Presidents
 

Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things
in perspective:)

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 US.
history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush 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 averag! e of 5,800 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.
Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.



In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot,
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? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile
sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes inFlorida!!!!

Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.

Presidents
 

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes inFlorida!!!!


Are they still counting votes...cuz we have yet to "take" Iraq. The war
continues.

RB

Presidents
 

Joe wrote:

Worst president in history?

Maybe, maybe not. Buchanan or Hoover might edge him out for first place.

remainder of crap snipped

--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

Presidents
 

I like your analysis. The liberals can't argue logically with what you say
because it is all fact. You are one good American!

BC

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things
in perspective:)

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 US.
history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush 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 averag! e of 5,800 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.
Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.



In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot,
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? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile
sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes inFlorida!!!!

Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.

Presidents
 

On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:16:39 -0700, Joe wrote:

Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in
perspective:)

Cute, but it would have more effect if it was historically accurate.

Presidents
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 02:54:47 +0000, Bob Crantz wrote:

I like your analysis. The liberals can't argue logically with what you say
because it is all fact. You are one good American!

Didn't pay much attention in history class, did you?

Presidents
 

Clinton was the worst. He got Monica to kill millions.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things
in perspective:)

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 US.
history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush 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 averag! e of 5,800 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.
Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.



In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot,
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? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile
sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes inFlorida!!!!

Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.

Presidents
 

Joe,

Let's remember History the way it really was; The Japs attacked us and
Hitler declared war ON US! He declared was on us before FDR went on the
air with his "Day of Infamy"

Before Korea, Truman, with Geo Marshal as his Sec of State, issued the
Truman Doctrine, which included the Marshal Plan. This was to
re-establish the infrastructure of our allies and fellow members of the
UN. The Korean War was a UN operation.

Vietnam was a French operation; which the French were losing (Naturally)
They asked for help and Pres Eisenhower sent the first American
Advisers, which committed us to that mess.

Bosnia was a NATO operation, not a US operation. At the time France had
pulled out of NATO and kick Nato out of France (That is how Nato moved
to Belgium) That was the famous; Remove all American troops from French
Soil, to which Sec Russ asked; Does that include the ones that were
buried there?
At the time of Bosnia France was not a active NATO member

I'm glad Saddam is gone, but Joe, I think you have to admit, some of
our actions in Iraq are hard to defend

I don't know who is the worst Pres? My choice would be Jimmy Carter.
That isn't the reason for this reply. The rewriting History Is The
Reason.

SHAME ON YOU!!! You should know better

Ole Thom

Presidents
 

It took less time to take Iraq

Iraq has not been taken....the war is still on no matter what your
president says.

And don't forget, more and more Americans are aware of this as his support
dwindles. Bye Bye Bushy!

RB

Presidents
 

you can prove that?

Ozone wrote

10,000 are murdered in downtown LA
annually and no-one seems too upset.

Presidents
 

"Joe" wrote in message
om...

Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put
things in perspective:)


Bob Crantz wrote:
I like your analysis.


It's not "his" analysis. It's just cut and pasted crap that's been
circulating on the internet and that some fool of a newspaper editor
in North Carolina was gullible enough to print.

One word of advice: anytime you see a message that says "please
forward this to everybody", don't. It's invariably a load of BS.


--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

Presidents
 

Joe wrote:
Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
the editor.

Actually, it did not. This is the first of several non-truthful
statements in this post, I happen to live quite close to Durham NC and
subscribe to the Durham Herald-Sun.



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

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

False. German U-boats attacked US vessels before we declared war


Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.

False. North Korea invaded South Korea and attacked U.S. Army occupation
forces there.

... John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

False. Eisenhower started the U.S. involvement in the Viet Nam War which
started alternately in 1946 or 1829 (from the Vietnamese point of view).


Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

False. What short memories you "conservatives" have. You apparently
don't remember shrieking about how Clinton was a traitor for putting
U.S. troops under NATO or later U.N. command.


He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by
Sudan and did nothing.

False again. There was a brief period of time when it may have been
possible that OBL coould have been captured in Sudan with full
cooperation by the Sudanese.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

And is currently being ignored by the Bush Administration.



In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,

Which two?

rushed the Taliban,

"rushed"? Has he been giving them methyl poppers? In any event the
Taliban is still a potent force in Afghanistan and will almost certainly
be part of any democratic coalition gov't there.

