And the top 10 worst presidential blunders are...

[Scarecrow]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/18/president.mistakes.ap/index.html


4: Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.

5: Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up.

6: James Madison's failure to keep the United States out of the War of 1812 with Britain.

7: Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.

8: John F. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

9: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua.



You will have to read the article to get the top 3.

[quentinc]

First of all, what's Monica Lewinsky doing anywhere near that list? That might be an image blunder on the part of Clinton, but it in no way affected America to the scale where it could be considered the tenth worst blunder in American presidential history.

Buchanan should not be #1 for "failing to avert the civil war." The conflict was inevitable, and Buchanan just happened to be president when things really got out of hand. And he was just a very ineffectual president who wasn't able to prolong peace any longer. But I doubt that a better man could have done much to save the situation.

And really, I think the pinpointed the wrong fault with Andrew Johnson's presidency. His biggest fault was probably imposing such strict regulations on the south during the reconstruction period, in an effort to repent. If Lincoln's plans had gone in place instead, you wouldn't see the North-South animosity that still exists today. Or, at least, not as much.

Madison and the War of 1812 is kind of dubious as well. Madison wasn't neccesarily given an easy job when Jefferson left in 1808 under the veil of the two-term tradition. Also, there were heavy nationalistic tendencies at the time for the war, so Madison was sort of forced to go along with the will of the people.

One of the main omissions seems to be Reagan's support of the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which has obviously come back to bite us.

[needs]

And really, I think the pinpointed the wrong fault with Andrew Johnson's presidency. His biggest fault was probably imposing such strict regulations on the south during the reconstruction period, in an effort to repent. If Lincoln's plans had gone in place instead, you wouldn't see the North-South animosity that still exists today. Or, at least, not as much.


This gets Johnson's reconstruction policy almost completely backward (and errs in suggesting that Lincoln had formulated concrete Reconstruction plans). Johnson favored readmitting southern states on very lenient terms, most notably allowing the Black Codes that former plantation owners had written to ensure a supply of labor to remain in place. It was the Radical Republicans in Congress who pushed for more stringent policies that were mainly aimed at allowing the freedmen to gain economic and social power in the postwar South, and to promote northern investment in the South (thus the carpetbaggers).

[CrewDust]

One of the main omissions seems to be Reagan's support of the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which has obviously come back to bite us.


This has one problem, the Taliban really didn't exist until 1996. Most of the groups that were supported under the mujahadean "sp?" weren't feligous fanatics like the Taliban. Besides it was worth the money to show the Soviets that we could play the insurgent game.

[Revolt]

Did I skip over it, or was Dubya's invasion of Iraq NOT on the list?

Yeah, that's a good list.:rolleyes:

[Matt in the Hat]

Where the one about Woodrow Wilson ruining the world. I guess it's #11, right after a hum job.

[Scarecrow]

Did I skip over it, or was Dubya's invasion of Iraq NOT on the list?

Yeah, that's a good list.:rolleyes:

I think that whole Iraq fiasco could cover 3 admins. Bush I, Clinton, culminating with the largest part of the blunder with Bush W.

[Scarecrow]

Where the one about Woodrow Wilson ruining the world. I guess it's #11, right after a hum job.

Well this is a discussion forum Matt, lets have your list. :)

[quentinc]

Did I skip over it, or was Dubya's invasion of Iraq NOT on the list?

Yeah, that's a good list.:rolleyes:
I don't think it's neccesarily accurate to put it in that category yet. Since we don't have the advantage of hindsight, we couldn't really classify it as a blunder, per se. It's entirely possible (but highly doubtful) that Bush will democratize the entire Middle East, or at least lay the groundwork for it, by the time he leaves office. In which case it could hardly be termed a blunder.

