The Worst President in History?

BernardR wrote:

I don't understand your post. Are you speaking English or German?

Est-ce que ça les languages tu ne connaisser pas?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

BernardR wrote:
I don't understand your post. Are you speaking English or German?

Est-ce que ça les languages tu ne connaisser pas?

Son usted pagó por las líneas que usted anuncia aquí?

Laughing

This is fun.

0 Replies

The left like to call republicans "warmongers",so lets examine a few other Presidents,ok.

Woodrow Wilson,President from 1913 to 1921,was a Democrat.
He got the US into WW1.

Franklin D Roosevelt,President from 1933 to 1945,a Democrat.
He got us into WW2

Harry Truman,President from 1945 to 1953.
A Democrat,he got us into the Korean war.

John F Kennedy,a democrat.
President from 1961 to 1963.
He got us into the early stages of Vietnam.

LBJ,a Democrat.
President from 1963 to 1969.
He escalated Vietnam.

So lets do some math.

In WW1, 116516 American soldiers died.
In WW2, 405399 American soldiers died.
In the Korean war, 36576 American soldiers died.
In Vietnam, 58200 American Soldiers died.

That totals 616,691 American soldiers killed as a result of Democrat Presidents and their warmongering in the 20th Century.

Those numbers are from...
http://wagoneers.com/pages/History/US-war-deaths.html

So,if the left really wants to talk about what Presidents have killed the most American soldiers,they dont have a leg to stand on.

0 Replies

Mysteryman, I can imagine the response from the left - that the wars you mentioned, started by Democrat presidents, were far more justified than the current Iraqi and Afghani wars that we are discussing.

With the possible exception of the Vietnam war, they would be correct to say so.

And in the cases of WWI and WWII, our involvement was the result of our NEED to get involved in order to maintain the general world order, as opposed to warmongering. To call FDR a warmongerer based on his entrance into a war that eventually stopped Hitler and his genocide of the Jews, and as a direct response to an attack on US military bases at Pearl Harbor, is simply ridiculous.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Amigo wrote:
I guess well just have to compare their military records then, ay Tico?

Let me know when Kerry decides to sign a Standard Form 180 and make those public, would ya?
Ok.

On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: ''The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."

Link

He's not made his full military record public. What does he have to hide? Why send them only to the Globe? How did he fill out the Form 180?

Quote:

Did Kerry really release Navy records?

June 9, 2005

BY THOMAS H. LIPSCOMB

A front page story in the Boston Globe claimed that: "Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records." In another Globe story Kerry had promised "The truth in its entirety will come out." But did it?

Kerry's election hopes faltered last summer and fall as accusations of fraudulent and incomplete military records were aired. The fact that Kerry repeatedly refused to sign a single-page military form called the Standard Form 180, that would have released all his military records to the public, was taken as proof he had something to hide.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth head John O'Neill, who raised many of the charges against Kerry during the campaign, was challenged by Kerry on "Meet the Press" in January. Kerry promised he would sign his Standard Form 180, but he wanted former Swift Boat officer O'Neill to sign as well.

All depends on how it's filled out

O'Neill did sign it and provided copies to the Chicago Sun-Times. According to O'Neill, "The Standard Form 180 could release 'the full military and medical records.' Or it could release just a few. It all depends on how it is filled out and where it was sent."

"There is nothing magic about signing a SF 180," said former Naval Judge Advocate General Mark Sullivan. "It is sort of like your checkbook. You can fill out a check for one dollar or a million. It is the same check form."

"And the Globe story says Kerry sent it to the Navy Personnel Command, which is only a limited storage location. So it is not surprising that the Globe then notes that what they received was largely 'duplication' of records previously released. The Navy Personnel Command primarily stores a subset of service records rather than a person's full military records. There is no doubt there are a lot of after-action records missing from what Kerry has released," said Sullivan.

Kerry's not talking

Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs has already found a discrepancy confirmed by the Department of the Navy of "at least a hundred pages" missing from those already disclosed by Kerry.

"If you take a look at my SF 180," O'Neill said, "you will see I have authorized the total release of all my records to anyone requesting to see them. But without seeing how Kerry's SF 180 was filled out, everyone is only guessing about what was released."

