Who was the least successful foreign policy president?
September 21st, 2012
05:01 AM ET

Who was the least successful foreign policy president?

In less than two weeks, President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney will square off in the first of a series of presidential debates that will include foreign policy. But who should they be drawing their inspiration from? And whose examples should they be avoiding?

Global Public Square asked a group of historians and commentators for their take on the most successful and least successful U.S. presidents, from a foreign policy point of view. Yesterday, we looked at the best. Today we are looking at the least successful. (All views expressed here are, of course, the writers' own.)

George W. Bush

Bruce Jentleson is professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University and the author, among other works, of American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century.

His take: Because I’m a Democrat, some may seek to discount my negative assessment of George W. Bush as political. But the facts bear it out. Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was a real opportunity for forging a shared sense of purpose – this one squandered by telling Americans to go shopping not grow victory gardens and exploited politically by painting broadly with the “soft on terrorism” brush. On top of that, the Iraq War was among the worst strategic blunders in American foreign policy history. Sure, Saddam Hussein was eliminated: as someone who wrote a book about him, I don’t undervalue this. But any full net assessment of what was gained and lost comes out highly negative. Key alliance relations were damaged. Fallout was felt throughout the Middle East. The American economy took a $3 trillion hit. Our troops suffered over 4,440 casualties, many more injuries, and huge tolls on military families.  This was a war of choice, not necessity, and the wrong choice was made.

David Ryan is professor of history at University College Cork, Ireland and author of Frustrated Empire: U.S. Foreign Policy from 9/11 to Iraq.

His take: There is little competition for the slot of worst: it is occupied by president No. 43: George W. Bush. Faced with the tragedy of 9/11, Bush deployed to Afghanistan without sufficient preparation or strategic insight into the country or the enemy (the word should be in the plural). Though many, including the current incumbent in the White House, considered this a necessary war, there is much to question on whether the war begun in October 2001 was the most appropriate way to handle al-Qaeda.  The Bush administration initiated a series of conflations that lumped al-Qaeda in with the Taliban and responded to an unconventional threat in an unimaginative and conventional manner.  The casualties – regional instability and over ten years of war – have been disproportionate to the objectives. However, for the United States, the context of 9/11 has largely but not exclusively rendered the discourse on Afghanistan to one of tactics and efficacy.

Iraq, of course, is the other kettle of fish.  The argument has been repeated so many times now, but this was a gratuitous disaster of the president’s choosing.  We are now all familiar with the narratives on Iraq from the early days after 9/11, the sweep them all up attitude, the further conflations of the ‘terrorists and the tyrants,” the absence of WMD, and the gratuitous rhetoric on democracy promotion and sanding up the dominoes.

The death toll has been incredible and unnecessary; the mid-term outcomes still uncertain.  At the end of his prescient book on the Johnson administration, Choosing War, Professor Fredrik Logevall warned that something like Vietnam could happen again.  The primacy of the president remained relatively speaking unchecked. Americans debated little prior to the war and turned deaf ears to others who warned against military intervention in 2002-2003, much as Johnson did in 1964-65.

These were wars of choice that dislodged the United States.  They exacted terrible human tragedy, huge financial costs, undermined the strategic position of the United States by the end of the 1960s and the end of the first decade of the 21st century.  No wonder Obama increasingly sounded like Eisenhower in his early years.  His deeper understanding of U.S. long term strategy and security suddenly seemed appealing as the narrative turned to one of nation building at home.  Still, even Eisenhower faltered with the CIA assisted overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953.  The long term unintended consequences that rebounded in 1979 ought to be considered more often as U.S. presidents launch into military interventions.

James Lee Ray is director of undergraduate studies at Vanderbilt University.

His take: George W. Bush did have an unprecedented challenge to deal with, in the form of the attacks of 9/11. He got off to a good start, launching a quick, small, efficient attack that dislodged the Taliban from power immediately.

