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

[Argus]

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.

It is MUCH easier to stop violence before it really gets started then to put a stop to tit-for-tat revenge killings.

The Pentagon war gamed Iraq out and they thought they needed a bare minimum of 400,000 troops to hold the country, and even then it would be rough. Rumsfeld convinced Bush it could be done for less than half that, firing a good many senior generals who disagreed. Bush has to take the blame for believing Rumsfeld rather than the professionals.

If they'd gone in with halfa million, and had enough troops to put out strong patrols through the cities at the instant of surrender, there'd have been no huge looting spree, industries wouldn't have collapsed, and the streets wouldn't have been filled with unemployed, angry men with nothing to do and no way to feed their families.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

If they'd gone in with halfa million, and had enough troops to put out strong patrols through the cities at the instant of surrender, there'd have been no huge looting spree, industries wouldn't have collapsed, and the streets wouldn't have been filled with unemployed, angry men with nothing to do and no way to feed their families

I agree, and (since I believe there should have been an onus on the US to 'declare war', and further, it would have simplified things a great deal) had the US declared war, they could have realistically instituted 'Martial Law', curfews etc that would have greatly reduced the post-conflict violence. They could have also delivered an 'unconditional surrender clause', where hostilities would resume nationwide should the clause(es) be breached.

However, I wouldn't lay the entire blame for the lack of troops at Rumsfeld's feet, because they were trying to low-ball the cost figure to get congressional approval in the first place. 4-500,000 troops (with today's modern army, that also means a huge amount of support staff) would mean over a million Americans going into Iraq, and though it likely would have been best, it was also unlikely to be approved.

[Liam]

However, I wouldn't lay the entire blame for the lack of troops at Rumsfeld's feet, because they were trying to low-ball the cost figure to get congressional approval in the first place. 4-500,000 troops (with today's modern army, that also means a huge amount of support staff) would mean over a million Americans going into Iraq, and though it likely would have been best, it was also unlikely to be approved.

I think Rumsfeld's/Bush's decision to go in with 150,000 was mainly driven by their wish to reach Baghdad quickly and overwhelm the world (shock and awe) with TV footage of soldiers walking through Saddam's palaces within a week or two.

Perhaps budget and congressional approval were considerations, but Congress and Bush have never questioned one another's spending habits.

In the end, I would argue that losing the war after keeping 150,000 soldiers in Iraq for four years will prove to be much more costly than winning the war after having 500,000 in there for three years.

[Shady]

Worst: Truman

Why is Truman the worst? I don't get it.

I thought Jimmy Carter was a putz

Absolutely. Jimmy Carter was a putz, and a terrible Preisdent. I believe the misery index was created during his term in office. What an honor huh?

I suspect the future will make us look back and say he was right about a lot of things

I agree. He's the Winston Churchill of our time.

Lyndon Johnson deserves a lot of credit

Why? If George Bush is considered the worst President in history by some people because of Iraq, why on earth should Lyndon Johnson be given credit? For what? 50,000+ U.S. casualties? Millions of vietnamese casualties?

Ok, there's way too many posts to respond to, I guess I was late getting to this thread. I meant to vote for Reagan but accidentally voted for W. Damn Diebold! IMO, Reagan was clearly the best President of the last 60, followed by FDR.

[PolyNewbie]

You could argue that GW Bush was best. He was arrogant enough to expose the whole establishment through stupidity & arrogance.

Now we know the truth about things because people have woken up.

David Rockefeller and the other private bankers will not be able to run things forever. Its woken people up to monetary reform and what electronic voting machines can be made to do.

[America1]

I think the US isn't ready for a Black president, particularly one with only 1 term under his belt.

I don't like Hillary Clinton. She seems to lack humanity.

McCain should get the Republican nomination but probably won't.

As for the best presidents of the last 60 years - why 60? - they are all flawed, but Roosevelt is clearly the man who faced the most critical time period and saw the US through brilliantly.

It is too early for me to think about presidential candidates until they get on the campaign trail. I mean Howard Dean seemed to be thoughtful and intelligent when he appeared on the series The Editors. On the campaign trail, people thought he was a little hotheaded. He was a good fund raiser though.

I voted for Roosevelt as best U.S. President of the modern era.

After that, I'd say Clinton and Reagan followed by Truman and Eisenhower.

The rest had such flaws and problems that I don't that you can could call them the best.

What did Clinton do that even makes him close to the best?

[Argus]

Ok, there's way too many posts to respond to, I guess I was late getting to this thread. I meant to vote for Reagan but accidentally voted for W. Damn Diebold! IMO, Reagan was clearly the best President of the last 60, followed by FDR.

Reagan wasn't anywhere near the best president. He accomplished very little, and what he did accomplish was almost by accident.

FDR dealt with extremely difficult times and sailed his ship of state very smoothly through them. He faced the greatest of all challenges and did his job well. Liam was correct in pointing out that Truman faced a very complex shift from war to peace, requiring he help rebuild Europe, oppose the expanding Soviets, and keep the US economy from tanking as it did after the first world war. he did a tremendous job. Reagan faced no such great hurdles. As for the idea that Bush or Clinton were the greatest - phhtttt. Slap yourselves in the face whoever voted for them.