[Matt in the Hat]

Well this is a discussion forum Matt, lets have your list. :)
Oops! it's #4
Reading IS fundemental

[afgrijselijkheid]

I think that whole Iraq fiasco could cover 3 admins. Bush I, Clinton, culminating with the largest part of the blunder with Bush W.

wow... i don't remember papa bush or clinton cooking evidence to invade iraq

kudos sir, i do believe that's the weakest deflection attempt i've ever seen

[Scarecrow]

wow... i don't remember papa bush or clinton cooking evidence to invade iraq

kudos sir, i do believe that's the weakest deflection attempt i've ever seen

What deflection was that? I merely am pointing out that there have been 3 Administrations that have had to deal with Iraq. Now I understand why Bush I stopped when he did, he met the goals of the UN Resolution and we did our jobs. Yes I say we cause I was on Active Duty at the time.

I do think though that we failed Iraq when we encouraged the uprising but did not support them like we should have.

As for Bubba, cmon now, he had 8 years to deal with Iraq. Much of the intelligence W used came from Clintons people. I think if Bubba had raised the prospects of going into Iraq that it could have changed things.

Yes this is hindsight, but really these are statements I made then as well. When I look at Iraq I see an ongoing problem that began in the early 90's and is worse now.

[Dan Loney]

Historians made this list? No Alien & Sedition Acts, no Teapot Dome, no freaking Herbert Hoover snoozing through the Wall Street Crash? Or Hoover pissing off the Bonus Army? Or US Grant's - well, pretty much everything?

No William Henry Harrison saying "Pfft, it's not that cold"?

[Scarecrow]

Historians made this list? No Alien & Sedition Acts, no Teapot Dome, no freaking Herbert Hoover snoozing through the Wall Street Crash? Or Hoover pissing off the Bonus Army? Or US Grant's - well, pretty much everything?

No William Henry Harrison saying "Pfft, it's not that cold"?

Amazing isn't it?

I was hoping that with this thread we would see some lists from others to see what they think.

[afgrijselijkheid]

When I look at Iraq I see an ongoing problem that began in the early 90's and is worse now.


well, isn't that convenient?
http://www.christreformed.org/about/churchlady1.jpg


the question was pertaining to george w bush's invasion of iraq - you wanting to view the full geopolitical situation as stretching back a dozen years is never going to make papa bush or clinton cuplable for what has happened there since 2002

[spejic]

..no freaking Herbert Hoover snoozing through the Wall Street Crash..What about the policies that created it in the first place? As Hoover said of the previous administration's Fed chief, Ben Strong, "There are crimes worse than murder".

And I think something similar will be said for the Greenspan era as well.

[Scarecrow]

well, isn't that convenient?
http://www.christreformed.org/about/churchlady1.jpg


the question was pertaining to george w bush's invasion of iraq - you wanting to view the full geopolitical situation as stretching back a dozen years is never going to make papa bush or clinton cuplable for what has happened there since 2002

I am not saying that, however I am saying that the whole Iraq situation goes back to include both those Admins. You cannot deny that what happened from 1991 to now doesn't have an impact on why the invasion took place, the feelings towards the US by many there as well were defined from the 90's.

Look at the whole of the situation and not just the screwups by W.

[yossarian]

No William Henry Harrison saying "Pfft, it's not that cold"?

Brilliant.....I nearly spit out the water I was drinking.

[afgrijselijkheid]

You cannot deny that what happened from 1991 to now doesn't have an impact on why the invasion took place...


can't i now?

of course, the situation extends back beyon 1991, but "why the invasion took place" is a different sack of potatoes altogether

[Scarecrow]

can't i now?

of course, the situation extends back beyon 1991, but "why the invasion took place" is a different sack of potatoes altogether

Certainly, but look at the whole of the situation.
When did the UN resolutions against Iraq go into effect? Who enforced them? Who was in office when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors? Who was in office when Saddam was not complying with those 13 resolutions?

It is very relavent to state that Bush I, Clinton, and W all had a hand in the causes for the current situation in Iraq. All these events led to the invasion of Iraq. Had Bush I done more then Saddam would have been out of power. Had Clinton spent less time trying to bang the help and more on enforcing the UN Resolutions in Iraq then perhaps this invasion would not have been needed.