I'm always hearing "Use an objective source for your views."

Fine.

To determine who have been the greatest foreign-policy presidents over the past century, Foreign Policy magazine put researchers at the College of William and Mary to work surveying 1,112 international relations professors.

Here are the ratings for greatest foreign-policy presidents:

1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Harry Truman
3. RICHARD NIXON
4. Bill Clinton
5. Ronald Reagan

Read it and weep.

Herbert Milhous Nixon IV

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0402/p03s03-nbgn.html

I know of few people that don't give Nixon high marks in foreign policy, and I'm in that camp.

That wasn't one of his fatal flaws.

If you take the best of JFK (authentic charm), Nixon (foreign policy chops), Reagan (Great Communicator) and Clinton (understanding of middle class and minority America issues) you'd have a pretty damn good president.

Weep? That's a tad strong. In fact I take no pride OR shame in a list like that. If I make a list, do I get cited as a unbiased source?

Always good to revisit the past and see from where we have come. Interestingly that neither Bush is mentioned. Probably for obvious reasons.

So now that Herb continues to live vicariously through a dead president can we get on with what is important.

The horse is dead but if you still need to beat it that is your choice. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

George Bush Sr. was a hell of a lot more diplomatic on foreign affairs that his son could ever dream of being ... he had a good teacher in Reagan, for sure.

Herb, I am impressed that you mentioned a poll with Clinton. I honestly thought that his foreign policy was the strong suit of his Presidency, I know for sure he regrets the whole Somalia thing ... but he did extend the olive branch to long-time adversaries.

I so agree with Chris T's post above.

I would think that there are few posters here that were even old enough (i.e. born pre-1954) to vote for Nixon in either election.

I also wonder if those folks (besides HerrB) that did vote for him, regret that choice now. I think most of us agree that he did do some good things, but he is far from being the "hero" that Herb reveres.

Nixon is in the rear-view mirror for many of us and close to approaching "ancient history" status for us boomers; we've learned, moved on and are living in the present. And trying our hardest to not let history repeat itself.

(Well, at least that dark chapter and the current mess we're in!)

I only missed voting for Nixon in 1972 by 10 months!

Edsel sez: "If you take the best of JFK (authentic charm), Nixon (foreign policy chops), Reagan (Great Communicator) and Clinton (understanding of middle class and minority America issues) you'd have a pretty damn good president."

If you take the "best" of George W. Bush, you'd still have a pretty bad president.

Even if my life depended on it, I am not sure I would want his parts if he was in a donorcycle accident.

I dunno . . . looking at the condition of the planet, I'd say his rectum is working just fine.

Rectum? Damn near killed 'em!

Donorcycle? I LOVE that!

Herb- Even I would not argue that Nixon doesn't belong on that list. No problem with that at all.

Domestically? BIG problem.

Warner, I appreciate your intellectual honesty.

But compared to Mr. Bush, you probably would agree that Mr. Nixon would be a breath of fresh air for the left these days.

But ya know, the left hated Mr. Nixon then and they'd probably regress to hating him again, anyway.

Herb

Herb I have noticed more than anyone else on this thread your use of the word "hate." It's a strong word that you seem to throw around gleefully. It's a very divisive word that you choose to use in subtle and not so subtle ways.

There are times you try and spoon feed us to agree that we all hate Bush or Nixon and anyone who breaths left leaning politics hates anyone leaning to the right.

For a man who has at time eloquently stated your personal faith in Jesus and particularly during this season in the Christian calendar, your usage of the word hate is disturbing to me. Jesus never hated. What he strongly disagreed with was religious hypocrisy, legalism and pride. And as much as I "hate" to point this out, there are times you exude all three in one post.


“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

and

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

On this Good Friday remember it was Jesus that did the ultimate act of love.

Peace

Chris, your points are true, but honestly, read the posts on this board about our president and tell me they're not hateful.

Herb

I feel no hate for Bush. I dislike him as president. I think if we're going to break it down hate is not the word, strong dislike yes.

But YOUR usage of the word hate frames many of your posts and I get the feeling that since you're using the word hate so much that you simply believe we all hate anything Bush. It's simply not the case.

Distrust breeds resentment, and fear only magnifies already raw emotions. Since it is Good Friday, let us compare a few qualities of a true prophet and false prophet.

When Jesus had a throng of hungry people, he taught the crowd to share, using a little boy's example. It was calm. It was extraordinary.

When the shrub has a throng of hungry people, he teaches them that they are hungry by choice. It is without compassion. It is terribly ordinary.

