Thomas, nice to see you back.

Even your worst detractors, in the end, said that they missed you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_...idential_errors

Hard to believe that Clinton letting Bin Laden go was not even considered.

If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. You'll have to repeat that one a few more times.

We missed OBL twice because the Justic Dept. run by Janet Reno was dealing with the terrorists as if they were criminals thereby the Justice dept. had to review the legal implications of first, hitting him with a Thomahawk missle and second, giving the go ahead to the Sudanese government to detain him till we arrived to take custody. OBL was able to walk off before anyone made a decision. Clinton's policy was flawed.

Thomas, nice to see you back.

Even your worst detractors, in the end, said that they missed you.

Thank you, Sir.

I suppose its a bit like how some people in this thread appear to miss Ronald Reagan.

Thomas, nice to see you back.

Even your worst detractors, in the end, said that they missed you.

Thank you, Sir.

I suppose its a bit like how some people in this thread appear to miss Ronald Reagan.

This Mideast mess would be a lot different if Ronnie was President...

Thomas, nice to see you back.

Even your worst detractors, in the end, said that they missed you.

Thank you, Sir.

I suppose its a bit like how some people in this thread appear to miss Ronald Reagan.

This Mideast mess would be a lot different if Ronnie was President...

This Mideast mess would be a lot different if TM was President too.

'Different' doesn't mean 'better'.

'Different' doesn't mean 'better'.

It doesn't looks as if it will get any 'better' in our lifetime...

... who brought down the Berlin Wall!

I thought that was Pope John-Paul II.

I thought it was a bunch of Germans with tools.

I could have sworn it wa Pink Floyd, maaaaannn!!! Peace out!

but anyway....

\Some comments from the audience....

Does anyone else notice the timing of this survey?

Bush is dodging flak left, right and center (pretty much the story of his entire second term to date) and now we have this lame survey saying that most every other president is bad.

The absence of W. Bush's name on this list screams volumes.

Sushi

Worst...President...(wait for it)

EVER.

The current resident of our house, the people's house, will go down in infamy as the most careless, most derelict of duty and the greatest enemy to our American Constitution since the ink on that great document dried.

"Jury's still out on that one"

When they reconvene, GWB will go down as the president with the fortitude to make the tough decisions

But, but, but the loony left says President Bush is soooooooo bad, and EVERYTHING is President Bush's fault.

The loony left bleats the President Nush lied about this and that, about Iraq, the WMD's, that he created Hurricane Katrina, ect.

But the fact remains that clinton made #10 on the list and President Bush is not mentioned at all.

The loony left are members of the reality challenged community for a reason.

There were 10 choices. Clinton's ranked 10th.

Bush/Iraq War was not offered as a choice... doh!

Gary Gregg - a University of Louisville political science professor, director of the McConnell Center and a Republican - acknowledged that some scholars might view the Iraq War as a mistake. But he said it's too early to judge the war with historical hindsight.

"It's just really not fair to rank it and put it into context with this when we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, the next day, what have you," Gregg said.

Bush will clearly reap all the rewards of such a top 10 in the future. Worse presidential blunders? hahahaha... Bush is the worst presidential blunder, period.

"When they reconvene, GWB will go down as the president with the fortitude to make the tough decisions."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!.... wow, you nearly made me spit up my lunch with that one! Must be tough to send thousands to their death for no reason, for sure. Must be tough to get health care, education, and what not for weapons (which will probably be given to future enemies). Bottom line, it must be tough for Bush to wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, let alone drive a country into the ground.

Hey, who cares what these scholars say, anyway? The only thing that counts is what the people say come election day.

Where have all are leaders gone....

Think of Dwight Eisenhower, who wrote a letter before D-Day accepting the blame if the landings failed. His modern equivalent would probably insist that the landings were a "catastrophic success," then try to lay the blame for their failure on the editorial page of The New York Times.

"But the fact remains that clinton made #10 on the list and President Bush is not mentioned at all."

Scholars are not going to include GWB while he's still in office and making decisions. While it's hard to see how he could botch it up worse,

they will give him the time before assessing his performance as president.

Bill Clinton's "lying under oath" is a black mark on his personal record to be sure, but didn't affect the country in the way, say, escalating the conflict in Vietnam did. Or sending troops into Iraq. Bush's May 2003 top gun "major combat operations are over" victory gig will come back to haunt him in the pages of history books. And we will be paying it off for years to come.

