Worst president in history?

Received this by email today.

Worst president in history?
(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.)

Please forward to all on your list so as to put things in perspective.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his mismanagement of it.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point:
President Bush didn't start the war on terror.

Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. OK, let's look at the "worst" president nominees and "mismanagement"claims.

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us, Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and he did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2,900 lives were lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

We have lost 1000 soldiers, an average of 600 a year.

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history?
Sure doesn't appear to be Bush!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our military is GREAT and our President is GREAT!

PASS IT ON.

Polls

Who are these networks polling? I haven't checked them all, but ABC and CNN both show Kerry the winner by a few percentage points. Are these people deciding on who wins the same way Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times has decided: He Looked Good? see post here

Kerry wins Debate 2 because of the Camera angles?

Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet's Headline reads: It wasn't pretty, but it was plain - Kerry won

Lynn then goes on to describe who won on "appearance," which is always debatable. She makes the claim "The town-hall format and camera angles worked to the hyper-coiffed Kerry's advantage. The Massachusetts senator looked more physically commanding than the president, as he made effective use of the ability to get up from a stool and walk around a stage."

I'm not sure which station she watched the debate on. If it was one of the network stations [abc, nbc, or cbs], I'm sure they could have construed the camera shots to present the appearance they wanted. I watched the FoxNews Channels coverage of the debate. First of all, making a judgement on who won the debate because of how someone looked, is not a good criteria. You could take a good looking news anchormen and make him look Presidential. That doesn't mean he would be a qualified Presidential candidate.

Lynn also mentions Kerry repeated use of the phase, "I have a plan." So what, he has changed his plan every few months or so over the course of the 20 years in the Senate. Ms Sweet talks about a few reaction shots of the President looking "weird." Blinking his eyes rapidly and another with a bit of a smirk. Again, So what!

Gives her analysis of the crowds reaction to some canned humor. One of Senator Kerry using the Red Sox in part of a joke that flopped. The other of President Bush making the statement about Kerry's answer almost makes him want to scowl. This one did go over well with the crowd. Apparently she wasn't watching the audience behind the President in the Camera shot, they had smiles on their faces from the one liner. But again I say, So What!

Lynn makes a statement about Bush saying, "I'm not tellin!" This was in response to a question of who he would pick as a supreme court justice, if he needs to appoint one. I felt this was the right thing to do. Can you imagine what the media would do if the President gave a name! That person's life would be turned upset down. She also points out how she thought it was not smart for Kerry to have used some information about $84 from a timber company. Then explained that the Kerry campaign shot out an email to explain the information.

Her analysis of the debate didn't prove Kerry winning the debate. If anything she proved Kerry looks good in front of a camera.