But then the military let Osama bin Laden get away, and the Bush administration downplayed his importance. Instead, Bush launched the badly planned venture in Iraq.  There was little preparation for what came after the “mission” was “accomplished.” Bush also laid the groundwork for disaster in Afghanistan. His foreign policy statements, and unilateralism, sowed distrust and antagonism against the United States throughout much of the world (except Africa). He did improve relations with India, but only at a cost of alienating Pakistan, and weakening the anti-nuclear proliferation regime. His foreign policy ventures were obscenely expensive (a problem he exacerbated with excessive domestic spending.)  Perhaps the crash of 2008 wasn’t his fault, but he did not prevent it.  He left the country so much worse off than he found it in 2000 that the deterioration is astounding.

Andrew Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired career officer in the U.S. Army.

His take: George W. Bush became president when the United States, having outlasted the Soviets in the Cold War, was the self-proclaimed “sole superpower.” Yet through his reckless conduct of the utterly misconceived “global war on terrorism,” Bush squandered advantages that it had required decades to accrue. The result: protracted and unwinnable wars, thousands of Americans killed and many thousands more maimed, hundreds of billions squandered – for essentially zero return. Bush’s legacy: the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see; heightened anti-American sentiment through much of the Islamic world, while emerging rivals are eating our lunch economically.

James Lindsay is the senior vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

His take: George W. Bush launched a war of choice in Iraq based on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. Much as in Afghanistan, a brilliant initial military campaign in Iraq was not followed by a strategy for winning the peace. Bush squandered the sympathy that the world felt for the United States after 9/11 and diminished America’s soft power. His Freedom Agenda reflected lofty ideals that were not matched with a practical implementation plan or adequate resources. Bush’s heartfelt commitment to combating HIV and AIDS around the world and his creation of the Millennium Challenge Account represent the two bright spots on his foreign policy resume.

Scott Lucas is a professor of American and Canadian Studies at the University of Birmingham, England.

His take: The worst foreign policy president is easy: George W. Bush. A man of limited intelligence, vision, and knowledge of life beyond the United States, but a man of street-fighting political skills and a determination to persist, whatever the circumstances. A man working with advisors dedicated to the achievement of U.S. power as a perpetual state of dominance – the “unipolar era.”

It was a combination that, before 9-11, was already looking at the possibilities. The day after 9/11, it asked – as National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying – “How do we capitalize on these opportunities?” And so one tragedy begat more tragedies. The plan to topple Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as the demonstration of U.S. unipolarity, sold on the basis of 9-11 and WMDs, would achieve the opposite: it illustrated vividly the limits of American power and, indeed, of American values.

We – not the American “we” but all of us around the world – are still paying the price of that ill-conceived quest.

 

Lyndon B. Johnson

James Lindsay:

His take: Sticking with the bipartisan theme, the two least successful foreign policy presidents are Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush. Both Texans made the same mistake: they plunged the country into unnecessary and divisive wars. LBJ notched a few foreign policy triumphs – most notably the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty – though none rivaled his domestic policy achievements. But Vietnam stands as LBJ’s main foreign policy legacy. From overreacting to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 to the Tet Offensive in 1968, he consistently misread U.S. interests and North Vietnam’s resilience. The result broke his presidency.

James Lee Ray:

His take: Lyndon Johnson’s invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 was a harbinger.  There was no communist threat there. There clearly was a communist threat in South Vietnam.  And his suspicion that he might lose the election in 1968 if he “lost” South Vietnam to the Communists may have been well-founded.

Furthermore, he got caught in a trap that was not of his own making. The original mistake was not accepting the elections for Vietnam set up by the Geneva Accords in the 1950s. Ho Chi Minh would have won them, perhaps. But then Vietnam might have become a communist state like Yugoslavia, with which the United States could have had even amicable relations.

Johnson felt he was adopting a moderate, middle of the road policy, by only giving the military in Vietnam about half of what it asked for.  But he stuck to that policy until the generals wanted a million men, and he gave them only 500,000.  Even that wasn’t enough.

Conservatives will never forgive him for the Great Society (and they never seem to remember that his last federal budget led to a surplus, in 1969.)  And Liberals will never forgive him for the war in Vietnam.  In short, he was very unlucky.

