Who Were the Best Presidents in the Last 60 or So Years?

[Liam]

We don't win in Iraq. The Iraqis do. The US already has acheived most of their objectives there so they have won which only leaves the win for the Iraqi people at stake. Support of the government they themselves have chosen is what needs to be maintained until it can stand on it's own.

Playing Devil's Advocate: so if we achieved most of our objectives and have already won, woud you agree that most of the US troops in Iraq should be redeployed?

I think you're painting an overly rosey picture of the situation in Iraq. In some (many?) areas of the country, people don't even have basic services and family members go missing at the hands of militias and extremists. I think cases where one teacher goes missing to be replaced by another brave soul are very few and very, very far between.

[KrustyKidd]

Playing Devil's Advocate: so if we achieved most of our objectives and have already won, woud you agree that most of the US troops in Iraq should be redeployed?

Sure. If you didn't care about the Iraqi people it would make sense to me. However, if Iraq can grow into what was first envisioned (that being a democratic and thrieving oil based market economy) then the War on terror can probably be scaled down to a beefed up police action within a decade or two.

I think you're painting an overly rosey picture of the situation in Iraq. In some (many?) areas of the country, people don't even have basic services and family members go missing at the hands of militias and extremists. I think cases where one teacher goes missing to be replaced by another brave soul are very few and very, very far between.

And politicians the same? They also endure similar hardships yet the positions are filled as are police, military etc.

I brought this over from another thread, you will recognize the quote as yours.

YOU and your kind are the enemies of western thought which values individualism, the ability to be free in one's mind and in one's thoughts, the freedom to speak out (and, yes, even be wrong, but free to speak all the same), the freedom to disagree with one's government and the freedom to voice opinions that are unpopular. I am fully confident that *I* am a defender of western ideology.

This freedom you speak of. is it a valuable thing? I mean, is it worth a life or many lives? Do you think that only we in the west understand it and reach for it or can others participate in it as well? Further, when it is tough, should the Iraqis just roll over and let whomever rule them? Should we not support their freedom or, just say 'sorry, freedom for you is too high a price for us' and pull out because Bush didn't handle certain parts as well as hindsight has shown us? Lastly, how should Bush have run this campaign that would have pleased you?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

I agree with Liam's sentiment...

I think you're painting an overly rosey picture of the situation in Iraq.

Iraq is a 24 carat clusterf*ck. IMHO, the first (and biggest) mistake the US made was not declaring war on Iraq. In keeping with the point of this thread, Bush Jr. is way down on the list for how he handled this one. His 'State of the Union address' won big points for him (I was very impressed, until he said "You are either with us or against us"), but he squandered his and the US' international support by a very foolish action, the full ramifications of which have yet to be seen.

(Oh, by the way, I remember a very similar thread on your website, a very interesting topic. I'd go with Roosevelt.)

[PolyNewbie]

FDR was the last one that wasn't a globalist. Kennedy wanted to print gov issue money which is why he was killed IMO so he deserves points.

USA has been sold out to the globalists since Truman.

[Liam]

I brought this over from another thread, you will recognize the quote as yours.

YOU and your kind are the enemies of western thought which values individualism, the ability to be free in one's mind and in one's thoughts, the freedom to speak out (and, yes, even be wrong, but free to speak all the same), the freedom to disagree with one's government and the freedom to voice opinions that are unpopular. I am fully confident that *I* am a defender of western ideology.

This freedom you speak of. is it a valuable thing? I mean, is it worth a life or many lives? Do you think that only we in the west understand it and reach for it or can others participate in it as well? Further, when it is tough, should the Iraqis just roll over and let whomever rule them? Should we not support their freedom or, just say 'sorry, freedom for you is too high a price for us' and pull out because Bush didn't handle certain parts as well as hindsight has shown us? Lastly, how should Bush have run this campaign that would have pleased you?

Yep, I said that and I stand by it.

Freedom is, indeed, a valuable thing. Furthermore, freedom is also an incredibly fragile thing because its continuance requires the dedication of those with power to not exceed their bounds and preserve institutions for the benefit of future generations.

The problem, though, is that the ideal conditions for freedom to take root is where it grows organically within a people. I am not so sure it could be grafted onto a country like Iraq under the current conditions of "post-war" Iraq. Western-style democracy worked in Japan after WW2 because the nation was entirely demoralized, its government was bankrupt and the US military completely overwhelmed the nation of Japan. Furthermore, post-war Japan didn't suffer from internal strife (or religious and ethnic division) like Iraq does today.

Yes, freedom is valuable but it is also fragile. I'm not sure the Iraq of today is a very suitable candidate, sadly, and a major reason for that is that we failed to create conditions where freedom could take root.

