Best and Worst US Presidents of all time.

[Knowley]

The Best is always the first George Washington. He fought as the Leader of the Continental Army and fought through the war even if he won or lost....

The worst I'd have to say is G. W. Bush. I mean come on... Misunderestimated isn't even a word!

[The lepearchauns]

There are a lot of presidents who dont get the credit they deserve, and others who get too much

Eisenhower did a ton for this country. The interstate highway system is a massive contribution to the country.

However, Reagan was a little overrated in my mind. While he did peacefully end the cold war, he also oversaw an economic recession

I also think Washington is VASTLY overrated. He was the key to starting the country, but he didnt really...do anything in his presidency. He just kinda sat around and had congress build the country

[Lackadaisical2]

There are a lot of presidents who dont get the credit they deserve, and others who get too much

Eisenhower did a ton for this country. The interstate highway system is a massive contribution to the country.

However, Reagan was a little overrated in my mind. While he did peacefully end the cold war, he also oversaw an economic recession

I also think Washington is VASTLY overrated. He was the key to starting the country, but he didnt really...do anything in his presidency. He just kinda sat around and had congress build the country

Eh, how about the Whiskey rebellion?

Besides, I think Washington left a good example by not doing too much.

[Fiddlegreen Farms]

Best -

Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Teddy Roosevelt

Worst -

George W. Bush
Andrew Johnson
Warren G. Harding
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce

[Dracoria]

The Best is always the first George Washington. He fought as the Leader of the Continental Army and fought through the war even if he won or lost....

The worst I'd have to say is G. W. Bush. I mean come on... Misunderestimated isn't even a word!

Now now. The guy right after him knew we needed an intercontinental railroad to reach all 57 states. I'd say standards have dropped across the board.

[Lackadaisical2]

The Best is always the first George Washington. He fought as the Leader of the Continental Army and fought through the war even if he won or lost....

The worst I'd have to say is G. W. Bush. I mean come on... Misunderestimated isn't even a word!

Now now. The guy right after him knew we needed an intercontinental railroad to reach all 57 states. I'd say standards have dropped across the board.

Having made shitty wording mistakes tend to be a correspondingly shitty barometer of presidential skill.

[Tmutarakhan]

...Dubya(attacking the wrong country, screwing the world economy, not killing bin Laden, election fraud, spying on his own people, etc.)

Dubya's election fraud was not as bad as Hayes, his trashing of the economy was not as bad as Hoover, and his damage to the constitution was not as bad as Nixon; his war on Iraq was arguably a worse case of attacking a country that was not a threat than either Polk's Mexican war or McKinley's Spanish war, in that we didn't even get to steal any territory out of it; but "not killing bin Laden"? Many other presidents also failed to kill bin Laden! George Washington, for example, never killed any Muslims at all as far as I know

Maybe there is a case for Dubya as the worst, since he has such a unique combination of dubious achievements, but I still think Buchanan's record is hard to challenge. Even Dubya did manage to finish his time in office with all the states he started with.

[Dracoria]

Many other presidents also failed to kill bin Laden! George Washington, for example, never killed any Muslims at all as far as I know

Aaaactually...The conflicts with Barbary pirates had begun even before Washington's election. Heck, during his presidency the USN was established primarily to defend US shipping from said piracy. So while he didn't directly kill any Muslims, he did set up for coming conflict with a Muslim state.

Kind of funny that Morocco was the first nation to recognize the US as independent from Britain - since this meant their sailors could attack US shipping without British intervention.

[Risottia]

I'll restrict myself to the XX and XXI century... I don't know much about earlier US politics.

My favourite would be FDR, followed by Ike and Clinton. Also Wilson wasn't that bad. And I always see way too much flak on Carter.
My least favourites being Nixon, Hoover, Truman, Bush jr. and Reagan.

[Revolutopia]

I'll restrict myself to the XX and XXI century... I don't know much about earlier US politics.

My favourite would be FDR, followed by Ike and Clinton. Also Wilson wasn't that bad. And I always see way too much flak on Carter.
My least favourites being Nixon, Hoover, Truman, Bush jr. and Reagan.

What do you have against Truman? Also much like the flak on Carter, both Hoover and Nixon get to much criticism.