And the rest:

Barack Obama

Danielle Pletka is Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Her take: For worst, it is always tempting to crown Jimmy Carter, not least because he has become an intense version of his self-loathing, anti-democratic, anti-Israel presidency. But Carter did not change the world and despite his efforts, he didn’t change America either. That privilege falls to Barack Obama.

On the face of it, Obama has not seemed the worst of America’s foreign policy presidents. He initially sought to win the war in Afghanistan; he successfully honed anti-terrorism policies and capitalized on his predecessor’s interrogation strategies to find and order Osama bin Laden killed. These are important accomplishments, and notwithstanding his unattractive credit-grabbing, to be lauded.

But our foreign policy is inextricable from our economy; those who suggest that America cannot afford greatness are looking to our FY2012 $1.16 trillion dollar deficit; our planned trillion dollar cuts in military spending, our crippling debt to China and to the concurrent rise of important challenges to American power that have gone unchecked.

Once again, America is at a crossroads. The urgency of the post-9/11 era has passed and the fight against Islamist extremists has lost its appeal.  China is rising and seeks to dominate the Pacific. Europe itself can no longer project power and is consumed by the Euro fiasco. And that Reagan era vision – embraced by every President since – is at risk. Are we exceptional in our commitment to expanding liberty? Rolling back threats to our allies? Sharing our blessings? Or will we turn inward, our clarion call being “nation building here at home”?

The road chosen in the coming election will do a great deal to set our nation on its future path. Will we be a nation in decline, afraid of confrontation, indifferent to our allies and our values? Or will we be a nation that invests in greatness – not by making subsidized solar panels or government supported cars, but by recognizing that we alone have the power to move the world? If we stay on the path chosen by Barack Obama, we will be a nation in which more Americans enjoy disability payments than get new jobs, in which the percentage of Americans that work will continue to decline; in which entitlements explode and defense withers. That is the Obama legacy, in foreign policy and at home.

 

Jimmy Carter

Thomas Schwartz is professor of history at Vanderbilt University.

His take: Two presidents come to mind for very different reasons. Gerald Ford inherited a tarnished presidency from Richard Nixon, and a newly-empowered Congress frustrated his and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy initiatives. Ford presided over the collapse of Saigon in April 1975 and saw his attempt to intervene in Angola stopped by Congress. Ironically enough, his gaffe during the presidential debate about Poland not being dominated by the Soviet Union may have caused his defeat in the election, even though Poland would indeed soon show considerable defiance of Moscow. Lyndon Johnson was an extraordinarily successful president in domestic affairs, but his singular failure to manage the Vietnam War damaged his overall foreign policy standing. Johnson did have more success in other areas of the world, including Europe and the Middle East, but Vietnam will always haunt his presidency.

The least successful president in foreign policy is, in my view, Jimmy Carter, and I reach this conclusion with a certain regret. Carter has important accomplishments to his credit, including the Panama Canal treaty and the Camp David Accords bringing peace between Israel and Egypt. However Carter so badly mismanaged America’s relations with Iran, leading ultimately to the hostage crisis, as well as misunderstanding the Soviet Union, leading to his surprised reaction to the invasion of Afghanistan, that he presented a picture of American impotence to the world, one which paved the way for his overwhelming defeat in 1980 by Ronald Reagan. The president sought to refocus America’s foreign policy on such noble and idealistic goals as the promotion of human rights, but his wavering commitment to allies, and his uncertain response to enemies, ultimately undermined even these important goals.

James Polk

Bruce Jentleson:

His take: James Polk, on the other hand, sought expansion through force rather than diplomacy. Polk was determined to annex Texas but faced a Congress that under his predecessor President John Tyler had refused to ratify a treaty of annexation. So he “stampeded Congress,” as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote, into a declaration of war by provoking a military confrontation with Mexico. Such machinations prompted concern about the precedent being set from a young congressman from Illinois. “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary,” wrote Representative Abraham Lincoln, “and you allow him to make war at [his] pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect.”  While not the only president to abuse the war power, Polk was one of the first and more blatant.


soundoff (210 Responses)
  1. Joe Brown

    I usually read the 1st paragraph and don't finish crap like this. I only read one sentence this time. The worst foreign policy president in our country's history is our current president, Barrack Obama. Look how many love us now and how many we love. ZIPPO.