1)"Scholars who participated said Buchanan didn't do enough to oppose efforts by Southern states to secede from the Union before the Civil War"...but of course these pseudo-intellectuals don't offer any suggestions as to how he could've "opposed" Southern seccession.

The War Between the States was the most destructive conflict in American history, but that is what it took to permanently end legalized slavery in the U.S.

3) It's really unfair to blame Lyndon Johnson for a war that the Kennedy brothers started. And LBJ could've REALLY escallated the war by launching a full-scale invasion of North Vietnam and incurring the wrath of Red China.

8)Jack Kennedy's mistake was not providing air cover for the Bay of Pigs landing (which could've prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place).

6)War with Britain in 1812 is what it took to keep the Brits from boarding/confiscating US ships on the high seas and pressing the sailors into British service AND for them to finally recognize the sovereignty of the USA in deed as well as in name.

9)Reagan's weapons-for-hostages swap with the Iranians was a mistake, but you always fund anti-communist insurgencies (as with anti Nazi-insurgencies)[Oh yeah, I forgot- Bush is "worse than Hitler", so that would also include Abu al-Zarqawi]

Other interesting points of view can be fiound at

presidential blunders

Followed closely by Kennedy not supporting the Bay of Pigs...

Complete rubbish!

His biggest mistake was not cancelling the operation in the first place.

Kennedy inherited the invasion from the Eisenhower administration which was initiated by the CIA.

The aim of the invasion was regime change to install a person who was more sympathetic to US interests.

The CIA thought they could do a rerun of their successful 1954 operation to overthrow Guatemala's leftist leader, President Jacobo Arbenz.

Conditions in Cuba were not the same as in Guatamala.

There were only 1400 Cuban exiles involved in the invasion and the success of the operation relied upon a native uprising to overthrow Castro.

No way was this ever going to happen. Castro at the time was a truly popular leader. The man that he overthrew was Batista, a man who was hated and reviled by most of the population of Cuba.

I won't argue that Batista was a good guy but Castro was truely popular amongst who? He started his roundups immediately and their was the typical cleansing of those within his own group he felt would be a threat to him down the road. People learned to keep their mouths shut. Thousands fled their homeland. Had the guerrilas landed at the initially planned site they could have made their way into the mountains and waged a campaign just like Castro did.

A new chant is heard across Cuba: paredón, "to the wall," meaning death by firing squad.

By the end of the first year, only nine of the original 21 ministers of the revolutionary government remain.

Fidel Castro announces the creation of neighborhood committees to keep an eye on "enemies of the revolution." These eventually will become the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (C.D.R.). Under the direction of the Ministry of the Interior, the C.D.R. serve as surveillance agents, ferreting out dissidents, counterrevolutionaries, homosexuals. They will also carry out health and education campaigns and fuel revolutionary enthusiasm.

The Castro regime places dynamite under the cells in prisons, as a warning to any prisoner who might try to help Bay of Pigs combatants. Word spreads, so that no Cuban citizen with a family member in prison will aid the American invasion.

The timeline which includes many arrests here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/timeline/index.html

I won't argue that Batista was a good guy but Castro was truely popular amongst who?

Before the revolution, a handful of families owned and ran Cuba for their own benefit and personal gain. The sugar plantations were mainly American owned, as were the casinos and brothels (by the US mafia).

Most of the population was made up by landless peasants and cheap labour that was exploited by either the ruling families and/or the US owned plantations.

These were the people that supported the revolution.

There was no way that Castro and his relatively small army could have existed and won without the support of the general population.

I won't argue with you regarding the events after Castro gained power. It is well known that revolutions always eat their own children.

The revolution had broad support because there was a broad number of factions pushing for it. Some revolutionaries never came in from the countryside after the overthrow of Batista. They continued fighting for what they wanted out of the change. Castro eventually consolidated power. It wasn't Castro's revolution. He ended up at the top of the pile alive.

1977: Jimmy Carter hands over control of the Panama Canal to Panama mainly because they asked for it.

1977: Jimmy Carter hands over control of the Panama Canal to Panama mainly because they asked for it.

What a poof!

1968: The Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for North Vietnamese forces but was incorrectly portrayed as a huge victory for them by the American media. This was a key event in destroying the American public's support for the war.