... crippled al-Qaida,

Other than Bush campaign advertising, what evidence do you have for this?

put nuclear inspectors in Lybia,

That is the U.N.'s doing, not Bush's.

... Iran and North Korea

False. There are no "nuclear inspectors" in Iran or North Korea, let
alone U.S. ones.


Worst president in history? Come on!

IMHO he's in the running for it. So far, his "supporters" have to lie
like rugs to come up with any positive accomplishments (see above). In
the mean time, he has run up a tremendous debt, mostly to shovel money
at the military contractors who form the backbone of his "new age" army,
who commit war crimes and are unaccountable. He has weakend the U.S.
military by commiting a huge force (which is nonetheless still not large
enough to pacify the occupied zone) to an operation which does nothing
at all to increase U.S. security (let me remind you that Iraq had no
connection to the Sept 11th terrorists), and spent tremendous military
appropriations on this operation which has forced our military to cut
spending on other very important programs. Bush & Cheney have turned
most of the long standing and staunch U.S. allies into uneasy barely
cooperative nations or outright enemies.

And that's just "the war on terror" which is really not about terrorism
but politics. Do you want to look at what Bush & Cheney have done for
the economy, the environment, education, etc etc?


Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.

I agree. But it certainly none of Bush & Cheney's doing.

Regards
Doug King

Presidents
 

On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:23:22 -0400, DSK wrote:

Joe wrote:
Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
the editor.

Actually, it did not. This is the first of several non-truthful
statements in this post, I happen to live quite close to Durham NC and
subscribe to the Durham Herald-Sun.

Funny how these sorts of articles always seem to lack attribution:)
I would have thought it has more the look of a South Carolina
publication, perhaps the Bob Jones University school paper. In any
event, I actually prefer it when the right wing propaganda folks spell
out their "reasoning" for their positions. It becomes so much easier
to see things in perspective, i.e. they are the pied pipers to the
ignorant.

Presidents
 

"Joe" wrote
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. ....
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in US. history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.

Try getting your wars straight. The WOT has nothing to do with the war in
Iraq.

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

What do you call sinking US flagged ships? Moreover, Hitler promptly
declared war on us right after the attack.

Truman .... started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.

Did you flunk history 101? North Korea attacked US troops that had been
stationed in the south since WW2.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

Sorry, but JFK's "whiz kids" turned Vietnam into a quagmire.


Clinton went to war in Bosnia ....


OK, let me get this straight. Bush has us bogged down in a country that
never attacked us just like JFK and his whiz kids did. In addition, he has
turned Clintoon's budget surplus into the biggesr deficit in history and
unconstitutionally locked people up by declaring them enemies of the state,
just like Stalik used to do, and now says LEOs can seize yachts without due
process, not to mention robbing funds from harbor and road maintenance to
fund his war.

Presidents
 

felton wrote:
... In any
event, I actually prefer it when the right wing propaganda folks spell
out their "reasoning" for their positions. It becomes so much easier
to see things in perspective, i.e. they are the pied pipers to the
ignorant.

Hey! excellent turn of phrase... "pied piper to the ignorant"...

DSK

Presidents
 

DSK wrote:

Joe wrote:
Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to
the editor.

Actually, it did not. This is the first of several non-truthful
statements in this post, I happen to live quite close to Durham NC and
subscribe to the Durham Herald-Sun.

Indeed. A Lexis-nexis search turns up empty for the Durham Herald-Sun.

But it does turn up two hits:

The Herald (Rock Hill, S.C.), March 14, 2004
Saturday State Times/Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), April
10, 2004

While this bogus astroturf letter made it's way into two obscure small
newspapers, it was not printed by the "Durham, NC local paper" as
claimed. Like the rest of the piece, it's loosely based on what might
be charitably be called "facts", but misses the [ob-sailing] boat
entirely when it comes to the truth.

I guess if you're stupid enough to mistake Rock Hill, South Carolina for
Durham, North Carolina, you'll swallow the rest of the ahistorical crap
contained within.

IOW, just another internet hoax reeling in a bunch of suckers who'll
believe *anything*. How many suckers? Just look at this:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X21921258

(BTW - good job debunking the rest of it, Doug. You have much more
patience than I.)

--
//-Walt
//
// There's a village in Texas that's missing its idiot.

Presidents
 

Joe wrote:
Worst president in history?