    September 21, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Reply
    • @GuileOfTheGods

      Talk to anyone in the UK? Their leaders love Obama, and hate Romney. But hey, you'll get em next time

      September 21, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  2. god save us idiots

    nothing destroys my faith in humanity like the comment section of articles like this. thank you interwebs.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
  3. cnnsucks

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    I see CNNBC is at it again – cutting off comments so the first page shows IDIOT LIBERAL ones ONLY!

    CNN WORST RATINGS in HISTORY – Well deserved you cesspool of liberal news!! Even the bozo's are leaving you!

    September 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
    • Charles Homme

      Stop! You're doing your side no favors posting like this.

      September 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Reply
      • cnnsucks

        When in Rome...

        Just following the liberal way!

        September 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • REG in AZ

      All you are accomplishing is demonstrating your frustration in having nothing worthwhile to say and instead just throwing a "tantrum".

      September 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Reply
      • cnnsucks

        Nothing you liberal sheep have to say is worth reading.

        Mine however is worth reading over and over.

        September 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • @GuileOfTheGods

      Quiet everyone!

      I think he may be trying to tell us something!

      What is it boy?

      September 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Reply
      • Gego

        Best comment on the boards today. You win the internet, good sir.

        September 21, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
  4. Wes

    George W. Bush had a one dimensional mentality and it was demonstrated on 9/11. The moment we were attacked he was at the mercy of the circling hawks in the White House. Attacking Iraq was like attacking California by way of Juarez. He has a low intelligence and is susceptible to any suggestion that would give him immediate gratification (and please his daddy, or impress mom). I knew the moment the planes hit those buildings that I would never get out of my wheelchair again as he could not be able to think of a myriad of complexities coincidentally (the stem cell issue he just addressed was immediately flushed). G. W. Bush will be a blight on American government and noted such historically for ages. I use to think Nixon was a disaster when I was in SEA, but now we are paying off the credit card of war that Bush ran up. I would enjoy seeing Bush on Jeopardy trying to win against Brittany Spears or some other genius. He is a mess we are cleaning up after.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
  5. ImWEBSPY

    I think the GOP is doing a social experiment, Accidently go to war on bad advice and kill and injure100 thousand needlessly. Take our money, jobs, homes, cars, give them to the banks and their friends on the way out of town.
    Then when were really good and poor get us to vote for a millionaire Mormon who calls us all a bunch of losers to win!

    September 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Reply
  6. REG in AZ

    One easy way to clearly see who was the worst foreign policy president is just to recognize how badly Bush-Cheney destroyed America's respect around the world, with friend and foe. Then to see the contrast today in the results Obama has had in re-establishing respect for America, again with friend as well as foe, which emphasizes the Bush-Cheney failure even more. Of course that takes an objective and rational viewing that some may be incapable of.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Reply
    • Tim

      What was one of the first things Obama did in office? He continually stuck his middle finger out at the UK. He sent back age-old gifts, refused to speak with them, said some pretty unkind words. I remember those first few years of him being the President, my friends over in England thought he was the biggest jerk of of President we'd ever had.

      Today the Muslim world is burning Obama's image in effigy on a daily, hourly basis. Yeah, he's gained a lot of respect for America in the world! It's always great to be friends with someone when you know he has nothing but his own personal interest at heart.

      September 21, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Reply
      • Jesus Christ Superstar

        WHAT????? He stuck his finger out at the UK?
        That MUST be why today they love him and despise Romney, right?

        September 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  7. Muslim John

    "Once again, America is at a crossroads. The urgency of the post-9/11 era has passed and the fight against Islamist extremists has lost its appeal."