[Dracoria]

Hoover tried to enact many of the public works projects that would later come to dominate FDR's early presidency. There's a reason it's called the Hoover Dam - even if Roosevelt fought tooth and nail to remove the name. While Hoover didn't do enough of some things and too much of others, I wouldn't put him at the bottom with the worst of the corrupt 19th-century presidencies.

And even if I'm one of those eeeevil conservative types, I have to give Truman the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the reins in the midst of a war and had to make a very difficult decision that, having read plenty about Operation Downfall and the military coup plots to keep Japan in the war, I think Truman made the right, if still rather unsavory, choice. Afterward, he was stuck with post-war rebuilding and planning, which as we can see today, isn't all fun and games. I'd rate him at about the middle of the pack or perhaps just above, myself.

I've already spoken my thoughts on Nixon.

Reagan's still recent enough to be very polarizing. Once only the old codgers can remember his presidency, we'll view things objectively - while I don't think he'll rank as highly as he sometimes does today, he'll still be above the middle of the listing.

As far as FDR, it's a bit unfair. He had greater effect than other presidents because he blew off Washington's two-term precedent. Based on recent historians' and economists' takes, he may have extended the depression, or he may have shortened it. We may never know, but it's not a certain thing. He was pres for WWII, which was a just war overall, but was against freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation - at odds with Churchill - and initially was in favor of letting Germany be reduced to a non-industrial state. Overall, above the middle of the pack, but I won't put him in the top 5.

[Anitgrum]

Best
1FDR
2Abraham Lincoln
3Teddy Roosevelt
4 Dwight Eisenhower
5George Washington

Worst
1 Andrew Jackson
2 James Buchanan
3 Andrew Johnson
4 Herbert Hoover
5 Richard Nixon
6 Warren Harding

[Revolutopia]

As far as FDR, it's a bit unfair. He had greater effect than other presidents because he blew off Washington's two-term precedent. Based on recent historians' and economists' takes, he may have extended the depression, or he may have shortened it. We may never know, but it's not a certain thing. He was pres for WWII, which was a just war overall, but was against freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation - at odds with Churchill - and initially was in favor of letting Germany be reduced to a non-industrial state. Overall, above the middle of the pack, but I won't put him in the top 5.

I think you are way underestimating FDR's greatness by placing him in the middle of the pack. Simply, despite the back-n-forth on the New Deal one cannot discount the tremendous fact of the general relief that it gave the American people. Just looking elsewhere in the world at the time, one sees a tremendous rise in popularity of such radical philosophies of fascism and communism. Yet, through his New Deal FDR was able to reinsure the American people that their way of life and capitalism could survive and care for them thus lowering the pull of these radical movements.

Additionally, we can look at some his other actions during his first two terms that I consider to be sign of his greatness. Mostly, that of his foreign policy achievements I think we cannot look at the radical shift he made regards to Latin America. Before FDR America's general attitude towards Latin America was one of imperialism-lite with us generally intervening at will in their affairs. However, FDR tried to change this by promoting his Good Neighbor policy creating a policy of non-intervention and non-interference. Something, that sadly was changed during the start of the Cold War.

Next, simply his efforts regarding World War II is enough in my opinion to rank him in the top three alone. First, simply through his lend-lease and other programs he was able to successfully keep Britain a player in the war until America's entrance. Secondly, there is spectacular job he was able to perform in transferring a peacetime country into the most effective military force in World History. Followed by his grand management as Commander-in-Chief in waging a successful two front war against both Germany and Japan.

In regards to his stance towards Eastern Europe, that can be seen as example of his pragmatism simply as he was not willing to enter into another bloodily war with the Soviets right after fighting Germany and Japan. Nor, was he willing to risk damaging the needed alliance with the Soviets while the fighting was still going on. Additionally, it is hard to guess what his actions might have been in regards to Eastern Europe after World War II would have been because of his untimely death. In connection with some of his anti-imperialistic views I think he might have tried to push Stalin in gradually lessening his control over Eastern Europe.

[Anitgrum]

lol

Khrushchev stopped WW3 by turning to words when JFK was performing acts of war on the USSR's allies. The Berlin Wall wasn't approved by Khrushchev either. This may shock you, but East Germany was not run by Khrushchev.

