians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

Well if you say Lincoln and FDR are the worst presidents (and you may have a point there considering that one fought secession and the other ushered in the Cold War), you are inadvertently raising the stature of the men they succeeded: the unpopular James Buchanan and the more unpopular Herbert Hoover.


34 posted on 06/08/2004 6:52:20 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I don't think was a bad president, but he doesn't deserve to be ranked up with the greatest.

He sold out the Eastern Europeans at Yalta and condemned two generations of people to Soviet rule. Yalta helped create the Berlin wall and a lot of the Cold War. (The Cold War would have still happened but more countries would have been free.)

Either he was too friendly with Stalin or he didn't correctly percieve how evil he was. This mistake is a large black mark against him and pulls him down off the "greatest list."

35 posted on 06/08/2004 6:53:02 AM PDT by Barney Gumble (Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you’ll wake up to reality -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

His wife had a lot, (too much) to say about how things were done. She influenced him enormously with her socialism. We have her to thank for all the socialist hogwash she injected into the Democratic party and by extension, the country... associations and ideas from which it has NEVER withdrawn. Thanks Eleanor.


36 posted on 06/08/2004 6:53:51 AM PDT by SMARTY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

He sent Stillwell to Asia and cast him to the wolves

My knowledge of "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell (or is it Stilwell?) is lacking. Could you kindly explain this comment in a paragraph?


37 posted on 06/08/2004 6:54:13 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

The 93 year old Grandfather on Moms side still refers to the time "Roosevelt stole everyones gold". 'Nuff said for me...


38 posted on 06/08/2004 6:54:49 AM PDT by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith

FDR was also called "that man in the White House" by his conservative critics. Some left the country and vowed not to return until FDR was out of office. Little did they know that they would have to wait 12 years -- and then to be under HST at that.


39 posted on 06/08/2004 6:59:09 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Interesting rhetoric: "Was FDR a great president? No, Bush isn't." My kids could write better than this in grade school, but then if they had an ax to grind, they could be honest about it. Whether Bush's strategy of stealing the Dems' issues is wise, time will tell. No, I don't particularly approve. We vote for these people, however, to make the best choices they can and to be leaders. Bush has made some tough choices and has had to withstand an onslaught of hatred and bile from the left. He has kept his eye on the goal in the Middle East when lesser men would have wavered. When all is said and done we can be proud to have voted for him twice. To answer your proposal: "Probably" and "You're wrong".
40 posted on 06/08/2004 6:59:15 AM PDT by 2beeornaught
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Apparently from a 1975 interview:
41 posted on 06/08/2004 7:00:50 AM PDT by slowry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
If FDR was a good president, or even president at all,
it was because Hoover failed to act. He could not or
would not understand that the situation after the stock market and banking crashes required firm and resolute action.
One of the pillars of conservative government is
a willingness to act and act decisively, as
George Bush did when he ordered the invasion of
Iraq. Herbert Hoover failed to support that pillar.
As a consequence, the country go FDR.
42 posted on 06/08/2004 7:01:58 AM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I know why the Bush administration has achieved so little in four years. Apparently, from the get-go, it never had the right goals.

Worth repeating. Small-government conservatives -- that phrase should be redundant but, these days, I'm not so sure -- need not apply.

43 posted on 06/08/2004 7:02:41 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

In the popular memory (fed by the media, and also, sadly by many who lived through FDR's administration) he is considered a good president. Historical fact speaks a bit differently.

The Great Depression was more than an economic crisis, it was a psychological blow to the US. Although Hoover (a much maligned individual, and wrongly so) had attempted some Keynesian efforts (something many history classes, not mine, though, ignore), what Hoover did was too little, too late. Hoover rightly feared "creeping socialism" and never went full bore as Roosevelt did with the New Deal.
The New Deal was as much about psychology as it was about trying to get people back to work. Programs such as the PWA, the CCC and the WPA had an impact, but other programs such as the NRA (National Recovery Administration) were both worthless and unconstitutional. Roosevelt's court packing scheme (which led to his losing states in the 1940 elections, as well as his unprecedented run for a third term) was indicative of a lust for power which is singularly Democrat.
Now begs the question, "Would Wendell Wilkie have been as good a wartime president as Roosevelt?" Who knows? Roosevelt was at least smart enough to leave the conduct of the War to his generals and admirals (thank God for George Marshall, Hap Arnold, Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay...among others), and not micromanage the War as LBJ so disastrously did 20 years later. Roosevelt's foreign policy was disgustingly pro-Soviet, and grew more so during the war years, primarily at the prodding of his VP, Henry Wallace (who himself ran as a basically Communist candidate in 1948). Roosevelt also made a major blunder in not committing adequate resources to the Pacific Theater during the War as part of the "Hitler First" strategy. The fact that the Japanese were whupped by American forces using inadequate equipment is testament as much to the skill and tenacity of the American fighting man as it is to the incompetance of Japanese military and political leadership.