Jesus claimed to speak with God. He taught the truth to thousands, and billions followed over the centuries who believed in his message.

The shrub claimed to speak with God. He told lies to billions, and in just over half a decade, only thousands continue to believe in his message.

If there is bitterness, bile or anger toward our leadership, it centers around the inability for any of them to give us something as simple as the truth. It is all people ever asked of any leadership, from ancient times to now.

Peace.

Telling the truth is a sharing of knowledge, and knowledge is power.

Bush has demonstrated repeatedly he does not like to share power.

*********

And peace to you, Littlesongs.

Preach it Chris.

Spot on.

"...you simply believe we all hate anything Bush. It's simply not the case."

I'm afraid we disagree. Were any unbiased observer to view this board, there is little doubt that hate is the word most accurately ascribed to the behaviour about the president.

You can couch it as 'strong dislike,' but it looks and sounds the same. Parse it if you wish, but the constant disrespect and vicious epithets leave little doubt. Those pretending to have clean hands know who they are.

Herb

Why respect a complete bozo?

I think Littlesongs nailed it. (Yes Good Friday pun..even though it's Saturday morning)

Herb-
Why do you think many on this board show disrespect for Bush? Respect is earned. Just because someone has a bunch of letters behind their name or title does not earn them respect they must continually show good judgment and discernment in decision making.

You make a case that Bush requires our respect just because he is the president. That is foolish and blind. The actions of our leaders and how they handle situations determines whether they have earned respect.

Bush would have earned my respect by stating early on he had made a mistake in Iraq and was weighing many options to get us out. The American public is strangely forgiving at times.

But the harder you beat the drum of hate in your posts the real position in your own heart is shown.

"True Christians do not know vengeance. They are the children of peace. Their hearts overflow with peace. Their mouths speak peace, and they walk in the way of peace."

Menno Simons

"You make a case that Bush requires our respect just because he is the president."

My point is simply that there's a very real difference between respect, and the viciousness exhibited here.

Herb

...respect the leader.

Leaders think they have some entitlement in this country. (they don't --go read the federalist papers) Because of this, the idea that we should always respect them is hammered home all the time. (I would do this, why not? There is nothing to lose!)

My oldest son and I faced an interesting situation that has strong parallels to these discussions we have here. Until this weekend, he was on a High School baseball team. My son is a top-notch player. Loves the game, excellent sportsmen, great skills and an open and agile athletic mind. Basically he is your average coaches dream.

(I've actually had coaches fight over my kid many times!)

This is year two. Last year, it was horrible, but he was not a varsity player, so we struggled through, thinking things would change. Many good players moved on that year, no biggie. Focus on grades and wait it out.

This year he is varsity, along with his very capable peer group. Another very poor season.

At the only game they might have won, this coach made some very poor decisions. During the after the game talk, my son stepped up and asked why. This is ok to do, but the coaches answer was just foolish and that set my son off.

So he let that coach have it. No name calling, no yelling, just frank and honest conversation.

Practices are self-directed, little feedback to players, poor attendance, my son picking up bad habits, etc...

It was not a good scene.

Of course, this coach got pissed. Nobody says anything to the coach in front of the others right? Take it off line. (where it can be managed by the coach)

My son took this, didn't bite, and came home. He told me what happened and I requested a meeting with the three of us.

This guy wanted to meet with me first, then my son. (more management) I declined, stating we can just work it out, or we can't, but there is no element of the discussion that is not appropriate for my son to hear.

At the table, I asked the following:

How can we fix, or move forward from:

1. Son no longer wanting to play ball

(This has never happened before)

2. Skill set regression.

(had to explain regression ---hmmm....)

I detailed how I asked my son what the core problem was. The answer given was not enough feedback to skill build with.

Here is where it got interesting. The coach wanted to discuss my son putting these things on the table during team time. I said sure, but let's address the core issues first, then have that discussion.

Turns out this guy is frustrated because he's not getting to coach advanced baseball. He believes in self-directed programs where the kids work hard and he makes decisions, talks theory, etc... Resents the basics and says kids who are not self-directed get what they get!

(At this point the respect was gone, which is why I waited. Needed to know if this guy had earned the deference he was asking for. He didn't.)

I challenged back with the usual, "you work for us" public school approach. Sorry, but it's true. I don't abuse this, but I do make it clear your average parent is more than within their rights to give feedback, ask hard questions and get answers and or action when warranted.