Your own arguments prove that Bush is the worst president ever.



FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

[snip]
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.

[snip]
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.


Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.



Bush went to war in Iraq.
Iraq never attacked the US.

All of your other quotes have already been proved wrong. So the only
president who is an idiot by *your* definition, is GWB.


Regards


Donal
--








Regards


Donal
--

Presidents
 

Walt wrote:
I guess if you're stupid enough to mistake Rock Hill, South Carolina for
Durham, North Carolina, you'll swallow the rest of the ahistorical crap
contained within.

I'm a little flattered that somebody thought "Durham, NC" was somehow
more impressive than Rock Hill, SC. But it's still nonsense. One small
town newspaper I used to read had regular letters to the editor from two
citizens carrying on a public argument about UFOs. The capper was when
one of them claimed that UFOs were responsible for her pet's
incontinence. Why doesn't somebody pop up quoting this, and claiming
that it somehow proves Bush & Cheney are doing a great job?


(BTW - good job debunking the rest of it, Doug. You have much more
patience than I.)

Actually it was canned. I first saw that same bushwa about 2 weeks ago
and wrote it then, and pulled it up from the 'sent' folder. Three clicks
is all it took!

I have the bad luck to work with a bunch of dittoheads. Only a few of
them are really serious but they much better by now than to try and
argue with me. I think these fascist whacko media types affect some
people's brains just like PCP.

REgards
Doug King

Presidents
 

DSK wrote:
Walt wrote:
I guess if you're stupid enough to mistake Rock Hill, South Carolina for
Durham, North Carolina, you'll swallow the rest of the ahistorical crap
contained within.

I'm a little flattered that somebody thought "Durham, NC" was somehow
more impressive than Rock Hill, SC.

Well, I've at least heard of Durham, and while it's not a big city, I
doubt that the editor of the newspaper is so glad to get any letters at
all that he'll print *anything*. Rock Hill is... well... not so large.
Not that there's anything wrong with small towns, it's just that the
local papers can't afford to be as picky about what letters they print.

But it's still nonsense. One small
town newspaper I used to read had regular letters to the editor from two
citizens carrying on a public argument about UFOs. The capper was when
one of them claimed that UFOs were responsible for her pet's
incontinence.

What's far fetched about that? I know I'd be incontinent if I saw a
UFO. Wouldn't anybody?

Why doesn't somebody pop up quoting this, and claiming
that it somehow proves Bush & Cheney are doing a great job?

Isn't it obvious? Why do you hate America, Doug?

(BTW - good job debunking the rest of it, Doug. You have much more
patience than I.)

Actually it was canned. I first saw that same bushwa about 2 weeks ago
and wrote it then, and pulled it up from the 'sent' folder. Three clicks
is all it took!

At least you're plagiarizing yourself, not just mindlessly passing along
whatever nonsense shows up in your in-box.


--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Presidents
 

Walt wrote:
Well, I've at least heard of Durham, and while it's not a big city, I
doubt that the editor of the newspaper is so glad to get any letters at
all that he'll print *anything*. Rock Hill is... well... not so large.
Not that there's anything wrong with small towns, it's just that the
local papers can't afford to be as picky about what letters they print.

I dunno, the papers here will print a wide range of whacko stuff, but a
lot of it is about college basketball. The Durham and Raleigh papers
both have a conservative slant (more accurately, the Durham Herald-Sun
is merely pro-Bush/Cheney, the Raleigh N&O is actually conservative).

Not too long ago they were publishing a series of letters from a
Bush/Cheney cheerleader who seems to think that Clinton is still in
power, in some murky underworld way. Among other things, this person has
claimed that not one Iraqi or Afghan citizen has been harmed by U.S.
military action, whereas Clinton's nefarious scheming has killed
millions of Americans. I wish I were making this up.




But it's still nonsense. One small
town newspaper I used to read had regular letters to the editor from two
citizens carrying on a public argument about UFOs. The capper was when
one of them claimed that UFOs were responsible for her pet's
incontinence.


What's far fetched about that? I know I'd be incontinent if I saw a
UFO. Wouldn't anybody?

Did I say it was farfetched? It was the *truth*, man!

BTW small town gossip... one of the UFOers kids was the towns biggest
drug dealer... I always wondered if it was cause & effect, and if so,
which one was the cause and which was the effect...

DSK