The error here is President Johnson listening to the Walter Cronkites and Jane Fonda types.

The Left-Wing Lamestream Media...

1968: The Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for North Vietnamese forces but was incorrectly portrayed as a huge victory for them by the American media. This was a key event in destroying the American public's support for the war.

The error here is President Johnson listening to the Walter Cronkites and Jane Fonda types.

The Left-Wing Lamestream Media...

Yes, it was a military defeat, but, it demonstrated that the North Vietnamese could attack any place at any time which wasn't consistent with what the American public had been told. They were under the impression that the NV was on the run.

I doubt very much whether LBJ would ever use Jane Fonda as an adviser.

I guess you will also trot out that old chestnut on how "America could have won the war but was betrayed by the politicians".

1968: The Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for North Vietnamese forces but was incorrectly portrayed as a huge victory for them by the American media. This was a key event in destroying the American public's support for the war.

This is a fact, Jack!

I guess you will also trot out that old chestnut on how "America could have won the war but was betrayed by the politicians".

Don't forget the media and the trendy left-wingers!

1968: The Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for North Vietnamese forces but was incorrectly portrayed as a huge victory for them by the American media. This was a key event in destroying the American public's support for the war.

This is a fact, Jack!

You're right, it did destroy public support for the war. It showed that the public had been lied to.

I guess you will also trot out that old chestnut on how "America could have won the war but was betrayed by the politicians".

And, what's commonly referred to as Realpolitik.

...not to mention the Chinese factor...

I guess you will also trot out that old chestnut on how "America could have won the war but was betrayed by the politicians".

And, what's commonly referred to as Realpolitik.

...not to mention the Chinese factor...

What was the Chinese factor?

I guess you will also trot out that old chestnut on how "America could have won the war but was betrayed by the politicians".

And, what's commonly referred to as Realpolitik.

...not to mention the Chinese factor...

What was the Chinese factor?

Vietnam could have gone the same way Korea went.

China was the main supplier of arms to the NVA and things got very hot when Nixon mined Haiphong Harbor Christmas of '79?

1975: After the Democrats in Congress cut off aid and promised air support, South Vietnam was doomed. When Saigon actually fell, that symbolized what a disaster the Vietnam War turned out to be.

Noam Chomsky supported the Vietnam war and claims that the USA actually won by destroying Vietnam economically so that no more dominos would fall!

The problem is that you had no buisness being over there in the first place.

The problem is that you had no buisness being over there in the first place.

Many of the citizens of what was South Vietnam would disagree with you.

This is the picture that helped rob public support for the war in Vietnam.

The evidence of dropping nalpalm on children was deeply abhorrent to the public at large.

Betrayed by the media? If you call exposing the truth betrayal.

The problem is that you had no buisness being over there in the first place.

And to think they could have capitalized on that and learn from their mistake, but no they had to do it again with Iraq

Iraq the new Vietnam

The problem is that you had no buisness being over there in the first place.

Many of the citizens of what was South Vietnam would disagree with you.

Point being?

No, wait, your trying to say that you went into 'Nam to help the 'people'?

This is the picture that helped rob public support for the war in Vietnam.

The evidence of dropping nalpalm on children was deeply abhorrent to the public at large.

Betrayed by the media? If you call exposing the truth betrayal.

Truth is the Neo-Con worst ennemy

A good Neo-Con must ignore the Truth and must be a "loyal" follower, even if it means to "betray" his country, his fellow citizens or his Constitution

The problem is that you had no buisness being over there in the first place.

Many of the citizens of what was South Vietnam would disagree with you.

Point being?

That many of the people who lived there wanted us there.

Truth is the Neo-Con worst ennemy

A good Neo-Con must ignore the Truth and must be a "loyal" follower, even if it means to "betray" his country, his fellow citizens or his Constitution

The world according to Butterfly.

I guess that those last few "marbles" are going fast!

Well, the US bought the business interests of the French, who were leaving because they could see what was coming...

That's why they were there, to protect the investment they made, and to stop 'evil' communism from spreading.

The naive Yankee-doodle at his best! :D

Btw, the US still haven't signed any agreement to ban Napalm-like substances, and used such in their Iraq war-fare.

An adorable fashion to spread American style freedom and democracy.

And what's the result? Those who survived the invasion want an Islamic theocracy!

Well done!