Asked why not motivate the kids, why not introduce the basics when needed, where is the team building necessary to get the kinds of bonds that make kids show up for practice and have some skin in the game? If he's not gonna put any skin in the game, why would the kids he is working with do so?

(This is basic stuff that is obvious to any coach that understands kids.)

Got a bunch of holier than thou ex-college level coach, expecting more than he sees and what about your son calling me out. That's not supposed to be done, can we talk about that?

So, having made the decision, we discussed that.

Essentially my son is not sorry. The coach apologized for giving it back to him. Of course we accepted, but did not return the favor in like kind. Since there was no insults delivered, the hard questions stand and his answers do not warrant greater action.

When I told him this, he got annoyed again.

Reiterated the idea that he needs this as the coach. So, I countered with one 15 minute period during the week where the entire team speaks as peers. No taboos, everything on the table, etc...

If he grants that, my son will not ask tough questions during after game sessions.

He refused.

Actually told me he didn't like that approach. (No wonder. He would get it firmly and regularly from those kids.)

Entitlement, with every effort to reduce accountability to the bare minimum. This approach reminded me of our (P)resident actually. Had we met outside of the jobs, both would be interesting neighbors that I know I would have little problem with.

Serving in their official capacity, asking for deference, simply because they hold a position though is not gonna fly.

I told this long story Herb, because there is a clear difference between hate and disregard.

Expressing disregard, asking hard questions in public venues, etc... is a basic form of accountability that is right in line with how the founders wanted this place to run. If you are doing badly, hearing about it is a non-violent way to see some pressure and incentive to do better.

That's what is here on this board, the majority of the time.

I told this coach, we would consider his answers and get back to him. After another horrible mess of practice and game that evening, my son quit for the first time ever, will be working a job for extra money we will use for summer camp to improve skills.

Had that guy been working hard to lead and tried to get the job done, instead of hiding behind lame excuses that essentially boiled down to enough of the kids being beneath him to warrant just letting things go, we would have engaged.

But how can my son, as a clear team leader, well respected by his peers, actually continue to support something that is doing more harm than good?

The right answer is that he can't and shouldn't.

Think about that, hate, and most all of the discussions here. Put in context, it's the same sort of problem. Nowhere is hate involved Herb.

Nowhere.

"Expressing disregard, asking hard questions in public venues, etc... is a basic form of accountability that is right in line with how the founders wanted this place to run. If you are doing badly, hearing about it is a non-violent way to see some pressure and incentive to do better."

Sounds great, if it goes both ways and the ad-hominem attacks are excised. I've long said "Make it about the issue, guys...there's no need to get personal."

For example, I detested many of Mr. Clinton's policies. Yet I avoided cursing him and stridently defended his daughter when the press went after her. Make it about policies and not people. That's the way politics can remain issue-driven and not nearly so vicious.

And if many of you realized how puerile swearing makes your position appear to a significant number of middle-of-the-road voters, you'd avoid it at all costs.

Just remember.

During any future democrat administration, don't cry 'foul' when a democrat president is held accountable.

Herb

Okay, that's easy.

I detest pretty much all of Mr. Bush's policies. And Mr. Cheneys also (which is saying the same thing). I detest what they've done to our country, by fostering division, suspicion, and distrust among Americans and foreigners alike. I detest the way that Mr. Bush ignores the will of the majority of Americans. I detest the way he and his administration defy the Constitution.

I do not hate. I pray each Sunday for wisdom and guidance for our leaders, and those in foreign countries.

Peace to all.

I'm perfectly ok with that balance too.

Remember to support it though. The crap here, has stood the test of time, because there is a LOT of support for it.

It's been asked here many times, "what makes this president worth it?"

Nothing.

The attitude here is well justified. There are a few things that are lame, but taken as a whole, we've got reasoned objections, and frank expressions of frustration, anger, etc...

Most of those come from hearing how this guy deserves better, when he clearly doesn't.

The truth is, this guy just really sucks. Want to see less hammering on him? (I can't imagine why though.) Don't come here and expect to defend somebody that sucks and not get it right back.

Most of the frustration comes from not seeing some level of acceptance on the suckage. I'm completely serious. I personally would love to be hearing about how the GOP is gonna improve, hold this guy, and his administration accountable for the serious damage they have done to both the conservative ideology in general, and the GOP specifically.

If I were still aligned with the GOP, I would totally be having this discussion and would be completely pissed at having to have it! I would have it, because it is really the only way back to getting real work done.

What I don't get is why that isn't happening. Being a Republican is ok, being a conservative is ok. Allowing a bozo to completely trash that, even if a coupla issues get legislated (whether or not they should be is another discussion), just can't be worth it, can it?