So how an SF 180 is filled out is as important as signing it. But no one in the press has yet claimed to have seen a copy of Kerry's SF-180. When asked if she had a copy of Kerry's SF 180, the Globe's Managing Editor Mary Jane Wilkinson said, "I haven't seen it, and I don't know if anyone here has."

Kerry's Senate offices could not provide a copy of the Kerry SF 180 and would not answer inquiries. Is it possible that Kerry filled it out wrong or sent it to the wrong place?

O'Neill made Kerry an offer. "I'll be happy to bring one to Kerry's office and help him fill it out. And then we can take mine and his and deliver them to the right place together to make sure, as Kerry puts it, 'the truth in its entirety will come out.' "

Now that the Boston Globe has in its possession what it claims are Kerry's "full military and medical records," is the Globe ready to make these records available to the public? Wilkinson replied, "It is my understanding that Kerry will release these papers to anyone else now that he has signed the Form 180. The Boston Globe is not going to make available the papers we have received."

Amigo wrote:

I should do me some Lawyer'en

No, you shouldn't.

0 Replies

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/04/12/kerry-vietnam-inside.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/08/22/john_kerry_wideweb__430x255.jpg

JHON KERRY A TRUE AMERICAN HERO AND FIGHTER!

"We were one helluva target," Kerry recalls, 35 years after serving in Vietnam. For nearly three months, his lightly armed patrol boats had been sitting ducks for Viet Cong snipers. The usual response was to clear the ambush zone and shoot back from a safer distance. Sailors stayed on board.

But the young officer had a more "creative" plan on Feb. 28, 1969. This time, Kerry beached his boat toward the attacking VC. He jumped ashore, chased a startled, armed guerrilla and killed him. Crewmates say the audacious move saved their lives. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Navy's third-highest combat award.

"He was hard-charging," recalls Del Sandusky, the senior enlisted sailor who drove Patrol Craft Fast (PCF) 94 that day. "Kerry thought offense was the best defense."

----------------------

BUSH DESERTS AMERICA TWICE BECAUSE HE IS A COWARD DRUG ADDICT

BUSH: DRUNK, STONED, AND AWOL

This was not the first time that George W. Bush shirked his duty and deserted his post. In 1972, during the height of the Vietnam war, Bush deserted his Houston Air National Guard unit. He was AWOL (Absent Without Leave) for a period of between 11 to 18 months.

As reported in the well researched book, "Fortunate Son" (4) and as detailed in the Boston Globe (5): "In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen. William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the unit, said that Bush never appeared for duty. His two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, '"'Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.'"

Desertion is a crime. But Bush had an "excuse." In 1972 he had been arrested for cocaine possession. George W. had a very serious drug problem. His "dad," however, came to the rescue and made arrangements with a Dallas judge to have his son's conviction for possession of cocaine expunged from the records in return for performing community service. The judge agreed to this arrangement and ordered George W. to perform community service and to work for an inner-city, antipoverty outreach program for teenagers.

George W. was also a drunk. In an interview published in the Greenwich Village Gazette (6), President G. H. W. Bush's Chief of Staff Michael C. Dannenhauer admitted that George W. had been "out of control since college. There was cocaine use... but the drinking was the worst." He also admitted that George W. had suffered quite a few "lost weekends in Mexico."

Dannenhauer also confirmed that George W. also had a serious cocaine problem. George's past drug use was inadvertently confirmed by George W. himself, when he blurted out at a press conference that he hadn't taken drugs "since 1974."

Should we be surprised that a rich man with a low IQ (7), and a history of alcoholism, drug addiction, and desertion, who has never in his life been held accountable for his actions, would also run away on the morning of 9/11?

0 Replies

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3706/kerrydropfootball5ky.jpg

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/7091/captwigh10910262241battlegroun.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/365/kerry51tj.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8527/kerry45jj.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/788/kerry97lg.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9647/kerry108sr.jpg

0 Replies

And your point Tico? That your drunk, draft-dodging, fratboy born with a silver spoon, business-sinking, franchise ruining, forked tongued lying us into war idiot president could play football better than Kerry?