You must be too young to remember the Cold War. There was an agreed demarcation of spheres of influence: the United States would not intervene on behalf of Hungary or Czechoslovakia because of the Yalta agreement, and contrariwise did not accept the USSR's right to make "allies" in the Western Hemisphere (the US had proclaimed since Monroe that everyone else should stay out of Latin America, and after the end of our Civil War that had been respected). For the USSR to go further and make Cuba into a nuclear base was a total provocation, which Khrushchev undertook only because JFK had decided not to react forcefully to the Berlin Wall, which Khrushchev mistook as a sign of weakness (and no, the East German government would not have built that wall if Khrushchev had told them not to; they had no more ability to resist Soviet tanks than Hungary or Czechoslovakia). The Politburo thought Khrushchev's "reckless adventurism" had damaged Soviet interests; they would have fired him more quickly, except that of course the conspirational wrangling for positions in the replacement government had to take place in quiet whispers, which took over a year.

No Khurshchev placed nuclear missiles in Cuba in retaliation for the U.S placement of Jupiter missiles in Turkey.

[Bureaucracia]

Best: FDR

Worst: Franklin Pierce

[Risottia]

I'll restrict myself to the XX and XXI century... I don't know much about earlier US politics.

My favourite would be FDR, followed by Ike and Clinton. Also Wilson wasn't that bad. And I always see way too much flak on Carter.
My least favourites being Nixon, Hoover, Truman, Bush jr. and Reagan.

What do you have against Truman? Also much like the flak on Carter, both Hoover and Nixon get to much criticism.

Against Truman: he's one of the responsibles for the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, the McCarthy witch-hunts, and basically fuelling Stalin's and the Soviets' paranoia. He also fueled the Mafia in order to influence the politics of the newborn Italian Republic. Let's not even get started with covering Nazi war criminals with Operation Paperclip.
Plus, I consider (as the Hague conventions did) indiscriminate attacks on mixed military/civilian targets as war crimes AND crimes against humanity. Expecially if carried out with weapons of mass destruction.

Hoover: I criticize him for letting his ideological principles rule over a fair assesment of reality - hence failing to enact effective, proactive policies in times of crisis.

Nixon: while I don't understand those who characterize him as dumb (he was smart enough to recognize that Kissinger was a master diplomat, and siding with PRC was one of the smartest moves ever), ethically the man was a wreck. One of the few people I'd use the category of "evil". Also, his policies, expecially towards Middle East, were way less than effective.

[Revolutopia]

Against Truman: he's one of the responsibles for the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, the McCarthy witch-hunts, and basically fuelling Stalin's and the Soviets' paranoia. He also fueled the Mafia in order to influence the politics of the newborn Italian Republic. Let's not even get started with covering Nazi war criminals with Operation Paperclip.
Plus, I consider (as the Hague conventions did) indiscriminate attacks on mixed military/civilian targets as war crimes AND crimes against humanity. Expecially if carried out with weapons of mass destruction.

The Cold War was likely to start no matter who was president following the end of World War II, solely for the radical differences between the Soviets and America. Regarding the formation of the Iron Curtain, that was more of Stalin's response in regards to Truman's generally successful policies of Containment and the Marshall Plan which successfully kept Western Europe from following into Soviet hands. Additionally, Truman was not all that supportive McCarthy saying how he and his administration was one of the biggest targets for McCarthy thus your blaming him is misguided. Regarding the Atomic bombing, the fact is that they saved lives and as President his job is to first look out for American troops more then what some may say is more morally ethical. Remember during WW2 the firebombing of Tokyo the causalities were 124711 which was more then the bombing of Nagasaki(80000) thus if that is enough to vilify Truman you should equally attack FDR on the some criteria.

Hoover: I criticize him for letting his ideological principles rule over a fair assesment of reality - hence failing to enact effective, proactive policies in times of crisis.

Hoover started much of the same policies that FDR would later refine and adapt into his successful New Deal, the difference being Hoover was more at a loss because of the conflicts he faced regarding what to do and his ineffectiveness of communication in comforting the people.

[Shofercia]

Best: FDR, honorable mentions to Washington & Lincoln

Worst: Bush Jr, honorable mentions to Nixon & Clinton/Carter (Billy/Jimmy destroyed the Democratic Party's backbone, which enabled the corporations to slowly take over both parties)

Best - Harry S. Truman (Honorable mention to TR)

Mhmm. Dunno about Truman being the best and I think Polk kicks ass too.