I know I'm not gonna support the (weak) GOP for a good long time as a result of this (P)resident. Others here have left the party as well. Given the last election cycle, current polling numbers and field of candidates, it's not looking all that good for '08 either.

I think that harms all of us.

"I personally would love to be hearing about how the GOP is gonna improve, hold this guy, and his administration accountable..."

Fine. But first of all, the guy's a lame duck. You can wail on him all you want, but the next election is already underway. Again, one can either look forward or focus on the past.

You're not going to change Mr. Bush, and the votes aren't there to make much difference in the meanwhile. I've long seen some advantages of gridlock, and I'm surprised my liberal friends can't at this moment.

In fact, if the democrats aren't careful, and opt to pursue a vitriolic and questionably patriotic path, some conservatives may well successfully blame democrats for any lack of success in Iraq. That WILL affect any prospects democrats may hope to have.

How much do you want another 4 years of Republican control? Better try some other methods, guys. When it comes to momentum, remember what Mrs. Clinton says: Not so fast. That's because off-year elections like 2006 are usually favourable to the out-of-power party.

Get a good plan and the American public may buy it. Continue to rant and name-call, and you'll only be seen as bitter.

Herb

"Again, one can either look forward or focus on the past."

Thank you. I assume you are saying that because looking forward, in this case, is more prodective? Perhaps someone could even go as far as to say " Better." ( Again, you can't ALWAYS say that it is. But in this case, no? )

Herb, sometimes I get the feeling that you feel the need to defend Bush's actions because it would make Republicans look bad to admit fault. ( I'm not saying that YOU, personally don't admit fault. Because you do, man. I see it quite often from you ).

But it is frustrating to read a certain pointed jab at Bush from someone else, and because it is pointed, then you feel the need to defend the actions of The Republican party as a whole...wait...that's not even accurate.

I'm going to try and say this as plainly as I can ( only for MY sake, not because you wouldn't understand it otherwise ):

I, as a Democrat, would be awfully quick to move on from a topic that makes Bush look bad, and assign ZERO blame to you personally, if it was more clear that you didn't actually support something bad that Bush has done. I almost get the feeling that Bush's heart may be in the right place sometimes. But his head is not there nearly as often.

As as far as promising not to cry foul when a Democrat is in office and pulls the same bone-headed moves - I will promise. In fact, I will hold those people to a higher standard than the ones I DIDN'T vote for. I'll be twice as quick as you to say " That is wrong." If the Pelosi ( And we've got 3 spellings of her name floating around here - I think mine is spelled correctly ) and her impending scandal comes to light, I'll be all over it. But Bush, to me, can't really surprise me any longer. I just want him to stop doing anything big for a while. I wish I could jst say " Oh well, come on now. He's just getting overly-scrutinized. " But I do not believe that. In fact, I keep giving him much more benefit of the doubt than I thought I would have at this point. He keeps squandering it on too many levels for me to.

I'm really in a ranting mode today. I gotta focus.

I can see things as too complex sometimes. Maybe that's what giving the benefit of the doubt to someone underserving does to me. It makes me unconfident in things that really matter for me to be confident in...

...GEEZE...there I go again.

I'm working on it.

AH HA! I think I've got it.

Bush would have been seen as a better President in say, the 1950's. His M.O. would have been embraced. Maybe that's why you appreciate his style more than I do. I'm younger and I see the world as much different now than it was back then.

...getting closer...still morking on it.

"Bush would have been seen as a better President in say, the 1950's. His M.O. would have been embraced. "

ABSOLUTELY. In fact, I was thinking that EXACT SAME THING a few hours earlier.

However, I have no doubt that Mr. Bush could be seen as visionary in his view that all cultures appreciate freedom. In 100 years, maybe we'll know the answer. I don't want any American boys dying for ingrates.

The only problem is that many, many Iraqis and Afghanis are not ingrates. And even if they were, we still have to clean out the hornet's nest of terror. I do believe the president also has a point when he says that we can either fight them there or here.

Herb

"I do believe the president also has a point when he says that we can either fight them there or here."

The U.S. military disagrees with you.

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17038910.htm?source=rss&c hannel=krwashington_nation

To - "Bush would have been seen as a better President in say, the 1950's. His M.O. would have been embraced. "

Herb said "ABSOLUTELY. In fact, I was thinking that EXACT SAME THING a few hours earlier."