0 Replies

Good statement-question, snood. They all have foot-in-brain disease.

0 Replies

Ticomaya, Why are you trying to degrade an American Veitnam hero?

Don't you support our troops?

Why do you hate America?

KERRY VOLUNTEERED TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY IN VEITNAM!

TICO, SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR KERRYS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, "it was the right thing to do."

http://cache.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/images/day2/06.jpg

http://www.taylormarsh.com/images/kerry_019.jpg

Lt. John Kerry's leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, the Navy's fifth highest medal, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, awarded for wounds received in combat. John Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star for rescuing a Green Beret, who had gone overboard during a mission.

0 Replies

Oh, I now understand . Mr.Hinteler--You asked "Are you paid by the number of lines you post here"?

Not that I know of but if I were paid by number of lines I would be very poor compared to you, Mr. Hinteler who, according to your record, has posted far far more than I have.

Are you afraid I am catching up to you? I would suggest you mind your own business and you post when you want to and I will post when I want to or do you have special priveliges?

0 Replies

Kerry - A hero? Perhaps from time to time but he never showed his heroism more clearly than when he said in 2002:

"I WILL BE VOTING TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE ---IF NECESSARY--TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT A DEADLY ARSENAL OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN HIS HANDS IS A REAL AND GRAVE THREAT TO OUR SECURITY>"

0 Replies

MysteryMan that was a pretty pathetic post. I have no love for either side of US politics but if you are oblivious to the innacuracies and stupidities of what you quoted then I despair of you.

Specifically Kennedy did not 'get you into' the vietnam war, Eisenhower was the president who cited the domino effect in SE Asia and American soldiers died in Vietnam in the 1950s. Kennedy and LBJ certainly escalated your involvement, and I'd argue that Truman bares a lot of responsibility for it but lets try and stick to the facts.

As for the WWII stuff, I laughed my balls off. Them nasty democrats, I gues they organised the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour, and straight after it happened all those peace loving Republicans protested against taking any retaliatory action. Fuckmeroan.

I hate the way this discussion has degenerated into elephants vs donkeys. To outsiders your politics doesn't have a left - just a right and a centre right.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

MysteryMan that was a pretty pathetic post. I have no love for either side of US politics but if you are oblivious to the innacuracies and stupidities of what you quoted then I despair of you.

Specifically Kennedy did not 'get you into' the vietnam war, Eisenhower was the president who cited the domino effect in SE Asia and American soldiers died in Vietnam in the 1950s. Kennedy and LBJ certainly escalated your involvement, and I'd argue that Truman bares a lot of responsibility for it but lets try and stick to the facts.

As for the WWII stuff, I laughed my balls off. Them nasty democrats, I gues they organised the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour, and straight after it happened all those peace loving Republicans protested against taking any retaliatory action. ****.

I hate the way this discussion has degenerated into elephants vs donkeys. To outsiders your politics doesn't have a left - just a right and a centre right.

And you totally missed the point.
The Presidents listed were directly involved in the US getting into the wars I listed.
As for WW2,even if you want to say that our war with the Japanese was justified (and I do agree it was),then Roosevelt still bears the responsibility for all of the US troops killed in Europe.
After all,Germany didnt attack us.

TRuman was responsible for the US getting into Korea,and Wilson is totally responsible for US involvement in WW1.

The point I was trying to make is that for the left to call REpubs "warmongers" totally ignores the history of the dems and their involvement in starting wars or in getting the US into wars that werent our business.

Its a case of pot and kettle.

0 Replies

US detainees to get Geneva rights
All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.
The White House announced the shift in policy almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.

President Bush had long fought the idea that US detainees were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva Convention rights.

The Pentagon outlined the new standards to the military in a 7 July memo.

The directive says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

It is not really a reversal of policy - humane treatment has always been the standard
Tony Snow,
White House spokesman

The Bush administration has come under intense and sustained international criticism for its treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The military has been using the site to house hundreds of detainees, many believed to have been picked up off battlefields in Afghanistan.

When the detention centre was established in 2002, President Bush ordered that detainees be treated "humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva".