You mean a president who actually upheld all of his promises kicks ass? I just happen to agree

Best: Either Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or Thomas Jefferson, imo.

Wilson? Ew.

Wilson - what you get when you elect a theorist to practice. If he wanted the 14 points, he should've made the Senate ratify them before going to war, and should've forced UK/France/others to sign them, and only then enter the war. Or as CM said "ew".

[Risottia]

Against Truman: he's one of the responsibles for the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, the McCarthy witch-hunts, and basically fuelling Stalin's and the Soviets' paranoia. He also fueled the Mafia in order to influence the politics of the newborn Italian Republic. Let's not even get started with covering Nazi war criminals with Operation Paperclip.
Plus, I consider (as the Hague conventions did) indiscriminate attacks on mixed military/civilian targets as war crimes AND crimes against humanity. Expecially if carried out with weapons of mass destruction.

The Cold War was likely to start no matter who was president following the end of World War II, solely for the radical differences between the Soviets and America. Regarding the formation of the Iron Curtain, that was more of Stalin's response in regards to Truman's generally successful policies of Containment and the Marshall Plan which successfully kept Western Europe from following into Soviet hands.

No. The Iron Curtain was invoked and caused by Churchill and Truman. Tito wasn't a pro-Soviet, and the Soviets had called for a unified, demilitarized Germany. France, Britain and USA instead proclaimed the BRD unilaterally.
And how would have, let's say, France, Spain and Britain have "fallen into Soviet hands", pray?

Additionally, Truman was not all that supportive McCarthy saying how he and his administration was one of the biggest targets for McCarthy thus your blaming him is misguided.

Considering that it took Ike to dismantle McCarthy,... I'd like a source for your claim.

Regarding the Atomic bombing, the fact is that they saved lives

This is a myth. The saved lives are totally hypotetical, while the death toll is actual. By the same reasoning, razing Coventry and Guernica to the ground was ok because it "saved" the lives of a lot of German soldiers.
Attacking mixed targets (civilians/military) indiscriminately and with disproportionate force is a war crime. Period.

and as President his job is to first look out for American troops more then what some may say is more morally ethical.

"Morally ethical"? What does that in blazes mean?
Anyway, the USA had signed the Hague convention. By Hague convention, carpet and nuclear bombing of cities are clearly non kosher. Same can be said for FDR, of course, as I maintain that ANY indiscriminated attack on mixed targets is a crime.

Hoover: I criticize him for letting his ideological principles rule over a fair assesment of reality - hence failing to enact effective, proactive policies in times of crisis.

Hoover started much of the same policies that FDR would later refine and adapt into his successful New Deal, the difference being Hoover was more at a loss because of the conflicts he faced regarding what to do and his ineffectiveness of communication in comforting the people.

1.No he didn't. Not in an effective way. Hence, fail.
2.Communication is a key part of policies.

[Revolutopia]

The Cold War was likely to start no matter who was president following the end of World War II, solely for the radical differences between the Soviets and America. Regarding the formation of the Iron Curtain, that was more of Stalin's response in regards to Truman's generally successful policies of Containment and the Marshall Plan which successfully kept Western Europe from following into Soviet hands.

No. The Iron Curtain was invoked and caused by Churchill and Truman. Tito wasn't a pro-Soviet, and the Soviets had called for a unified, demilitarized Germany. France, Britain and USA instead proclaimed the BRD unilaterally.
And how would have, let's say, France, Spain and Britain have "fallen into Soviet hands", pray?

The political effects of the Marshall Plan may have been just as important as the economic ones. Marshall Plan aid allowed the nations of Western Europe to relax austerity measures and rationing, reducing discontent and bringing political stability. The communist influence on Western Europe was greatly reduced, and throughout the region communist parties faded in popularity in the years after the Marshall Plan. The trade relations fostered by the Marshall Plan helped forge the North Atlantic alliance that would persist throughout the Cold War. At the same time, the nonparticipation of the states of Eastern Europe was one of the first clear signs that the continent was now divided.

Additionally, Truman was not all that supportive McCarthy saying how he and his administration was one of the biggest targets for McCarthy thus your blaming him is misguided.