How would Bush have kept my support? First, he should have committed 500,000 soldiers to the war. We should have flooded the country with troops after Saddam fell. Doing so would have kept order. No post-war rebuilding can take place when there is no security. Second, he should not have disbanded either the standing Iraqi military nor the Iraqi civil service. I think that had he done those two things, Iraq would been a vastly different country today, and perhaps one moving more and more toward the free country we all wish it could be.

[crazymf]

"Well, then it's time to break from politics and just go in and kill them all. Reset....

Ask each and every Iraqi: Are you with us or against us? Wrong answer? Pop."

Whoops, sorry about this comment. I don't really feel this is a serious comment to be debated. However, after a couple sasparillas on a Saturday night, it sounded good to me.

[KrustyKidd]

How would Bush have kept my support? First, he should have committed 500,000 soldiers to the war. We should have flooded the country with troops after Saddam fell. Doing so would have kept order. No post-war rebuilding can take place when there is no security. Second, he should not have disbanded either the standing Iraqi military nor the Iraqi civil service. I think that had he done those two things, Iraq would been a vastly different country today, and perhaps one moving more and more toward the free country we all wish it could be.

I totally agree with the troop number scenario in hindsight. However, intelligence estimates and advice from experts precluded otherwise. Rumsfeld initially wished to do it (upon consultation with his military subordinates) with one fifty and Powell stomped and ranted for three and a half. Two and a half was a compromise, a 'Desert Storm Lite' type of thing which was designed to provide secrecy in the initial runup to invasion (well prior to 1441) as units were separated in the states with part of them being sent to Kuwait to begin a gradual and unnoticed buildup. Bush should still get your support as he had these two experienced staffers advising him. If not for a former four star general and a multi termed secretary of defence, where else should he get his briefings and alternatives from?

Your second item about the disbanding of the Iraqi military and administrative powers is also a two edged point in that, to keep it intact was to keep the regime in power with only the head removed. It would also change nothing in day to day Iraq as the corruption and power centers within the population would effectively remain the same inspiring nothing as to democracy comming to the people. However, I would be interested how you would have gotten around this particular problem.

Myself, I have often thought of the possibility of simply bringing Saddam to the precipice and then offering him a 'do or die' ultimatum with an actual option other than "leave Iraq within 48 hours" such as fulfil the outstanding ceasefire demands including himan rights reforms, repatriation of foreign nationals, come clean with WMD issues and the ecolology and relinquish the Kuwaiti border issue. Then possibly do something like have free elections with himself as a sort of quasi 'Monarch' or figurehead of sorts and allow US bases to be placed on Iraqi territory for whatever perpetuality. Might have worked but, would not have shown US resolve and determination to people who seem to respect that sort of thing.

Whoops, sorry about this comment. I don't really feel this is a serious comment to be debated. However, after a couple sasparillas on a Saturday night, it sounded good to me.

No appology necessary. Only an idiot would think you were serious.

[jdobbin]

I totally agree with the troop number scenario in hindsight. However, intelligence estimates and advice from experts precluded otherwise. Rumsfeld initially wished to do it (upon consultation with his military subordinates) with one fifty and Powell stomped and ranted for three and a half. Two and a half was a compromise, a 'Desert Storm Lite' type of thing which was designed to provide secrecy in the initial runup to invasion (well prior to 1441) as units were separated in the states with part of them being sent to Kuwait to begin a gradual and unnoticed buildup. Bush should still get your support as he had these two experienced staffers advising him. If not for a former four star general and a multi termed secretary of defence, where else should he get his briefings and alternatives from?

Given the growing sectarian violence in Iraq, would even 500,000 troops be able to provide security in the country now? I doubt it. And there is no political will to make that type of commitment. It would draw upon resources that would basically strain the entire U.S. both economically and militarily.

[KrustyKidd]

Given the growing sectarian violence in Iraq, would even 500,000 troops be able to provide security in the country now? I doubt it. And there is no political will to make that type of commitment. It would draw upon resources that would basically strain the entire U.S. both economically and militarily.

We were not talking about 'now' rather what it would have taken upon invasion to lay down law and complience so the US and the provisinal Iraqi government could ferment order. 'Now' it is dependent upon the Iraqis themselves who are handicapped with more disorder than origionally expected. This calls for morre commitment on their part as there will be no massive US troop aid comming.

A side note to your post thought. If the US had sent five hundred thousand troops they certainly would have provided simply more targets to shoot at in the initial period of the occupation when the Iraqi government was being organized. Would you have gone along with a press supression and a curfew as well or would you have called that a violation of people's basic human rights? Would you have said 'right on' if the US had simply stormed into Sadr City to arrest Al Sadr after he cut off his rival cleric's head and allowed him to print his anti US and Iraqi government newspaper or would you allow him to ferment disorder?

