Presidential Blunders

[IllustriousPotentate]

CNN has compiled a list of the top 10 presidential blunders.

http://www.cnn.com/2..stakes.ap/index.html

They are, in order:

1. James Buchanan, allowing the Civil War
2. Andrew Johnson, siding with white southerners after the Civil War over black rights
3. Lyndon Johnson, escalating the Vietnam War
4. Woodrow Wilson refusing to negotiate on the Treaty of Versailles
5. Richard Nixon, Watergate
6. James Madison, failing to prevent the war of 1812
7. Thomas Jefferson, Embargo Act of 1807
8. John F. Kennedy, allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion
9. Ronald Reagan, Iran-Contra Affair
10. Bill Clinton, Monicagate

THIS IS NOT A THREAD FOR DISCUSSING GEORGE W. BUSH! Do that here.

Personally, I would add Herbert Hoover's failure to do anything effective towards easing the Great Depression, even if there wasn't much he could do.

There's also Ford pardoning Nixon of any crimes when he came into office after Nixon's resignation, and the Harding administration's involvement in Teapot Dome.

Any others, that were bad PR for the president or bad for the country that you can share?

[crjohn3230]

i think the war f 1812 wasint a mistake it showed that we could take on a super power twice and win

[JerkClock]

Remind me what the iran-contra affair was. Wasn't it that hostage situation? You know, the one carter failed to end, but the reagan succeeded in ending? Was that it?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 2/18/06 08:27 PM, crjohn3230 wrote: i think the war f 1812 wasint a mistake it showed that we could take on a super power twice and win

Yes, but look at the damage it caused--we nearly lost. Washington burned to the ground, Was that really worth the bigger ego?

[animehater]

At 2/18/06 08:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Yes, but look at the damage it caused--we nearly lost. Washington burned to the ground, Was that really worth the bigger ego?

Yes

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/18/06 08:32 PM, JerkClock wrote: Remind me what the iran-contra affair was. Wasn't it that hostage situation? You know, the one carter failed to end, but the reagan succeeded in ending? Was that it?

No, but I see your point. Iran-Contra was when Ronald Reagan's Administration sold weapons to Iran and then funneled the money illegally to Nicuaraguan contras who fought against the Marxist establishment. It was dumb.

[Politics]

At 2/18/06 08:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: 10. Bill Clinton, Monicagate

I liked this one the best, not because of what it actually was, but because of the name. I mean, are they trying to say that he corrupted our Monica? I think she was slutty before he got to her. And don't get me started with the "Deep throat" parellels.

Anyways, I'm sure these jokes have been made 1000 times before, so I'll stop. But in all seriousness, I really don't think the sexual precariousness of Clinton was deserving of a slot in the top ten.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 2/18/06 09:55 PM, Captn_ wrote:

At 2/18/06 08:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: 10. Bill Clinton, Monicagate

I liked this one the best, not because of what it actually was, but because of the name. I mean, are they trying to say that he corrupted our Monica? I think she was slutty before he got to her. And don't get me started with the "Deep throat" parellels.

Monicagate was just my abbreviation for it, it's not their actual wording. I figured if I put that down, you'd know what it was just as good as if I wrote out "Monica Lewisky sex affair and related impeachment" or something similar.

But yeah, the article admits that it wasn't so much as a national blunder as a PR blunder--it really only hurt his presidency, and not much else.

[Imperator]

But yeah, the article admits that it wasn't so much as a national blunder as a PR blunder--it really only hurt his presidency, and not much else.

Well the whole lying in front of court and Impeachment was kinda a national blunder. I guess you could say it put America in a negative impression for the rest of the world. I mean, if our president had no qualms about lying in court, he certainly wouldn't have a problem lying to foreign dignitaries.......

But that's kinda a stretch....No, it wasn't the kinda national blunder the rest are.

[JerkClock]

At 2/18/06 08:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:
No, but I see your point. Iran-Contra was when Ronald Reagan's Administration sold weapons to Iran and then funneled the money illegally to Nicuaraguan contras who fought against the Marxist establishment. It was dumb.

Yeah, just making sure it was that and not what I thought it was.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/18/06 10:18 PM, Imperator wrote: But that's kinda a stretch....No, it wasn't the kinda national blunder the rest are.

Worse than Watergate.

[N-Antichrist]

George Bush!

soz

[Kieland]

At 2/18/06 10:18 PM, Imperator wrote: But that's kinda a stretch....No, it wasn't the kinda national blunder the rest are.

Monicagate wasn't a national blunder at all. It was one president's moral failure that was turned it something that was bigger than it was. Its left scars, but I think Vietnam's esclastion, the Bay of Pigs, the Great Depression's rampage, etc. are more pressing matters than Bill Clinton's sex life.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/18/06 09:55 PM, Captn_ wrote:

At 2/18/06 08:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: 10. Bill Clinton, Monicagate

I liked this one the best, not because of what it actually was, but because of the name. I mean, are they trying to say that he corrupted our Monica? I think she was slutty before he got to her. And don't get me started with the "Deep throat" parellels.

Anyways, I'm sure these jokes have been made 1000 times before, so I'll stop. But in all seriousness, I really don't think the sexual precariousness of Clinton was deserving of a slot in the top ten.

He's not on there because he had sex. The controversy wasn't even about sex. It was about perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury, etc. Corrupted Monica? NO.