Considering that it took Ike to dismantle McCarthy,... I'd like a source for your claim.

It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, for political advantage, McCarthyism. I am not referring to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is only important in that his name has taken on the dictionary meaning of the word. It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.

McCarthy faltered during Ike's reign because he stupidly enough went after the Army.

Regarding the Atomic bombing, the fact is that they saved lives

This is a myth. The saved lives are totally hypotetical, while the death toll is actual. By the same reasoning, razing Coventry and Guernica to the ground was ok because it "saved" the lives of a lot of German soldiers.
Attacking mixed targets (civilians/military) indiscriminately and with disproportionate force is a war crime. Period.

and as President his job is to first look out for American troops more then what some may say is more morally ethical.

"Morally ethical"? What does that in blazes mean?
Anyway, the USA had signed the Hague convention. By Hague convention, carpet and nuclear bombing of cities are clearly non kosher. Same can be said for FDR, of course, as I maintain that ANY indiscriminated attack on mixed targets is a crime.

As one of my favorite generals famously said "War is hell", when one fights a war you use the initiative that it is the preservative to saving your lives along with the fact that all indicators say that they would have more casualties if Truman went for a simple invasion. Moreover, every political and military leader would have likely made the same decision.

Hoover started much of the same policies that FDR would later refine and adapt into his successful New Deal, the difference being Hoover was more at a loss because of the conflicts he faced regarding what to do and his ineffectiveness of communication in comforting the people.

1.No he didn't. Not in an effective way. Hence, fail.
2.Communication is a key part of policies.

[/quote]
1. Yes, he did by passing the Emergency Relief and Construction Act he started off the effort of using public works to employ Americans which was a key component of the New Deal.

[Risottia]

The communist influence on Western Europe was greatly reduced

Yeah, only through the ERP. The fact that most of the US army was de facto occupying the Western zone, as defined at Yalta, had totally no influence. Seesh.

Additionally, Truman was not all that supportive McCarthy saying how he and his administration was one of the biggest targets for McCarthy thus your blaming him is misguided.

Considering that it took Ike to dismantle McCarthy,... I'd like a source for your claim.

It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, ....

So, Truman jumps DOWN the bandwagon once he's in the top office. Wow. While of course McCarthyism wasn't a part of the Truman containment doctrine - oh noes.
Also, linky to sources?

This is a myth. The saved lives are totally hypotetical, while the death toll is actual. By the same reasoning, razing Coventry and Guernica to the ground was ok because it "saved" the lives of a lot of German soldiers.
Attacking mixed targets (civilians/military) indiscriminately and with disproportionate force is a war crime. Period.


"Morally ethical"? What does that in blazes mean?
Anyway, the USA had signed the Hague convention. By Hague convention, carpet and nuclear bombing of cities are clearly non kosher. Same can be said for FDR, of course, as I maintain that ANY indiscriminated attack on mixed targets is a crime.

As one of my favorite generals famously said "War is hell", when one fights a war you use the initiative that it is the preservative to saving your lives along with the fact that all indicators say that they would have more casualties if Truman went for a simple invasion. Moreover, every political and military leader would have likely made the same decision.

Then you don't sign conventions about protecting the civilians during wars, and don't try people for war crimes. Hypocrisy.

1. Yes, he did by passing the Emergency Relief and Construction Act he started off the effort of using public works to employ Americans which was a key component of the New Deal.

To any effect? No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruc ... orporation
The RFC was bogged down in bureaucracy and failed to disburse much of its funds. It failed to reverse the growth of mass unemployment before 1933. Butkiewicz (1995) shows that the RFC initially succeeded in reducing bank failures, but the publication of the names of the recipients of loans beginning in August 1932 (at the demand of Congress) significantly reduced the effectiveness of its loans to banks because it appeared that political considerations had motivated certain loans. Partisan politics thwarted the RFC's efforts, though in 1932 monetary conditions improved because the RFC slowed the decline in the money supply.
Starting in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt kept the agency, increased the funding, streamlined the bureaucracy, and used it to help restore business prosperity, especially in banking and railroads. He appointed Texas banker Jesse Jones as head, and Jones turned RFC into an empire with loans made in every state. (Olson 1988)

[Revolutopia]

The communist influence on Western Europe was greatly reduced

Yeah, only through the ERP. The fact that most of the US army was de facto occupying the Western zone, as defined at Yalta, had totally no influence. Seesh.