    The only urgency of the post-9/11 era was a dozen men in a cave in Afghanistan! Fanatics overtook the white house and went off on a crusade in the Middle-East for the last decade claiming more than a million lives. If any conclusion can be drawn from this, is that the war on terror created and promoted fanaticism in both the Middle East and here at home. In addition to going postal, all the theft and corruption in main st. and wall st. led us to bankruptcy today.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Reply
  8. Dina

    I for one am still angry that Bush/Cheney have carefree lives of luxury, while so many lost their sons and daughters FOREVER. People who should be leading full productive lives. A trillion dollars wasted that could have been spent curing cancer, developing energy sources, building infrastructure or lowering the debt. Millions have also lost homes and jobs, their lives changed forever. Bush/Cheney are the great shame of America.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Reply
    • Wes

      There is still some room left in a prison someplace for both of them, along with a few other who are complicit in this madness of warfare. I agree with you completely.

      September 21, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Reply
  9. Jesus Christ Superstar

    They just had to throw Obama in there. Should we include William Henry Harrison? Or Chester A. Arthur, or JFK, or Andrew Johnson? No, lets throw Obama under the bus because we hate him and want Romney to win.

    I don't know who Danielle Pletka is, but history buff she is NOT.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Reply
  10. @GuileOfTheGods

    What Danielle Pletka doesn't seem to understand is A) BUSH STARTED THOSE WARS, NOT OBAMA, but it's ok if she doesn't like black people. B) The deficit is was the same as it was under Bush. C) China only has something like 8% of our debt, but I guess when you're just making up lies like this person is, you don't need to use stats, and just use silly words like crippling debt to China.

    After reading articles like this, I can't imagine why CNN has such terribly low ratings...

    September 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
  11. sitting on the empty chair

    58,000 died in the Vietnam war (loss) and 36,000 died in the Korean War (stalemate), but JFK and Truman are nowhere on this list (LBJ was though at least). 5,000 died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, less than the total death toll on Iwo Jima. All of these deaths are tragic but the magnitude of the death toll is much greater in the previous wars. Americans really have no sense of history, just what happened in the last generation or so.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  12. Johnny

    America was never dissed around the globe like today. At the W time I used to think he is the worst. But the worst will be Obama if reflected. Just think about it. God help us all.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  13. Leftcoastrocky

    And Obama inherited not only the terrible economy from Bush, but also terrible foreign relations.

    And Obama inherited an opposition party whose only goal is to destroy Obama no matter how badly they hurt the U.S.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • @GuileOfTheGods

      But they just had to add Obama in there. Notice how the writer of that part hardly used facts or stats? Or did any comparing? No cause & effect in her world, just a bunch of random coincidences.

      September 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Reply
  14. UnFred

    George W. Bush Ding Ding Ding Ding... And we have a Winner!!!

    September 21, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  15. Brett72

    Liberals hate George Bush. So thats now a story on CNN???

    September 21, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Reply
  16. martiniano

    Danielle Pletka has a bit of a chip on her shoulder, wouldn't you say? Where exactly does she think the huge deficit come from? Who does she think sold us out to China to fund the war in Iraq? It would be nice if CNN, as a condition of including an opinion caused the writer to respond to user-rated questions about their opinion. Danielle's logic would be found so silly that she would lose her job – assuming it is a real job and not a made-up thing.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Reply
    • @GuileOfTheGods

      That's exactly what I was thinking. She doesn't understand how cause & effect work. If she were to go into any type of official debate forum with her "evidence", she would get it all thrown back in her face. "crippling debt to China", but no statistic, "$1.16 in deficit" but doesn't explain how it got there.

      September 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Reply
  17. keeth

    There are as yet undiscovered tribes in the heart of the Peruvian jungle who knew AEI would say BO.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Reply
  18. dah hurricane

    You Sir are a FOOL wearing the guise of a Wise Man, for all the reasons a relative foreigner will never understand, it is JC!

    September 21, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Reply
  19. @GuileOfTheGods

    So... after doing some research, it seems this Danielle Pletka also writes pieces for foxnews. I'm so glad CNN went out of its way to find someone to write a bunch of garbage to make the black guy look bad. Good work there. I'm sure this won't effect your ratings.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Reply
  20. edward

    The worst foreign policy leader was Adolph Hitler!