[jdobbin]

We were not talking about 'now' rather what it would have taken upon invasion to lay down law and complience so the US and the provisinal Iraqi government could ferment order. 'Now' it is dependent upon the Iraqis themselves who are handicapped with more disorder than origionally expected. This calls for morre commitment on their part as there will be no massive US troop aid comming.

A side note to your post thought. If the US had sent five hundred thousand troops they certainly would have provided simply more targets to shoot at in the initial period of the occupation when the Iraqi government was being organized. Would you have gone along with a press supression and a curfew as well or would you have called that a violation of people's basic human rights? Would you have said 'right on' if the US had simply stormed into Sadr City to arrest Al Sadr after he cut off his rival cleric's head and allowed him to print his anti US and Iraqi government newspaper or would you allow him to ferment disorder?

I would not have sent troops in the first place. I was one of the people who actually believed George Bush Senior that the country would require an extremely large troop commitment and that the peace would even be more difficult to win. It didn't seem to be worth it when the solution was probably to tighten the embargo and no-fly zones and to get U.N. people on the ground.

The Iraqi government cannot fight the forces that are tearing them apart now. It is a fire that will have to burn itself out.

[KrustyKidd]

I would not have sent troops in the first place. I was one of the people who actually believed George Bush Senior that the country would require an extremely large troop commitment and that the peace would even be more difficult to win. It didn't seem to be worth it when the solution was probably to tighten the embargo and no-fly zones and to get U.N. people on the ground. The Iraqi government cannot fight the forces that are tearing them apart now. It is a fire that will have to burn itself out.

Ok, marking you down as 'never thought invasion should have happened' and count you out of the post invasion discussion we are having then.

[Leafless]

I think all American presidents have done a wonderful job in establishing the U.S. as a super power and leader of the civilized world.

Of course saying this shames countries like Canada who are still stuck back in the middle ages trying to determine who we are culturally and who is currently and illogically giving the country away culturally.

The most important president to date though in my opinion is George W. Bush who must deal with the tremendous responsibility of maintaining a free world and at the same time preserve U.S. interest and western ideologies.

This president is now hampered by illogical Democrats who will I predict, worsen this situation and as a result could be forced to take drastic preventive measures that could come to late resulting in a totally unmanageable situation.

[jdobbin]

Ok, marking you down as 'never thought invasion should have happened' and count you out of the post invasion discussion we are having then.

In the United States the people who expressed grave misgivings or doubt about the invasion are the ones the President are turning to for possible solutions. James Baker anyone?

[jdobbin]

Of course saying this shames countries like Canada who are still stuck back in the middle ages trying to determine who we are culturally and who is currently and illogically giving the country away culturally.

Is there any reason that you hate Canada so much?

[KrustyKidd]

James Baker anyone?

You and I talked about him and his proposals. You thought he is out to lunch and his solutions are nill. Hence, guess you are still out of the post invasion discussion.

[jdobbin]

You and I talked about him and his proposals. You thought he is out to lunch and his solutions are nill. Hence, guess you are still out of the post invasion discussion.

I never said his proposals were out to lunch. Please show me where I said that?

If I recall, I said we'll have to see what he proposes. I said that timetables/benchmarks wouldn't work if all they do is pressure Iraq to do what it has shown it can't . I have no idea if that is what James Baker's proposal is because he hasn't stated what it is.

[KrustyKidd]

Is there any reason that you hate Canada so much?

I don't think he hates Canada but rather recognizes that the US has made their culture a strong singular entity and asks the immigrants to adapt while here in Canada, we change our society to fit immigrants demands.

The most important president to date though in my opinion is George W. Bush who must deal with the tremendous responsibility of maintaining a free world and at the same time preserve U.S. interest and western ideologies.

It is a very unpopular war he is waging against a political and idealogical enemy who has unwilling accomplices in the west.

This president is now hampered by illogical Democrats who will I predict, worsen this situation and as a result could be forced to take drastic preventive measures that could come to late resulting in a totally unmanageable situation.

Speak of the devil.

[jdobbin]

I don't think he hates Canada but rather recognizes that the US has made their culture a strong singular entity and asks the immigrants to adapt while here in Canada, we change our society to fit immigrants demands.

He has called people in Canada who disagree with him traitors and in league with terrorists.

I have never heard him say anything about what he loves about Canada.

As far as immigrants go, I've hard every anti-immigrant argument there is. What country did you come from? And I don't mean that remark to criticize your heritage. But did your family settle in or did they attend their own church or synagogue and not mix with the Irish, the Catholics, the gentiles, the Jews or whatever?

On the whole, there is a far better tolerance now than there was back then.

[KrustyKidd]

I never said his proposals were out to lunch. Please show me where I said that?