His spokesman Tony Snow said on Tuesday that the Pentagon directive did not represent a change: "It is not really a reversal of policy. Humane treatment has always been the standard."

Court steps in

At the end of June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Bush administration did not by itself have the authority to order that the detainees be tried by military commission.

COURT RULING
We conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

It said its decision was based on both US military law and the Geneva Conventions - asserting for the first time in US law that the detainees were entitled to Geneva protections.

But the Supreme Court left open the possibility that the detainees could be tried by military commission if Congress established an appropriate legal framework for doing so.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on the issue on Tuesday morning, just as news of the new military policy became public.

Daniel Dell'Orto, a defence department lawyer who was the first to testify, said there were about 1,000 detainees in US military custody around the world.

Guantanamo Bay holds an estimated 450. Mr Dell'Orto did not say where the others were being held.

The new Pentagon policy applies only to detainees being held by the military, and not to those in CIA custody, such as alleged mastermind of the 11 September attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The Geneva Conventions, which were passed in the wake of World War II, are meant to guarantee minimum standards of protection for non-combatants and former combatants in war.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm

0 Replies

snood wrote:

And your point Tico? That your drunk, draft-dodging, fratboy born with a silver spoon, business-sinking, franchise ruining, forked tongued lying us into war idiot president could play football better than Kerry?

"Draft-dodging"? Bush authorized a full disclosure of his military records, which Kerry has yet to do. What's Kerry hiding? And Bush got an honorable discharge. Where's Kerry's DD214?

I didn't really have a point. Kerry sure likes to play his football. And he's very consistent when he catches the ball. It's pretty amazing he's able to catch it at all while flinching with his eyes closed. I'm not sure his throwing motion is worthy of duplication, but his long-snapping form might be technically flawless.

0 Replies

True republicanism means less intrusion by our government, but guess what they're trying to do just before election time?

US moves to limit online gambling
The US House of Representatives has backed a bill which aims to rein in online gambling.
The bill aims to limit internet gaming by making it illegal for US-based banks and credit card firms to make payments to online gambling sites.

Estimates suggest the online gaming industry generates $12bn (£6.4bn) a year worldwide, half from US gamblers.

As yet it is unclear whether the US Senate will make the bill law ahead of elections in November.

'Politically motivated'
Critics have attacked the proposals as an "outrageous" measure, claiming it aims to stir up the more conservative sectors of society ahead of the elections - and so boost the Republican party's chances.

However, one of the bill's sponsors, Republican Bob Goodlatte, claimed the plans aimed to control a "scourge on society" which causes "innumerable problems".

My opinion:
If he want to stop the "scourge on society," he needs to terminate all gambling in the US.

The US plans have come under close scrutiny from some UK-listed sites such as Partygaming and 888 Holdings - owners of 888.com - amid concerns that earnings will suffer if the US government does clamp down on online gaming.

Gambling is illegal in many parts of the US, but internet gaming firms like 888 have millions of US customers, because they are based offshore in countries that allow gambling and are out of reach of US laws.

The bill would make it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits betting.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/5171034.stm

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that for the left to call REpubs "warmongers" totally ignores the history of the dems and their involvement in starting wars or in getting the US into wars that werent our business.

Hmmm. If you do a search on 'warmongering' 'warmonger' or 'warmongers' on A2K you will find that the only time that word has been used in this topic is in your post.

I reiterate that this discussion is about an article about a survey of American historians opinions about who is the worst president in US history. It ain't about frickin' dem donkeys and repub efelants and name-calling those tribal groups - there's plenty of that in every other forum.

I also reiterate that I don't deny democrat presidents led Americans into war - just that the stuff you quoted was innacurate, simplistic and twisted fact to aid a political barrow push.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:
I also reiterate that I don't deny democrat presidents led Americans into war - just that the stuff you quoted was innacurate, simplistic and twisted fact to aid a political barrow push.

mm et al are good at projecting their simplistic ideas about history, and how that supports their argument. Betcha dollars to donuts it continues adnauseam into future threads.

0 Replies

Lest they forget:

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

415 Historians on Bush II Presidency
The History News Network reports:
Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush's administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success.
(Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush's presidency is only the best since Clinton's and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history . . .

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know