    September 21, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Reply
  21. JimC

    The American Enterprise is a conservative think tank (although I believe simply "tank" is a better lable since there seems to be no thinking going on there). Why am I not surprised that they bash Obama while ignoring the impact Bush had on the issues Obama inherited.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Reply
  22. Kevin235

    I am actually impressed that CNN would have publish this story at all, well...they probably were like, how can we make Obama looks good...OK, compare him to Bush....BRILLIANT! Being better at best average president doesn't make Obama a great President, just makes him look better then average.....and that isn't a win in my book. Notice they had like 5 people claiming Bush and had to throw in Obama once so they looked neutral, I am quite positive that if that was 5 people claiming Obama and 1 Bush, this article would never have seen the light of day.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Reply
  23. Randy

    You put Obama on this list? That's so blatantly political. Why is a right wing propaganda organization asked to contribute to a thing like this in the first place? It's one thing to ask some reasonable politician, Democrat or Republican, who is into history. But to give a platform to a propaganda organization is irresponsible.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Reply
  24. rabbit one

    there is no such thing as foreign policy – because these other countries are unpredictable – they act like monkeys or friends when you least expect without rhyme or reason

    September 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Reply
  25. Prach

    While I wholeheartedly agree with George W. Bush topping the list of least successful foreign policy presidents, I was surprised to see President Barack Obama's name on the list. It turns out that Ms. Danielle Pletka who chose President Obama happens to be married to Stephen Rademaker, who was in the George W. Bush presidential administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Reply
  26. Russel Jeffords

    The liberal bias of these "Professors," who are nothing more than welfare queens in tweed jackets with leather-patched sleeves) is simply sickening. They may have their views, and indeed, CNN solicited MINE, and did not publish them (nor, so it would appear, any OTHER academic critical of Mr. Obama's neo-Socialist leanings, foreign policy disasters, and fiscal....er....miscues.

    Accordingly, I must admit respect for the folks whose comments CNN did publish – at least they were honestly submitted.

    CNN's continued bias (i.e. toward the PRIVATE, STOLEN, and ILLEGALLY published contents of a PRIVATE dinner betwixt Romney and potential contributors (stolen and published by Jimmy Carter's grandson, no less – haven't the Carters done ENOUGH as a family (look at Amy – the love child of a bulldog and ten-speed bicycle by all appearances)).

    Shame on you, LibTard media, for continuing to miss the point.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Reply
    • AB

      And "liberal bias" is an excuse and using "betwixt" doesn't make you sound any smarter. But your use of LibTard should be a shining example of why CNN ignored your opinion... you're clearly a moron.

      September 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Reply
  27. Shills

    Harry Truman on ... ANY President that started and perpetuated the 'Cold War' which has cost us to this day. Really, this has caused the biggest spending on the Industrial Military Complex in the history of mankind with NOTHING to show for it. We could have 'traded' and worked out 'deals' with the Soviet Union and others that would have benefitted all involved including the American workers. My gosh.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Reply
  28. Aaron

    Why don't all the pseudo-conservatives take their "liberal bias" crap over to FoxNews? Oh, that's right... FoxNews doesn't let people comment on their garbage articles like CNN does. But that's probably because they're so fair and balanced, right?

    September 21, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Reply
  29. Olaf Big

    George W. Bush certainly did more than his fair share to undermine U.S. prestige abroad, but the prize for the magnitude and potential catastrophic consequences of foreign policy blunders actually goes to John F. Kennedy: Bay of Pigs invasion, Berlin Crisis, Caribbean missile crisis. We should all be grateful just to be alive after the "Best and the Brightest" were done with their job...

    September 21, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Reply
  30. Lawless4U

    Obviously Danielle Pletka didn't understand the question.

    She is talking about deficits and debt when the question asked dealt with foriegn policy. Not only that but in typical republican fashion she refuses to accept the FACT that the tanked economy is squarely on W's shoulders.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.