Which American President has done the most damage to US national security?

Ok, Bush followed US Policy toward Iraq which called for regime-change. The US Congress is the only branch that can authorize war. What facts am I incorrect about? I'm not saying that decapitating Saddam (literally) was the best choice simply stating that as members of the Armed Forces, we swore to follow the orders of the President.

COL (Join to see) - You must be confusing who is asserting what. I didn't say that you were incorrect; you said that I was incorrect. Nothing that I wrote was "factually incorrect".

Bush did follow US policy, but the President set that policy. So, he was just following his own lead. And, Congress did authorize war, but they did so through a joint resolution that was primarily supported by the now debunked assertion that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons (which subsequently morphed into a broader "WMD" argument when no evidence of nuclear weapons was found). Finally, nobody said that the military should have disobeyed the CinC. I simply wrote that, in my opinion, George W. Bush is the President who has done the most damage to US foreign policy.

Ok...

Careful how we judge. We are humans and are prone to make mistakes. To pass judgement is to collect all the facts first. Then evaluations of those facts must be done with caution. Because once you've past judgement, retraction isn't as easy. Respectfully

Dude, the President doesn't have the power to declare war. If you want to lay blame, how about putting on the US Congress for following though on the national strategy of regime change in Iraq as espoused and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Given the new contender in the race since this was originally posted, I'd probably change my answer.

However, the you are right, the President doesn't have the power to "declare" war. Congress does. In regards to Iraq, I blame Bush for driving us that conflict and Congress for failing to stop him.

SFC Charles Temm - No, it's really not, given the scope of the question. It's an infantile,anti-intellectual, "hater" kind of answer. But, also one I would expect from people that have been insulated from the rest of the world as career military. It's pretty common. The military becomes a bias-filled echo chamber of GOP/fake patriotism talking points. It's nothing new.

And By the way LTC I genuinely think the initial part of your answer was just a pseudo-intellectual guise at what you really wanted to say in the second part. THAT was what I was referring to as "inane".

SGT Paul von Nahme - the only reason I waded into this discussion was that American History was tagged. I am much more interested in the depth and breadth of American History than I am in who is serving as the current POTUS. That is why I listed Woodrow Wilson and FDR first. Much of what happened in their administrations has been declassified and can be both researched and talked about. We don't have that luxury about POTUS JFK on yet.
I have also been studying military, American, and world history since about 1962 and been following international relations since the 1970s.
FYI - I served under many Presidents. I have been disabled veteran only one so far.
I began serving when Gerald Ford was POTUS and served in uniform until the second term of POTUS G.W. Bush. SFC Charles Temm

SGT Paul von Nahme - "The military becomes a bias-filled echo chamber of GOP/fake patriotism talking points. It's nothing new."

Interesting coming from someone who faithfully regurgitates the Party of the State's mantra right down to the adjectives. Even more so as you made your comments on every response to the question that didn't agree with yours.

Moreover, you also insult the intelligence of anyone who dares disagree with you. That fits in quite clearly w/the average Dem response to any sort of intellectual disagreement. The only patterned retort you DID not use was the racist charge but admittedly, even for a good Dem that would have been a stretch too far.

Since we don't have a draft, folks who join the service tend to think along certain social lines. This doers tend to frighten certain groups of Americans that don't think that way of course. Self selection being the key point here, rather than fake patriotism or some sort of GOP programming you might want to think on that as maybe a reason for certain views to be more common than others. Of course given your mind set, it's probably a helluva lot easier to believe it's some right wing plot like any good prog is told to.

MSgt John McGowan, it always amazed me that we were to be trusted with weapons in the war zone, but not at home. What is THAT all about?

That is the most inane response possible to this question. Completely ignoring the fact that a draft dodger/deserter led us into an unwinnable war over a known lie for the purpose of enriching his family and his cronies, while getting over 4400 of our brothers and sisters at arms killed, and more than 100,000 permanently disabled. All this for nothing more than war profiteering and ultimately destabilizing the Mideast and western Asia with what we have today. For an obviously educated man, you are incredibly, willfully obtuse.

SGT Paul von Nahme, I'll take that as an undecided.

Capt Seid Waddell - Not terribly concerned how an Officer"PFC" really takes it.