W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
The surprise is that none of them involve Bush:
PF
- Status
T
Toni
Guest
After recently taking a History course I would say they hit the nail on the head. Although I think Clinton escaped easily with just the Monika Lewisnsky affair. (for some reason the historians never looked into all the murders around him and Hillary)
G
gilliam
Guest
I don’t know how they can say Reagan made an error with Iran-Contra when he didn’t even know it was happening until after the fact. 
J
Jay74
Guest
Just to be fair, I’ll acknowledge I don’t like President Clinton. I don’t, however, think that Clinton’s Lewinsky affair should make the list. Far worse, in my mind, was his failure to take custody of bin Laden when he had the chance. Even worse than that was sitting on his hands and doing absolutely nothing while he knew that hundreds of thousands of blacks were being slaughtered in Rwanda.
Clinton’s affair was bad, but it was hardly a catastrophic event.
Clinton’s affair was bad, but it was hardly a catastrophic event.
M
mlchance
Guest
It wasn’t about an affair. It was about perjury to a grand jury in an effort to obstruct justice and in the process deny someone her civil rights.
Now maybe that merits the top ten. Maybe it doesn’t. But let’s not obscure the fact that Mr. Clinton committed a felony in order to cover up further wrongdoing.
Of course, Mr. Clinton did so much wrong as president, one could argue that his perjury and subsequent impeachment should take a back seat to other issues.
For me, I’m not sure why Mr. Carter’s bungling around the Iran hostage crisis isn’t on the list.
– Mark L. Chance.
J
Jay74
Guest
That’s pretty much my point. My opinion of Clinton couldn’t be much lower. But the Lewinsky fiasco was far less devastating than turning down bin Laden 3 times, and far less of an issue than “the first black president” famously doing zilch while hundreds of thousands of blacks were slaughtered in Rwanda.
M
MikeWM
Guest
And do what with him? Clinton has said that the reason he didn’t is that there is nothing he could have done with him, and as far as I know, that is correct. Maybe someone can tell me : under which criminal law could Bin Laden have been charged and convicted in a court of law in the USA at the time, given the evidence we had at that time?
Mikr
J
Jay74
Guest
As far as I know, bin Laden had already been indicted for terrorist attacks against the USA.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I may be wrong, but I don’t think you’re right. As far as I understand it, Bin Laden was offered in 1996. At that time, the only thing that could be linked to Bin Laden was the 1993 WTC bombing, and at that time there wasn’t enough evidence linking him to it to come anywhere near what would be needed to secure a conviction in a criminal trial.
Mike
J
Jay74
Guest
Frankly, I’m not totally sure of the timeline. But I doubt that bin Laden was offered without good reason.
In getting back to the original topic, since this was pre-9/11, and no one had a clue about what was to come, I think the failure to help with Rwanda was a much larger error than not accepting bin Laden. In retrospect, maybe bin Laden would have been a bigger issue, but you can’t fairly judge someone’s actions then based on what we know now–it can only fairly be judged based on what they knew then.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
As I recall, Ollie North described Ben Laden to Senator Gore as the most dangerous man alive during the Reagan administration. However, Senator Gore was more interested in digging up dirt on Reagan.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Well, I’m interested. People keep on saying that Clinton should have taken Bin Laden without giving an iota of evidence against Clinton’s argument why he couldn’t. If people keep on wanting to say that Clinton should have taken Bin Laden, they should point to the law under which he could have been convicted in a criminal court of law at that time.
Mike
D
Della
Guest
Historians have their perspective and God has his. When we all stand before the Judgment Seat, our presidents, senators, legislators, and judges will have to tell God why we allowed abortion on demand, which has killed more Americans than all the wars we ever engaged in throughout our history and then some. That’s what I think will be important to “history” then.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Philip P said:
Thanks. Knew I should have checked that, but it was a busy day.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
God forgive us, I think that you have absolutely called it, Della.
J
Jay74
Guest
Perhaps. I can’t hardly believe they would offer him if there was not ample evidence. Doesn’t much matter now.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
An interesting list . . .The surprise is that none of them involve BushF
I believe that I would have added Andrew Jackson’s forced re-location of the American Indian.
I don’t believe that I would have put Wilson on the list. Seems to me that France and Great Britain bore a larger share of responsibility for the Treaty than did Wilson.
Blessings,
P
Philip_P
Guest
Joe Kelley:
No worriesThanks. Knew I should have checked that, but it was a busy day.
D
didymus
Guest
There are some big problems with this list.
“So who had the worst blunder? President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.”
I yield to no one inmy cntempt for James Buchanan but exactly HOW was he supposed to “avert the Civil War”? Once Lincoln won the election of 1860 the traitors were determined to secede and nothing but Divine intervention could have stopped them.
“The second worst mistake, the survey found, was Andrew Johnson’s decision just after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery.”
All true but the professors are imposing their values retroactively. I’m sure Andrew Johnson saw himself as following Lincoln’s policy of reconciliation and keeping faith with Lincoln’s oft-repeated statemnts that the CW was being fought to preserve the Union.
“Lyndon Johnson earned the No. 3 spot by allowing the Vietnam War to intensify, Gregg said.”
And if he had not, then he would have made the list as the Presidnet who bugged out of VN and handed Southeast Asia over to the Commies. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I’ve always felt rather sorry for LBJ. He carried on Kennedy’s policy, listened to Kennedy’s advisors and now all you hear is, “If only John Kennedy had lived, he never would have gotten us bogged down in Vietnam.”
The rest of the list seems pretty good. “Madison’s failure to keep us out of the War of 1812” seems a little dubious. You would think that professional historians might realise that sometimes events reach a point where Kings, Presidents and Emperors are unable to “avert” them.
“So who had the worst blunder? President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.”
I yield to no one inmy cntempt for James Buchanan but exactly HOW was he supposed to “avert the Civil War”? Once Lincoln won the election of 1860 the traitors were determined to secede and nothing but Divine intervention could have stopped them.
“The second worst mistake, the survey found, was Andrew Johnson’s decision just after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery.”
All true but the professors are imposing their values retroactively. I’m sure Andrew Johnson saw himself as following Lincoln’s policy of reconciliation and keeping faith with Lincoln’s oft-repeated statemnts that the CW was being fought to preserve the Union.
“Lyndon Johnson earned the No. 3 spot by allowing the Vietnam War to intensify, Gregg said.”
And if he had not, then he would have made the list as the Presidnet who bugged out of VN and handed Southeast Asia over to the Commies. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I’ve always felt rather sorry for LBJ. He carried on Kennedy’s policy, listened to Kennedy’s advisors and now all you hear is, “If only John Kennedy had lived, he never would have gotten us bogged down in Vietnam.”
The rest of the list seems pretty good. “Madison’s failure to keep us out of the War of 1812” seems a little dubious. You would think that professional historians might realise that sometimes events reach a point where Kings, Presidents and Emperors are unable to “avert” them.
- Status