But my problem with that scenario is that there was even LESS transparency in the 50's. I was leaning more towards " His fear tactics ( against United States citizens ) and his penchant for doing what he only wants, and have it go relatively unscrutinized would have been easier for him then. And that would have fed his desire for absolute power - instead of leadership."

I will take over-scrutinized of today over under-scrutinized back then, any day.

The '50s was also the Cold War era, when we were nose-to-nose with other nations on the brink of nuclear annhilation. Government secrecy was part and parcel with victory, something we all learned well from WWII.

Today's conflict with terrorism is not on the same par, and even the White House acknowledges this by referring to terrorist tactics as "asymmetrical warfare", meaning that "they are not fighting by conventional rules". This is not normal fighting - just ask the Israelies. Knowing state secrets, though perhaps helpful to the terrorists, are not essential to their goal of simply terrorizing us. If we are afraid of them, they are winning.

"The 50's was also the Cold War era..."

Exactly my reason for thinking the way I do about Bush. His mindset/goals is one that would have been supported by American citizens...THEN.

It's just not working as well today. We need someone who sees it all differently. It's SUPER complex. But hey, I guess I have to ackowledge the possiblity that he IS the best person for the job today. My gut says otherwise however.

What's wrong with wanting someone in office who sees it accurately?

Bush and this administation are very much of the mind that is is the purpose (destiny?) of America to shape the course of world history. We should not be responding to the world as it is, but directing the world toward what it should be. Freedom across the globe is a big part of their vision, but they seem unable to comprehend the complexities of the world, and of the task they have set out for themselves.

"However, I have no doubt that Mr. Bush could be seen as visionary in his view that all cultures appreciate freedom. In 100 years, maybe we'll know the answer. I don't want any American boys dying for ingrates."

Bush's view seems to be that all cultures appreciate freedom, on HIS terms. He is trying to instill freedom in Iraq on HIS terms, and the Iraqi people have zero interest in being free on HIS terms. It's grand that he wants all people to be free, it is a noble and just cause ... there are just better ways to go about it.

I don't know how many of us in here actually HATE Bush. My cousin got a chance to meet him soon after he was re-elected and came away amazed at how nice of a guy Bush was. I don't doubt that for a minute, that he can be a real easy guy to talk to and yuk it up with, like your neighbor or something. As said above, it's not "hate", it's "respect". Respect is not given, it's earned. As a person who manages some 30-40 employees between three restaurants, I personally don't give a crap if my employees LIKE me or not. If I don't have their RESPECT, then there is a problem. It could be that they are not respectful people and don't care (which happens sometimes) and it could well be that I have not EARNED their respect (which has also happened). Both instances are MY fault, not theirs. If they are not respectful of me and/or others and have a poor attitude, it is my fault because I enable this behavior by continuing to employ the person. If I have not earned their respect, that is also my fault because I have not done my job.

Same thing with the President. I have the utmost respect for the position, I have zero respect for the man in that position. What really has he done to EARN my respect? If my neighbor is the nicest guy in the world but cheats on his wife, hits his kids and kicks the dog, that doesn't mean I HATE him, but I sure won't have much respect.

I question his definition of freedom as well.

Freedom to exploit the resources and people? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? No. Etc...

I particularly am amused that we are even discussing "freedom" in Iraq or anywhere else. George W Bush never mentioned a word about "freedom" until it became quite clear there were no WMDs.

Lets not let Bush get away with changing a lie into a philosophy that makes him some kind of hero in the future.

Bush lied.

"Lets not let Bush get away with changing a lie into a philosophy that makes him some kind of hero in the future.

Bush lied."

But we're supposed to show him the utmost respect because he happens to be the President of the United States of America.

His lie has cost over 3,000 US casualties and over 600,000 Iraqi casualties. We're supposed to blindly respect that?

Spin THAT.

Or one could write the list this way:

1. Populist Liberal Democrat
2. Populist Traditional Democrat
3. Paranoid Republican
4. Populist Liberal Democrat
5. Populist Former Democrat

From knuckle dragging to today, no era in history would shine favorably on the shrub. Why bother being charitable? If he were in charge in the 1950s, we would still be at war in Korea in 2007.

Blacks would be turned away or paying a poll tax and taking a test instead of being falsely put on felon lists, intimidated by hoodlums, lied to by flyers, and if they get to the polls, voting on faulty machines.

Yeah, a dubya 1950s would just be great. Let me guess, we can kiss Rock-n-Roll goodbye too. I'd be willing to bet that with the ratification of the Welk Amendment, he would have nipped it in the bud in 1953.