As if Watergate is only number 5. lol LBJ doesn't really deserve the third spot... lol
And the top 10 worst presidential blunders are...
10 worst Presidential blunders
-
Bot
- Posts: 4503
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:38 pm
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
That was a sweet little history lesson...I didn't know James Buchanan could have avoided the civil war, I need to study that a bit...
Erm, also not that Clinton made the list...And Dubs didn't...Holla...
Erm, also not that Clinton made the list...And Dubs didn't...Holla...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
crappy list, IMHO:
It doesn't even include Jimmy Carter GIVING the Panama Canal to Panama (). The P-Canal is how we kept the chaos of the world in check, and thus assured ourself as a world power. This led to Noriega, Libya, and fed into the middle east to where he eventually had to use the TALIBAN. Besides: Now, without the P-Canal, we are that country "over there" from the rest of the world all up in arms about matters that don't concern us. We could be cut off at any time, and several countries have vied for control of this area. Were it to be hit with a terrorist attack, our global economy would be devastated, and an AK-47 would be more valuable than an office with a window. So thanks to Carter, we have only our military and financial strength to stand upon, now that the most strategic position in the active global commercial waterways was handed over FOR FREE (he actually paid them to take it from us), despite the huge investment to secure its existence. We live with the reprecussions of that far more than the price of Lincoln scapegoating James Buchanan*. AND we have to pay upkeep on it to prevent the erosion or environmental impact, even though it is commercially owned (by a company that has ties to several foreign countries) and operated.
That is why this is what I rate as My third worse... and inadvertantly creates the situation of my fourth worse, which is Carter's mishandling of the Iran hostage situation, which internationally inspired Terrorism as a means of getting your way.
*Few realize that Lincoln actually supported Buchanan†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s policies in regard to South Carolina†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s secession from the Union until Fort Sumter was attacked, and Buchanan supported Lincoln†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s during the entire Civil War. His vote of no-confidence was a matter of political convenience. Just as a new employee is prone to blame any professional hardship on his predecessor, when it is the transition that is more to blame.
Moreover, it was not due to any kind of "ideals" that the war was opposed. it was the onright conflict, which demonstrated that the military might of the America was at a point of contention with itself, and thus opportunity for invasion existed. When the first shot of the attack on Sumter happened, it sent a powerful message never seen internationally: Americans were willing to organize and kill Americans. Britain, who was beaten in 1812 was still looking for the opportunity to regain its lost investment in the colonies, and was VERY upset for losing the bid on the Louisiana Purchase. It was for that reason the war was decried, and escalated to the point where such chaos was to take place, no outside nation could make any sense of it at all.
The war sentiment at that time was such a novel idea, that when the first battles were taking place, the citizens were known to take tea at the sidelines, and cheer for their "side."
vertical,
raum
It doesn't even include Jimmy Carter GIVING the Panama Canal to Panama (). The P-Canal is how we kept the chaos of the world in check, and thus assured ourself as a world power. This led to Noriega, Libya, and fed into the middle east to where he eventually had to use the TALIBAN. Besides: Now, without the P-Canal, we are that country "over there" from the rest of the world all up in arms about matters that don't concern us. We could be cut off at any time, and several countries have vied for control of this area. Were it to be hit with a terrorist attack, our global economy would be devastated, and an AK-47 would be more valuable than an office with a window. So thanks to Carter, we have only our military and financial strength to stand upon, now that the most strategic position in the active global commercial waterways was handed over FOR FREE (he actually paid them to take it from us), despite the huge investment to secure its existence. We live with the reprecussions of that far more than the price of Lincoln scapegoating James Buchanan*. AND we have to pay upkeep on it to prevent the erosion or environmental impact, even though it is commercially owned (by a company that has ties to several foreign countries) and operated.
That is why this is what I rate as My third worse... and inadvertantly creates the situation of my fourth worse, which is Carter's mishandling of the Iran hostage situation, which internationally inspired Terrorism as a means of getting your way.
*Few realize that Lincoln actually supported Buchanan†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s policies in regard to South Carolina†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s secession from the Union until Fort Sumter was attacked, and Buchanan supported Lincoln†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s during the entire Civil War. His vote of no-confidence was a matter of political convenience. Just as a new employee is prone to blame any professional hardship on his predecessor, when it is the transition that is more to blame.
Moreover, it was not due to any kind of "ideals" that the war was opposed. it was the onright conflict, which demonstrated that the military might of the America was at a point of contention with itself, and thus opportunity for invasion existed. When the first shot of the attack on Sumter happened, it sent a powerful message never seen internationally: Americans were willing to organize and kill Americans. Britain, who was beaten in 1812 was still looking for the opportunity to regain its lost investment in the colonies, and was VERY upset for losing the bid on the Louisiana Purchase. It was for that reason the war was decried, and escalated to the point where such chaos was to take place, no outside nation could make any sense of it at all.
The war sentiment at that time was such a novel idea, that when the first battles were taking place, the citizens were known to take tea at the sidelines, and cheer for their "side."
vertical,
raum
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
jdog
- Posts: 3318
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:59 pm