The simple fact is that the Marshall Plan effectively worked to rebuild the collapsed economies of Western Europe, the placement of American troops can be attributed in regards to Truman's containment policy against Soviet Communism.

Considering that it took Ike to dismantle McCarthy,... I'd like a source for your claim.

It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, ....

So, Truman jumps DOWN the bandwagon once he's in the top office. Wow. While of course McCarthyism wasn't a part of the Truman containment doctrine - oh noes.
Also, linky to sources?

Wikipedialink
In regards when he was in charge this is what he had to say about Joe.

He counterattacked, saying that "Americanism" itself was under attack by elements "who are loudly proclaiming that they are its chief defenders. ... They are trying to create fear and suspicion among us by the use of slander, unproved accusations and just plain lies. ... They are trying to get us to believe that our Government is riddled with communism and corruption. ... These slandermongers are trying to get us so hysterical that no one will stand up to them for fear of being called a communist. Now this is an old communist trick in reverse. ... That is not fair play. That is not Americanism."

link

As one of my favorite generals famously said "War is hell", when one fights a war you use the initiative that it is the preservative to saving your lives along with the fact that all indicators say that they would have more casualties if Truman went for a simple invasion. Moreover, every political and military leader would have likely made the same decision.

Then you don't sign conventions about protecting the civilians during wars, and don't try people for war crimes. Hypocrisy.

Roosevelt and Churchill also targeted civilians, why no vilifying of them?

[Utopia FTW]

Best: Obama
Worst: Obama

[Ruridova]

...Dubya(attacking the wrong country, screwing the world economy, not killing bin Laden, election fraud, spying on his own people, etc.)

Dubya's election fraud was not as bad as Hayes, his trashing of the economy was not as bad as Hoover, and his damage to the constitution was not as bad as Nixon; his war on Iraq was arguably a worse case of attacking a country that was not a threat than either Polk's Mexican war or McKinley's Spanish war, in that we didn't even get to steal any territory out of it; but "not killing bin Laden"? Many other presidents also failed to kill bin Laden! George Washington, for example, never killed any Muslims at all as far as I know

Maybe there is a case for Dubya as the worst, since he has such a unique combination of dubious achievements, but I still think Buchanan's record is hard to challenge. Even Dubya did manage to finish his time in office with all the states he started with.

Can agree with you on most of that, except for the stuff on Polk. Where I live(check signature), Polk, being the guy who brought my state into the Union, has pretty damn good press and the Mexican-American War a legitimate fight. You've got to remember most of those in Texas then were Americans who had come during the Empresario periods, and most felt American even during Mexican and Texan rule. So, yeah, everything you said but the stuff on Polk.

[Risottia]

The simple fact is that the Marshall Plan effectively worked to rebuild the collapsed economies of Western Europe,

Which as I said isn't the sole cause of "Western Europe not turning red".

the placement of American troops can be attributed in regards to Truman's containment policy against Soviet Communism.

Actually to the Yalta thingie.

In regards when he was in charge this is what he had to say about Joe.

He counterattacked, saying that "Americanism" itself was under attack by elements "who are loudly proclaiming that they are its chief defenders. ... They are trying to create fear and suspicion among us by the use of slander, unproved accusations and just plain lies. ... They are trying to get us to believe that our Government is riddled with communism and corruption. ... These slandermongers are trying to get us so hysterical that no one will stand up to them for fear of being called a communist. Now this is an old communist trick in reverse. ... That is not fair play. That is not Americanism."

link

Oh! Ty for linkie. Your point, and a good one at that.

As one of my favorite generals famously said "War is hell", when one fights a war you use the initiative that it is the preservative to saving your lives along with the fact that all indicators say that they would have more casualties if Truman went for a simple invasion. Moreover, every political and military leader would have likely made the same decision.

Then you don't sign conventions about protecting the civilians during wars, and don't try people for war crimes. Hypocrisy.

Roosevelt and Churchill also targeted civilians, why no vilifying of them?[/quote]
Churchill, because we're talking of US Presidents.
FDR, because I'd consider the war crimes that were his direct responsibility as CINC, but also the good things he's done in his domestic and international policies (including supporting Britain and CCCP against the Axis).