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.
Please. It is actually uplifting to everyone who has read it.
beautiful. thanks.
I never had any respect for him. Welcome to the club.
Which begs the question: Was Roosevelt a good president?
If there was a poll with this question:
Was Roosevelt a good president?
I would not vote, unless there is a Hell No choice.
You are faking it aren't you ; )
g
What would you say about his foresight to build hydroelectric dams like the Hoover Dam and the Grand Coulee Dam to generate enough electricity to make aluminum to build aircraft? The Hoover Dam project was perhaps started before his administration but wasn't he a big supporter of cheap electricity for this purpose?
no, i read it. i had just been back to the Nancy's last moments with RR thread and was already teared up and figured i would just get through your pome. i am glad i did. : )
When Reagan called FDR a great president, he remembered what it was like to be in the grip of depression and the hope FDR brought. Just like those of us who remember the Carter years. Reagan is great because he was able to lead us back from the abyss... FDR did the same for his generation.
No.
So you believe we should have just starved out the masses in the depression? Sorry I can't hop on that wagon in the context of those times.
Modern Welfare has no comparison to the WPA. Work was required.
Do you think the US and Great Britan could have stopped the Nazis without Stalin chasing them back to Berlin?
FDR was a terrible president saved only by WW II that "cured" the depression. His handling of foreign policy, especially benefitting Stalin, was a disaster that we still suffer from due to the massive tax money lavished on Russia and former Russian satellites, along with the trillion dollar socialistic mishmash he created. The writer is an obvious RAT with his own weird agenda, so he can be ignored. I hope to see him eat his words about Bush "being turned out of office."
Newt Gingrich calls F.D.R. the greatest President of the century. Bob Dole praises F.D.R. as an "energetic and inspiring leader during the dark days of the Depression; a tough, single-minded Commander in Chief during World War II; and a statesman."
"Where'd you get this?"
I saw a program on TV - it was the History Channel or Discovery.
The program stated that the Lusitania, a passenger ship, was illegally carrying munitions aboard and German Intelligence was aware of it, and German newspapers warned civlians not to sail on it. It also said that the ship was charting a course into waters infested with German submarines and the destroyer escourts abandoned it as it was entering those waters.
What's so difficult to believe about this?? Churchill was once asked how many American soldiers should be sent over to help in WW1. He supposedly stated "Just one. We'll take very good care of him and make sure we put him someplace where he is sure to be shot."
The reluctance of Americans to get involved with foreign wars was well-known. Their equal irrascibility once aroused was also.
"The German skipper later said that he didn't think that a single torpedo was enough to sink such a large ship."
And the Souix indians said that the Seventh Cavalry shot themselves. Why would the skipper of a U-Boar responsible for such a tragic attack say anything we could trust?
"Now, if you want to say that FDR 'provoked' the Japanese by embargoing Steel, Rubber & Texas Crude, I might go along with that."
He did more than that. He sent American Naval forces into Japanese territorial waters to antagonize them. And even if Washington suspected the main attack at the Phillipines, you would have expected, under the circumstances, that the Administration would have made sure that our major naval base in the Pacific was on high alert while all this was going on. The reason it wasn't I believe, is because Roosevelt wanted an attack which would unite public opinion behind his war to help Joe Stalin.
As for the Japanese Codes, I don't know for sure when we had broken them, but I HAVE read they were broken BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Either way, the attack on Pearly Harbor was CERTAINLY not something FDR should not have anticipated, given all the many provocations delivered to the Japanese beforehand.
It was hardly the equivalent of 9-1-1.
Buchanan, infamous for "Buchanan's Blunder" was another president willing to make war on his own people, simply due to their religious beliefs (sorta like Clinton at Waco...). Buchanan lost that war.
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.