If I recall, I said we'll have to see what he proposes. I said that timetables/benchmarks wouldn't work if all they do is pressure Iraq to do what it has shown it can't . I have no idea if that is what James Baker's proposal is because he hasn't stated what it is.

It is widely circulated that he will be reccomending the benchmarks we spoke of as his function is thought to be setting the US up for a withdrawl.

[jdobbin]

It is widely circulated that he will be reccomending the benchmarks we spoke of as his function is thought to be setting the US up for a withdrawl.

And just today they said on most of the Sunday morning talk shows that they didn't know what James Baker would propose.

[KrustyKidd]

And just today they said on most of the Sunday morning talk shows that they didn't know what James Baker would propose.

You should talk to 'Ol Uncle Krusty when you're not sure on the rumor mill skinny.

But, the president added, "There is a significant difference between benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal."

Newspaper reports in early October based on leaks from unnamed persons supposedly affiliated with the panel suggest that the Iraq Study Group recommendations will include plans for a phased withdrawal and redeployment of U.S troops, and engagement of Iran and Syria to help stabilize the country.

Some background

But members of the group, which includes four panels of experts, say they strongly doubt whether either Mr Khalilzad or Mr Baker were speaking without the permission of the White House.

"Mr Baker has been an utterly loyal servant of the Bush family for 30 years and it is inconceivable that at this stage in his career he's decided to freelance," said one member.

Lots of trial balloons going on with Bush uttering 'benchmarks' and Baker unlikely to back stab them so, I say the focus will be on benchmarks rather than the Iran and Syria talks.

[jdobbin]

And just today they said on most of the Sunday morning talk shows that they didn't know what James Baker would propose.

You should talk to 'Ol Uncle Krusty when you're not sure on the rumor mill skinny.

But, the president added, "There is a significant difference between benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal."

I posted this very link the day it came out.

I also said that James Baker hadn't said anything about what he was going to put in the report. That hasn't changed.

Bush mentioned benchmarks and withdrawal because he was scrambling in the days before the election. Baker wouldn't bite though.

[KrustyKidd]

I posted this very link the day it came out.

I also said that James Baker hadn't said anything about what he was going to put in the report. That hasn't changed.

Bush mentioned benchmarks and withdrawal because he was scrambling in the days before the election. Baker wouldn't bite though.

You are correct sir, and I was mistaken.

However, read between the lines here. Bush is giving Baker legitimacy but need not heed his advice, Bush going on about benchmarks, Baker's team leaking information about talks with Tehran and timetables. It's all trial balloons to best judge which one to run with once the ball goes into play. I doubt it is going to focus on something the President is not going to go with such as a simple timetable to pull out, nor is he going to allow US strategy to be dependent on what the Iranians feel like on any given day which leaves benchmarks. Baker doesn't leak that one as he wants to make sure he comes off as impartial.

[jdobbin]

You are correct sir. However, read between the lines here. Bush is giving Baker legitimacy but need not heed his advice, Bush going on about benchmarks, Baker's team leaking information about talks with Tehran and timetables. It's all trial balloons to best judge which one to run with once the ball goes into play. I doubt it is going to focus on something the President is not going to go with such as a simple timetable to pull out, nor is he going to allow US strategy to be dependent on what the Iranians feel like on any given day which leaves benchmarks. Baker doesn't leak that one as he wants to make sure he comes off as impartial.

I suppose we'll see when it comes out. Baker is too much the pro to give away his hand.

The one thing that I liked about George Bush's Senior's team of foreign policy people was that they were cautious. They were also diplomatic and gentlemen (there were few ladies at the table then). If anyone can propose something that Bush and Congress might be able to work with, it might be Baker. I just have no idea what that will be. And in the end, Iraq may still be spoiling for a fight with itself. The best thing might be to declare victory, tell the Iraqis to prepare for a province by province withdrawal and hope the Iraqis step into the void.

[KrustyKidd]

If anyone can propose something that Bush and Congress might be able to work with, it might be Baker. I just have no idea what that will be. And in the end, Iraq may still be spoiling for a fight with itself.

I don't believe that Baker is working with an independent agenda. I thnk he is performing with a predetermined outcome, in cahoots with the Administration. Simply manipulating public opinion and the Iraqis government themselves.

The best thing might be to declare victory, tell the Iraqis to prepare for a province by province withdrawal and hope the Iraqis step into the void.[/

I believe that with Baker's endorsement of Bush's plan, with a few 'origional' caveats, the Iraqis will find themselves under a lot of pressure to perform in the near future. And ...... voila! The Administration will be working with Baker's 'origional' plan and, as you say, be able to 'declare victory' as the Iraqis meet benchmark after benchmark with 'A' grades.