Quick recap. Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. They called Monica to testify, so as to set a pattern of behavior. Not only did Clinton lie under oath, he insturucted Monica to, asked her to tell Linda Tripp too. Helped her hide evidence of their affair, etc. The controversy was about how far he went to rob Paula of her day in court, not the actual sex.

[The-Toller]

At 2/18/06 10:18 PM, Imperator wrote:

But yeah, the article admits that it wasn't so much as a national blunder as a PR blunder--it really only hurt his presidency, and not much else.

Well the whole lying in front of court and Impeachment was kinda a national blunder. I guess you could say it put America in a negative impression for the rest of the world. I mean, if our president had no qualms about lying in court, he certainly wouldn't have a problem lying to foreign dignitaries.......

But that's kinda a stretch....No, it wasn't the kinda national blunder the rest are.

I think that at least in Europe's eyes, the real blunder was that Clinton's private life became a national issue and the Americans made such a big deal out of it, not that he lied in court. The issue should have been strictly been a business between Clinton and his wife.

Just because he lied when he was asked about a private matter (that were none of the American people's business) Doesn't mean he wouldn't have told the truth if he would have been asked something that was actually vital for the nation or that he would lie to foreign diplomats.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/20/06 08:42 AM, The_Toller wrote: I think that at least in Europe's eyes, the real blunder was that Clinton's private life became a national issue and the Americans made such a big deal out of it, not that he lied in court. The issue should have been strictly been a business between Clinton and his wife.

You know what? You're right. Let's take away the right for women to press charges against men for sexual violation, particularly powerful men. Because when a man pulls down pants and asks a woman to suck him, she shouldn't have a right to go to court and sue. It's between the sleaze-ball man and his wife.

You people need to learn to think about what you say before you speak.

[mayeram]

At 2/20/06 08:42 AM, The_Toller wrote:

I think that at least in Europe's eyes, the real blunder was that Clinton's private life became a national issue and the Americans made such a big deal out of it, not that he lied in court. The issue should have been strictly been a business between Clinton and his wife.

Just because he lied when he was asked about a private matter (that were none of the American people's business) Doesn't mean he wouldn't have told the truth if he would have been asked something that was actually vital for the nation or that he would lie to foreign diplomats.

I totally agree, it was just the republican congress that allowed it to go as far as it did. Just look at the president today, he lies every day (yes not under oath) and we don’t raise a fuss.

What’s worse, a president that lies about his personal life which shouldn’t concern the public, or a president that lies about important issues in the world in order to get us to do things we otherwise wouldn’t?

Sorry I didn’t want to bring bush into this; he just seemed relevant to what we were talking about.

[mayeram]

At 2/20/06 10:00 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

You know what? You're right. Let's take away the right for women to press charges against men for sexual violation, particularly powerful men. Because when a man pulls down pants and asks a woman to suck him, she shouldn't have a right to go to court and sue. It's between the sleaze-ball man and his wife.

You people need to learn to think about what you say before you speak.

Hmm that would be pretty bad... I doubt it was quite that sudden. I don’t think Clinton was that stupid, it probably progressed over time.

The thing is, I think people sue too often today. It can be the smallest thing and people will go to court. Like a man has a Freudian slip and says good to sex you today when he is talking to his co-worker while he was thinking about his wife.

People shouldnt sue unless other people really made their office life a living hell.

Hmm, i am starting to think i was too young when this happened to really understand. my memories of the event are quite different of what you guys are saying.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/20/06 10:14 AM, mayeram wrote:

At 2/20/06 10:00 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

You know what? You're right. Let's take away the right for women to press charges against men for sexual violation, particularly powerful men. Because when a man pulls down pants and asks a woman to suck him, she shouldn't have a right to go to court and sue. It's between the sleaze-ball man and his wife.

You people need to learn to think about what you say before you speak.

Hmm that would be pretty bad... I doubt it was quite that sudden. I don’t think Clinton was that stupid, it probably progressed over time.

Paula Jones filed suit against Clinton because he pulled down his pants and asked her to suck his cock. And as a result, Clinton ruined her reputation and made her out to be the biggest slut in the world. Everyone in the Administration stonewalled, lied, and abused power, and they didn't even have the common courtesy to tell us it was for national security after they were done. It was to make a good woman out to be a whore. The suit was tossed out, and then came allegations of Monica Lewinsky. And so it went. But you're right, it's all part of his personal life. I mean, he never forced Paula Jones to suck his penis, so it's fine, right?

The thing is, I think people sue too often today. It can be the smallest thing and people will go to court. Like a man has a Freudian slip and says good to sex you today when he is talking to his co-worker while he was thinking about his wife.

You're right. Pulling down your pants and saying "suck me" to a woman is certainly not grounds for a lawsuit. We need lawsuit reform so we can make sure these frivilous lawsuits don't ever happen again.

[mayeram]

How do they know he pulled down his pants and said "suck me!"? It was probably her word versus his. Plus, how do you know him and her hadnt been doing things for a while, and this wasnt just a way for her to hurt him? What are the chances that clinton would walk up to a random woman and say SUCK ME WHORE!!! I would totally understand if it had been going on for a while and she hadnt been giving him obvious signs that she was disgusted (although any woman would be when sucking off a man that old). Just the thought of what clinton's nuts would look like makes me sick.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/20/06 12:45 PM, mayeram wrote: How do they know he pulled down his pants and said "suck me!"? It was probably her word versus his.

Because he's cheated on his wife before multiple times and everyone knows it. He's a huge sleaze.