Worst president in history? The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. It certainly puts 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 U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We 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. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average 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.

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

Auther Unknown, From an email

In the part where you say "......They never attacked us" after N. Korea, Germany, etc. couldn't you add Iraq to that list?

So it would read:

2003 Bush started a war with Iraq. They never attacked us.

Don't really have a very strong opinion on this one and I'm just playing devils advocate.
Just a small point.

and I'm with Keith I quite like the political threads also.

Being British, if the IRA bombed a British target would starting a war against Ireland be justified? I'm not saying that Iraq was not a threat to the US but that they did not declare war on you. They simply expressed their displeasure at you being in what they considered to be their airspace.

Again, I don't neccesarily agree with their right to return fire I'm just asking a question.

I think it's a bit one sided to patrol an area which one country believes it controls and then to get angry when that country returns fire.

I don't know how often I have to repeat that I'm not ont the side of terrorists, I'm simply trying to argue the other side.

If the Irish government, supported, trained, taught and financed the IRA then yes britain would be justified in bombing the hell out of them.

It would be an act of war just without using normal military means.

If Hamas does attack the U.S. as they have said on occasion that they will. Then IMO we can attack syria who supports, funds, trains, and lets these people have legitimacy within their country.

It would be wrong to bomb france because the shoe bomber came from there. Now, if the French gov't trained, funded and supplied him that would be different.

Actions now are to stop new gov't this would show some form of success.

Are they stupid YES, just blew up a school bus of Iraqi children, their really showing us!

the fact is we keep calling it a war on terrorism....that's not what they call it.

they call it jihad.....

-in the 80's we supported some who were fightin communism cold war etc.. that ended now they are fighting us, not our fault. Never understood that line of argument It would have been better if russia took over afghanistan? could be but in the 80's I can see why we sent weapons to help stop it.

Also, we didn't train anyone to fly into buildings etc.. we trained an afghan resistance army.

We were friends with germany before world war I and II. Those wars, not our fault.

G-man, Don't hold those punches let them fly! Look I agree we are in a huge war that encompasses a lot of people countries areas and very dangerous weapons, we are under more of a nuclear threat now than during the cold war.

I think we will be at war for quite a while and anywhere terrorists train needs to be obliviated! I think the Iraq war is necessary! I also think there are a few more necessary ones coming! Some will disagree with going to war, or with who, or why them first. Why Iraq, look at north korea etc. N. Korea is on my list too. All countries and mr. Blix wondered what happened to the old WMD's we still don't know and Blix says that himself. Sadam says destroyed, well, now were checking for him since he didn't provide proof.

This war will aid the war on terrorism although sadam didn't like religous extremist he did have terrorist training grounds in the north all these terrorist groups are linked in their cooperation and hatred for western civilization.

These groups should never again be allowed to train or plan anywhere, not all countries agree and those are the first on my list.

Want money for fuel cells, look at welfare reform. Instead of giving money away to thieves make sure it goes to the right people. In my line of work I have met THOUSANDS who rob this system and laugh, they teach their kids the same. Its brutal. It is a needed program but the waste in one state is unbelievable.

90% of the work has always been done by 10% of the people.....

Answer. Pose the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or Oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing!

I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer:

Great thread Bob.

Hey Bob, on your original post it said how Bush isn't the worst, and gave examples of past presidents who started bigger wars.

No offense to all you Americans, but I think the problem is America, not it's presidents.