Basically, was FDR a good president can be answered in this way: Yes and no. Domestically he did some good, but at a terrible cost to our economic and personal liberties. In foreign policy, he made good choices in who commanded the troops in war, but his diplomatic decisions paved the way for nearly fifty years of Cold War against the Soviets.
Ironically, it took a former Roosevelt Democrat to end Roosevelt's Cold War.

Thank you, Ronald Reagan.


44 posted on 06/08/2004 7:04:00 AM PDT by Bombardier (Target.....target....target....BOMBS AWAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

FDR made the great depression great. His policies worsened the economic situation and made the depression last much longer than it would have otherwise. If you want to look at who ended the depression, look to Japan and people like Tojo and Yamamoto


45 posted on 06/08/2004 7:04:11 AM PDT by yawningotter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well if you say Lincoln and FDR are the worst presidents (and you may have a point there considering that one fought secession and the other ushered in the Cold War), you are inadvertently raising the stature of the men they succeeded: the unpopular James Buchanan and the more unpopular Herbert Hoover.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Unpopular yes, but did they do as much deep harm to the rule of Constitutional law in America? FDR's "temporary" socialist programs are still a drain on our vitality, and lincoln's "Henry Clay" federalism set the stage.


46 posted on 06/08/2004 7:04:48 AM PDT by petro45acp ("Government might not be too bad...................if it weren't for all the polititians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Also, I think Roosevelt deliberately engineered the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and was responsible for all those dead Americans because he wanted a reason to enter the war after having promised America to keep us out of it.

I don't think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Roosevelt "engineered" or "had advance knowledge of" the attack on Pearl Harbor. Everybody expected the attack to hit the Philippines. Japanese war planning initially focused on taking the Philippines & Guam and then setting a naval ambush for the US Battlefleet. The US War Plan Orange (Japan) focused on 'relieving' Filipino forces by naval resupply. Adm. Yamamoto turned the Japanese strategy on its head by attacking Pearl Harbor first, and in great secrecy.

And don't tell me that we were reading Japanese naval codes, because we weren't at this point. We had broken the Japanese diplomatic key, which is entirely different.

If I'm not mistaken, Roosevelt was Secretary of the Navy during WW1 and helped engineer the successful German attack on the Lusitania, with the connivance of Churchill, in order to accomplish the same thing he did at Pearl Harbor in WW2.

Where'd you get this? The U-boat that sank the Lusitania was by itself and had 1 torpedo left. She was getting ready to leave the patrol area to head home and, by chance, caught a glimpse of the Lusitania emerging from a fog bank. The German skipper later said that he didn't think that a single torpedo was enough to sink such a large ship.

The point here is that, while FDR may have allowed munitions to be shipped on the Lusitania, he couldn't have passed the ships position onto the German Navy. If he had, the Germans would have had more than a single U-Boat on station that was down to its last shot.

Now, if you want to say that FDR 'provoked' the Japanese by embargoing Steel, Rubber & Texas Crude, I might go along with that.

47 posted on 06/08/2004 7:05:42 AM PDT by Tallguy (Surviving in PA....thats the "other PA"...Pennsylvania.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp
Second worst, after Lincoln.

Hmmm, pining for the presidency of James Buchanan are you?

48 posted on 06/08/2004 7:05:45 AM PDT by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Gen. Stillwell was sent to China to assist against the Japanese invasion there. At no time was the General given what he fully needed to accomplish this... what is more, the Chang Ki Check gov't. in China was shamelessly coddled by FDR in it's plan to subvert American assistance and fight instead it's own war against the Chinese communists instead of co operating with Stillwell against the Japanese. It was a frustrating effort for Stillwell.

It should be noted that the British did as little as possible to assist, because the last thing they wanted after the war was a strong unified China next door to their colony, India.

Stillwell was cast to the wolves. FDR's Europe First policy also cut the ground out from under American 'efforts' against the Japanese in Asia.
49 posted on 06/08/2004 7:09:18 AM PDT by SMARTY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

ARF! I'd be hard pressed to leave this country even if it was being run by a horned devil. Better to stay and die trying to save it!


50 posted on 06/08/2004 7:11:28 AM PDT by Axenolith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-212 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson