Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write in the January/February 2003 edition of Foreign Policy that Saddam approached the U.S. to find out how it would react to an invasion into Kuwait. Along with Glaspie's comment that "'[W]e have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait', the U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had 'no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."
Okay, we know approximately what April Glaspie said, but "the US State Department" is a big organization; so that's a pretty vague claim. Glaspie did not tell Saddam, "Go ahead and invade, we don't care." And border disputes are in a different category than the invasion and total conquest of a sovereign nation.
We also know that George H.W. Bush did not originally intend to respond militarily, but changed his mind after conversations with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
So, the notion that a trap was set for Saddam, that he fell into by invading Kuwait, is the concoction of a conspiracy theorist.
I don't get all the high grades for Eisenhower. He was OK, but mostly known for building the Interstate Highway system. Anything else, or is it mostly just nostalgia for the 50s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by notinpa
A lot of people giving Truman A's . From what I read , he is an F-
For both Eisenhower and the two men who preceded him, I think a lot of it can be related to both the personal politics of the person making the assessment, and that person's knowledge of the times in which the President(s) in question served.
The family in which I grew up were arch conservatives, not to mention agrarians (farmers) who had not recognized or fully adjusted to the conditions of an industrializing society. The New Deal's social programs dried up the pool of inexpensive casual labor they depended upon at peak seasons, leaving them only the options of taking up that burden themselves, or going heavily into debt in order to mechanize the farm. My father and grandfather never fully understood why former farm states like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin ended up in the Democratic camp.
And when Eisenhower assumed office, they never understood why a Republican administration was unable either to curb the power of the unions, nor take a more aggressive stance against the Soviet Union. They (and I myself) had been brought up to view both as complete, mortal foes.
But as with most of us who got a deeper education, the college years enabled me to learn the difference between ideology and realpolitik; to recognize that the complicated society with which those Presidents, and we ourselves, had to deal. Eisenhower and (admittedly much later) Truman came to be viewed as statesmen navigating very perilous waters with a limited scope of options.
And while the morality of the times shielded them from the closer (and, I believe) unwarranted intrusions of the present day, nevertheless, I believe that the integrity and character of many of their successors doesn't measure up to the standards presented by these men.
Hoover: F
FDR: A-
Truman: B
Eisenhower: B+
Kennedy: A-
Johnson: D+
Nixon: F
Ford: B-
Carter: C-
Reagan: B+
Bush: C
Clinton: A-
Bush: F
Obama: B-
Herbert Hoover's policies were very much like Franklin Roosevelt's: a massive increase in federal spending, pressure on employers not to cut wages, and of course the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which Roosevelt did not reverse (didn't happen until after WWII).
In many respects, FDR continued Hoover's policies, which caused the depression to last through the entire decade of the 1930s. (See Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau's famous 1939 memo: "“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.” And, "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”)
And both Hoover and Roosevelt were progressives, even if they wore different party labels.
So why an "F" for Hoover and an "A-" for Roosevelt?
Also, why a "D+" for Lyndon Johnson and an "F" for Richard Nixon? LBJ expanded US involvement in Vietnam and Nixon got us out. I agree that they were both bad presidents, but why rate LBJ above Nixon?
And why the "A-" for Bill Clinton? Other than being in office during the dot-com boom, what else did he do that was so great?
Herbert Hoover's policies were very much like Franklin Roosevelt's: a massive increase in federal spending, pressure on employers not to cut wages, and of course the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which Roosevelt did not reverse (didn't happen until after WWII).
In many respects, FDR continued Hoover's policies, which caused the depression to last through the entire decade of the 1930s. (See Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau's famous 1939 memo: "“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.” And, "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”)
And both Hoover and Roosevelt were progressives, even if they wore different party labels.
So why an "F" for Hoover and an "A-" for Roosevelt?
Also, why a "D+" for Lyndon Johnson and an "F" for Richard Nixon? LBJ expanded US involvement in Vietnam and Nixon got us out. I agree that they were both bad presidents, but why rate LBJ above Nixon?
And why the "A-" for Bill Clinton? Other than being in office during the dot-com boom, what else did he do that was so great?
FDR gets his A- more for how he handled WWII than the Depression. He also had his way of communicating with the American people and uniting them, something that our country could greatly use today. If he would have only been President two terms, he probably would be a C- however due to his failure to end the depression.
Nixon gets an F, not just for the fact he escalated Vietnam after promising to end the war during his campaign, but also the fact that he started the War on Drugs. The Watergate scandal is a huge contributor to that as well. I firmly believe Nixon was one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had and was by far the worst post WWII President. The root of a lot of the problems in our country today can be traced back to the Nixon years.
Bill Clinton gets an A- because he presided over a long stretch of peace and prosperity. Clinton's economy was significantly stronger than Reagan's or Obama's, and when Clinton left office he had set us on path to paying down the national debt. For a short while in the late '90s, it looked like America was on track to fix a lot of the mistakes that had been snowballing for decades since WWII. The only reason Clinton doesn't get an A+ in my book is his slapdash approach to the Middle East and other foreign conflicts during the '90s.
Herbert Hoover's policies were very much like Franklin Roosevelt's: a massive increase in federal spending, pressure on employers not to cut wages, and of course the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which Roosevelt did not reverse (didn't happen until after WWII).
In many respects, FDR continued Hoover's policies, which caused the depression to last through the entire decade of the 1930s. (See Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau's famous 1939 memo: "“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.” And, "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”)
And both Hoover and Roosevelt were progressives, even if they wore different party labels.
So why an "F" for Hoover and an "A-" for Roosevelt?
Also, why a "D+" for Lyndon Johnson and an "F" for Richard Nixon? LBJ expanded US involvement in Vietnam and Nixon got us out. I agree that they were both bad presidents, but why rate LBJ above Nixon?
And why the "A-" for Bill Clinton? Other than being in office during the dot-com boom, what else did he do that was so great?
Modern economic theory shows that deficit spending reduces unemployment over time. The ultimate experiment in this was World War II. The United States ran a huge budget deficit and had full employment for the first time since the 1920's. FDR's policies helped, but did not end the Great Depression for the simple reason that, without a war, its difficult to get the political mandate from Congress to spend the money that would be necessary to create full employment.
What I find laughable are a few revisionists who seriously try to contend that if we had just let the bottom completely fall out of the economy it would have recovered. Recovered, hell. We'd have had a revolution if things had gotten any worse. If FDR did not end the Great Depression, he set up a series of programs that relieved much of its misery. Welfare or relief was given to those who could not find work. Government programs provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of others doing socially useful work such as building dams, electrical lines, and public buildings. A high school in the city in which I live was constructed by the WPA and is still in use today. At height of the Depression in 1933, 25% of Americans were unemployed. In 1940, after seven years of the New Deal and just before World War II, unemployment had fallen to 12%. The economy was not back to normal, but was much better than it had been.
Finally, the job FDR did as commander in chief of the armed forces during World War II was phenomenal. The USA emerged from that war less hurt or scathed than any other participating nation. He fully deserves a grade of A as President.
Washington A- (good President, but overrated because he was the first)
John Adams B ( a curmudgeon, but he kept the Naval War with France from escalating)
Jefferson A- (The Louisiana purchase doubled the size of the USA)
Madison C+ (The War of 1812 was a big mistake for everyone involved)
Monroe B+ (presided over a prosperous and peaceful country for eight years)
John Quincy Adams B- (a very intellectual, but rather ineffective President)
Andrew Jackson B- (vastly overrated, he was for the "common man" whatever that means)
Martin Van Buren C (was President during the Panic of 1837 which rivaled the Great Depression)
William Henry Harrison (unrated too short of a term in office)
James Tyler C (accomplished little in office)
James K Polk B+ (Presided over the Mexican War and subsequent cession of land to the US)
Zachary Taylor (unrated) Too short a term in office.
Millard Fillmore D (One of a number of Presidents whose weakness brought about the Civil War)
Franklin Pierce D- (Inaction helped bring about Civil War)
James Buchanan D- (Showed great weakness as the nation split up)
Abraham Lincoln A (Prevented the break up of the country)
Andrew Johnson D (Uneducated, a drunk, and totally unfit to be President)
Ulysses Grant B (Implemented Reconstruction and was a better President than thought)
Rutherford B. Hayes C- (Poor President who only was elected do to election fraud)
James Garfield Unrated (too short a term in office)
Chester Arthur B- (obtained passage and implemented Civil Service Reform)
Grover Cleveland B (Maneuvered successfully with Congress despite being in the opposing party)
Benjamin Harrison C (Hard to name any accomplishments during his one term in office)
William McKinley C (Spanish American War. America was advancing economically)
Theodore Roosevelt A- (extraordinarily effective President was the first Progressive)
William Howard Taft B (A much underrated President who was quietly effective)
Woodrow Wilson B+ (obtained passage of much necessary legislation during his term)
Warren Harding D (The office of the presidency was simply beyond him. Much corruption around him)
Calvin Coolidge D+ (His "do nothing" presidency laid the ground work for the Great Depression)
Herbert Hoover C+ (Not great, but given too much blame for the Great Depression)
Franklin D. Roosevelt A (Presided as commander in chief during World War II effectively)
Harry Truman B+ (Was an effective post-war President)
Dwight Eisenhower B+ (America prospered and was peaceful during his time in office)
John F. Kennedy B- (overrated because of his early death and looks)
Lyndon Johnson B (a great domestic president, but will be remembered mostly for Vietnam)
Richard Nixon C (The Watergate Scandal was awful, but he did some important things in office)
Gerald Ford B (History will be kind to this man who did much to repair America after Watergate)
Jimmy Carter C+ (Not really responsible for the dip in the economy during his time in office)
Ronald Reagan B (I hate to praise him, but the economy recovered and America's image did too)
George H. W. Bush B- (A poor communicator, but a good administrator)
Bill Clinton B (the economy grew by leaps and bounds during his peaceful reign)
George W. Bush D+ (The Iraq War is a big negative with little positive to counterbalance it)
Barack Obama B- (Did a decent job despite incredible opposition from the very beginning)
I agree that JFK was over rated due to his looks and speeches, and did some mistakes such as what he did in Vietnam and his administration became much more politically active there than the previous president, and these actions even further strengthen the Vietcong.
Also JFK handing of of the Cuban Bay of Pigs was a disaster.
Here are my rankings of some Presidents:
Abraham Lincoln: A His role in preserving the union, but even so I did not give him an A+ due to the bloodshed of the Civil War
Woodrow Wilson: A- He was more of a moderate political leader of that era and his handling of the First World War and its immediate aftermath was very well done. However he was also a racist-even so racist views on black people were very common then.
Franklin Roosevelt: A His policy of getting the US out of the Great Depression was not perfect and there were flaws to it, even so he lead the US out of the Great Depression, yet his role in WW2 made up for the mistakes during the depression.
Harry Truman: A- His role during WW2, yet a weakness was allowing the Soviet Union too much concessions in the aftermath of WW2. Yet he brought forward the Marshal Plan to help bring about recovery to Western Europe. However it was not a peaceful time due to he will lead the US into another war which was the Korean War.
FDR gets his A- more for how he handled WWII than the Depression. He also had his way of communicating with the American people and uniting them, something that our country could greatly use today. If he would have only been President two terms, he probably would be a C- however due to his failure to end the depression.
If he'd only been a two-term president, then he'd deserve the same rating as Hoover. His economic policies were as bad as Hoover's and just as ineffective.
Quote:
Nixon gets an F, not just for the fact he escalated Vietnam after promising to end the war during his campaign, but also the fact that he started the War on Drugs. The Watergate scandal is a huge contributor to that as well. I firmly believe Nixon was one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had and was by far the worst post WWII President. The root of a lot of the problems in our country today can be traced back to the Nixon years.
Nixon did not escalate the Vietnam War, he just replaced bad commanders like Westmoreland with effective ones like Creighton Abrams. He was a much better wartime commander than LBJ. You gave FDR credit for his leadership during WWII, so why not give Nixon credit for ending the American involvement without surrender? (It was the Democrats who turned victory into defeat, by failing to fulfill US obligations under the Paris Peace Accord. Another Democrat turned victory into defeat in Iraq, by hastily withdrawing all troops while the country's peace was still fragile. Democrats hate military victories and love defeats.)
Quote:
Bill Clinton gets an A- because he presided over a long stretch of peace and prosperity. Clinton's economy was significantly stronger than Reagan's or Obama's, and when Clinton left office he had set us on path to paying down the national debt.
I remember that stretch of peace -- he did nothing about the Bosnian genocide until November 1994, that had been ongoing since 1991. And he did nothing about the Rwandan genocide, in 1994. And when al-Qaeda operatives bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton's response was -- let's see, what's the right word? oh yeah -- feeble.
We know where the prosperity came from: first, from a continuation of the 25-year expansion begun under Ronald Reagan; second, from the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War (that ended because of Ronald Reagan); and third, from the Dot-Com boom.
And one more point about Bill Clinton: in exchange for campaign donations from Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space & Communications, Clinton ordered Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to approve the transfer of missile technology to China, so the Chinese could launch Loral's satellites. We are still attempting to cope with the threat posed by China's now very accurate and reliable missiles and rockets. So one could reasonably accuse Bill Clinton of high treason, and there is no statute of limitations.
No other president has ever done anything remotely comparable to Bill Clinton's treasonous act, so an F- for him.
Modern economic theory shows that deficit spending reduces unemployment over time. The ultimate experiment in this was World War II. The United States ran a huge budget deficit and had full employment for the first time since the 1920's. FDR's policies helped, but did not end the Great Depression for the simple reason that, without a war, its difficult to get the political mandate from Congress to spend the money that would be necessary to create full employment.
No, that is one economic theory. The people Obama chose as his economic advisors in 2009 were people like Christina Romer from UC Berkeley, a champion of Keynesian theory. The result: a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009; $1.3 trillion in 2010 and 2011, and $1.1 trillion in $2012. Obama and Romer predicted 4% growth and unemployment peaking at less than 8%; the result was barely 2.0% over four years and unemployment over 10% (which Obama blamed on Bush, of course).
Full employment under Franklin Roosevelt did not arrive until 1940-41, when the US military began drafting millions of men into uniform. Roosevelt's economic policies were ineffective. Unemployment was still 14.6% in 1940, before dropping to 4.7% in 1941.
Quote:
Finally, the job FDR did as commander in chief of the armed forces during World War II was phenomenal. The USA emerged from that war less hurt or scathed than any other participating nation. He fully deserves a grade of A as President.
Franklin Roosevelt made a few good decisions during the war, and a few bad ones. Defeating Germany first, before Japan, was a good decision. Trusting Joseph Stalin as much as he did, was not a good decision, as it led to the enslavement of Eastern Europe after the war.
It is hard to do this without tainting your grades with your personal political bias. I will try and for the record I am a conservative.
I will only do from FDR on.
FDR A. His leadership in ww2 alone earns him this, in spite of my disdain for some his socialism in the 30s.
Truman. B. Good president who finished the job in Japan and followed up by keeping the soviets in check in Europe.
Eisenhower. A. Good economy, peace, interstate system
Kennedy. C. Pros: space program, leadership in Cuban missile crisis. Cons: womanizer, bay of pigs. Overrated because of his assasination.
LBJ. F. VIETNAM, war on poverty, corruption.
Nixon. F. Vietnam, watergate and paranoia
Ford. B. Did the right thing for country pardoning Nixon all while knowing it meant his political futures. Selfless act
Carter. D. Weak and ineffective. Economy... Iran need I say more.
Reagan A. Economic recovery, stronger America on world scene, won Cold War.
Bush. B. Continuation of much of reagans success, but did not finish job in Iraq.
Clinton. B. Good economy, effective leader, could be an A had he not signed bad trade agreements that have hurt America for last several decades.
Bush jr. B- Mixed bag, strong leadership after 9-11, took to long to finish Afghan and Iraq wars. Bailouts not popular. Still decent president, history will likely be kinder to him than contemporary liberal media.
Obama. F. More bailouts, economic stagnation, Obamacare failure, weak foreign policy, massive national division. I may be biased but this is one of the most damaging administrations in our history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
