Originally Posted by mmarsh

I am familiar with all the Anti-Clinton arguements, most are without merit. But even if were we accept everything said about him as the truth, he still wouldn't be considered the worst, or even the worst 5. No matter how you spin it, he did do some good. Even excluding W, there were FAR worse.

A lot of them are with merit. The man lied under oath to the Grand Jury for starters. Plus all those questional pardons. And I believe we already discussed his terrorism policy in the Ronald Reagan thread. I don't know if I'd say he was the worst President, but he's up there.

the fantasy of being able to judge without a crystal ball.


The measure of who was (or) was not a good modern day president, belongs to future generations ... NOT to us.

If I WERE to make a judgement, I am NOT positive that I could keep my personal negative feelings against the present President of the United States out of the balance scale. As far as I am concerned, he is a criminal (not because he sent soldiers into harms way), but because he has conspired to break our laws (my opinion).

I know that NOT everyone feels as I do ... that IS the problem with you or I trying to judge where present Presidents stand in the scales of the judgement of their presidencies.

When MM posted "If you really want to measure the worst, that would be Bush (all of the below). Followed by Buchanan (allowed the Civil War to occur), Harding (Corrupt), Hoover (obsolete, ideologue and ineffective). Dishonourable mentions: Carter (ineffective), Wilson (dishonest), A.Johnson (coddled the confederacy, killed reconstruction), Reagan (ineffective, obsolete, dishonest) and Jackson (a plethora of bad ideas)" ..............
If he had left Bush, Carter and Reagan out if his arguments ... I could probably agree with him.

When you are too close to the tree, it is difficult to know whether the forest is a large one (or) whether you are standing too close to the only tree standing. That is the same thing with judging modern day presidents ... we can NOT see the long term consequences of their presidencies.

That can ONLY be done from the perspective of the passage of time.



By the way ... Mr Johnson (author of the article), seems to be a liberal and Democrat hating member of one of our fringe elements who hates anything to do with Liberalism or the Democratic Party (that is ALSO my opinion).

This is the same FrontPageMag where one of their columnists was convicted of libel
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/9324928.html

Originally Posted by The Cooler King

A lot of them are with merit. The man lied under oath to the Grand Jury for starters. Plus all those questional pardons. And I believe we already discussed his terrorism policy in the Ronald Reagan thread. I don't know if I'd say he was the worst President, but he's up there.

The man had his faults, no doubt. but we are talking about being a president (i.e the good he did for the country) not for being a flawed human being. The Lewenski matter was poor judgement both in the act and the coverup. And lets be honest, the whole episode was a political witchhunt as was Whitewater, travelgate, barbergate, chinagate and the several other non-issues the GOP tried to investigate Clinton on.

And where are these self-described 'moralists' now? Funny how they seemed to have lost their ferver in investigating presidential misconduct the moment one of their own was elected. Gee, I wonder why?

Are you really going to compare a small lie about sex as more damaging than a president that took by as the country tore itself apart, or a another whose friends used it as their private piggy bank, or how about the president who ignored a direct order from congress and supplied weapons to far right paramilitaries who then committed atrocities against civilians. All in the name of anti-communism...

and I havent even mentioned the stuff W has done yet...

I'm not qualified to say who was the worst or even the best US President. I do believe, however, that George W Bush is sorry that he ever got involved with Iraq, which has done nothing to to further the war against terrror and indeed has made the world a more dangerous place. His gamble to remove Saddam Hussain as a part vote winning tactic has backfired and his attempt to impose democracy on an islamic state is an ultimately futile struggle that can only end in failure.

Carter should've stayed as a peanut farmer and nothing more.

Bush should have stayed an oil tycoon and nothing more.

Carter actually gave a **** about other human beings at least.

Originally Posted by WarMachine

Bush should have stayed an oil tycoon and nothing more. *Wrong - he lost millions of daddy's and friend's money when he was put in charge of finding oil ... he wasn't even a good oil tycoon.*

Carter actually gave a **** about other human beings at least.
*This part is accurate in the extreme ... was probably why his presidency is viewed with disfavor by some people.*

Originally Posted by WarMachine

Bush should have stayed an oil tycoon and nothing more.

Carter actually gave a **** about other human beings at least.

LoL

Carter screwed it up, but Bush didnt.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and any US citizen is just as qualified as any other US citizen when it comes to discussing ones president...

Bottom line they are all the same every single one of them is the same no matter what party they are from...Had 9/11 happened during Clintons time he probably would have done the same things Bush has done...In fact he even had said Saddam was a threat....

Just look at how many of them own stock in oil companies...I’m talking form the presidents right down to the senators and congress....why do you think they aren’t jumping on the prices...they are making fortunes...

Donkey

You are attempting to justify Iraq by using 9-11. The US Congress report just released 10 days ago stated that not only was there no tie between OBL and Saddam, but that Saddam had tried to have OBL killed. I remind you the reason we went into Iraq was WMD, not terrorism. They are totally unrelated. the only ones that harping on this fanstasy is the Bush Administration, and they do it to confuse people such as yourself. Its a WMD = Weapon of Mass Deception.

Bill Clinton (or anyother president for that matter) would have never attacked Iraq without a just reason. George Bush Sr held off from attacking Iraq in 1991 because he knew (as did Clinton) that Saddam was a effective counterweight to Iran. He was the lesser of two evils. Thanks th W's Recklessness Saddam is gone and the US is know faced with a Nuclear armed Iran, which is a far greater threat to the US then Saddam ever was.

Bravo George, Bravo.