PDA

View Full Version : Best and Worst Secretaries of State, 1945-present



CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-01-2010, 11:52 PM
What's your opinion?

For me--
Best:
Marshall (1947-1949)
Kissinger (1973-1977)
Acheson (1949-1953)
Dulles (1953-1959)
Rogers (1969-1973)
Powell (2001-2005)

Good:
Haig (1981-1982)
Rusk (1961-1965)
Shultz (1982-1989)
Baker (1992-1993)
Rice (2005-2009)
Herter (1959-1961)

Worst:
Rusk (1965-1969)
Madelline Albright (1997-2001)
Warren Christopher (1993-1997)
Vance (1977-1980)
Muskie (1980-1981)

Not decided:
Clinton (2009-) (she may end up on the worst list for doing nothing)
Byrnes (1945-1947) (I don't know enough about his tenure to decide)

I put Rusk on the good and worst list as I think under Kennedy he made a good SoS, but under Johnson was ineffective and horrid.

djones520
03-01-2010, 11:53 PM
You left Rice and Clinton off your list. Any particular reasons? I also notice a bunch of other dates not filled in.

Why did you pick who you did? Why did you leave others off?

Rockntractor
03-02-2010, 12:06 AM
You left Rice and Clinton off your list. Any particular reasons? I also notice a bunch of other dates not filled in.

Why did you pick who you did? Why did you leave others off?

These and other questions will be answered in our next episode of CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-02-2010, 12:08 AM
These and other questions will be answered in our next episode of CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

Some I am genuinely unsure of how to grade--Clinton it is really too early to see how good or bad she'll be, and others like Herter and Byrnes I don't know enough about to give an honest grade. And I forgot to add Rice. I edited my list.

Rockntractor
03-02-2010, 12:27 AM
Some I am genuinely unsure of how to grade--Clinton it is really too early to see how good or bad she'll be, and others like Herter and Byrnes I don't know enough about to give an honest grade. And I forgot to add Rice. I edited my list.
I don't see Clinton staying in this office much longer. I don't think she cares much for a subordinate position.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-02-2010, 12:39 AM
These and other questions will be answered in our next episode of CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE.


I don't see Clinton staying in this office much longer. I don't think she cares much for a subordinate position.

Has she even done one notable thing since taking office?

djones520
03-02-2010, 12:40 AM
Has she even done one notable thing since taking office?

Some would argue thats a sign of good government.

Rockntractor
03-02-2010, 12:45 AM
Has she even done one notable thing since taking office?

Most secretary of state's are pure and simple puppets of the presidents they serve. We should be rating them on acting ability.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-02-2010, 01:31 AM
Most secretary of state's are pure and simple puppets of the presidents they serve. We should be rating them on acting ability.

True but then you have SoS's like Marshall, Dulles, Rusk and Kissinger who played a large hand in shaping the nation's foreign policy or even determining history--Who knows how history may've been different if not for the Marshall Plan, and Kissinger seemed to be the major formulator of our foreign policy between '69 and '77...So the office can in circumstances or in the hands of certain men be an important one.

noonwitch
03-02-2010, 08:55 AM
Kissenger was the first SOS I remember. He's in a class by himself, whether you love him or hate him. The left hates him for the Nixon administration's continuation of/expansion of the Vietnam War. They miss the fact that he laid the foundation for the only lasting peace agreement in the Middle East (which they credit Carter solely for), he helped develop better relations with the USSR and China-the latter was in many ways, totally cut off from the rest of the world at that time, as Mao was still alive and in power.


A man of Kissenger's abilities doesn't come around every day. My dad used to always say it was a shame that he wasn't born in the US, because he would have made a great president.

NJCardFan
03-02-2010, 10:41 AM
You left Rice and Clinton off your list. Any particular reasons? I also notice a bunch of other dates not filled in.

Why did you pick who you did? Why did you leave others off?

Because they weren't on the assignment sheet. Again, sounds like another homework assignment.

marv
03-02-2010, 01:16 PM
Only the worst.........

Acheson (1949-1953) (domino theory)
Muskie (1980-1981) (teary eyed)
Christopher (1993-1997) (sleeps during meetings)
Albright (1997-2001) (dances with dictators)

These were all cartoon characters in their own right. We, the US, have never been known to be masters of international diplomacy. Our people have been so-so at best.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-02-2010, 03:57 PM
Most secretary of state's are pure and simple puppets of the presidents they serve. We should be rating them on acting ability.


Only the worst.........

Acheson (1949-1953) (domino theory)
Muskie (1980-1981) (teary eyed)
Christopher (1993-1997) (sleeps during meetings)
Albright (1997-2001) (dances with dictators)

These were all cartoon characters in their own right. We, the US, have never been known to be masters of international diplomacy. Our people have been so-so at best.

You don't think a man like Kissinger was, at his peak of influence, a master in international diplomacy/foreign policy?