world

Bush is back, and eager to help history judge him

176 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

176 Comments
Login to comment

Bush should give a copy of his book to Obama, who should read it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing. So Bush is ready to admit his mistakes but the vast majority of vocal conservatives still don't think he ever did anything wrong... Why isn't Bush trying to blame all of America's problems on Obama?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Arrhh...bush - the GOP's worst nightmare. They were so terrified of his attraction to failure that they got him to push back the release date of 'Failure Points' so that it wouldn't damage their election prospects.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

51% of Americans blame bush for the economic meltdown. Heh, unless you're one of the millions of really, really smart conservative types who still believe that the global recession that started on bush's watch was all Obama's fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush, wrote a book?....I didn't know he could write! It must be one of his old speech-writers or maybe his Dad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Katrina really wasn't his fault because the Gov needed to test the FEMA (internment) camps and see what people would do with soldiers on the streets and going door to door taking guns from Patriots.

=you must never let a good catastrophe go to waste -at least that's what Rahm said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I always thought Bush was a better man than his party made him out to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's always entertaining to note that the bush apologists who shriek the loudest about their crippled economy are typically the same folk who voted for bush under whose watch the world saw the worst global recession in 80 years unfold. Unfortunately, they're also the same folk who firmly believe money grows on trees, deficits don't matter, Obama is Muslim and that all Muslims are terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake: bush under whose watch the world saw the worst global recession in 80 years

Victory Mosque.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I enjoy watching sushisake3 argue with himself. I don't know a single American of the sort he describes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3,

You are rambling. I don't see any Bush apologists in this discussion.I think you are trying too hard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimR, you probably need to get outside more. Americans like the ones I described - especially re the last 2 points - have been full frontal for the better half of 2010. But I'm sure you'll deny that too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib. wrong thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Bush should give a copy of his book to Obama, who should read it."

It's a picture book, sarge... you can hardly call that 'reading'. Unless someone else wrote it for him, that is.

Seriously, though, of COURSE bush wants to 'help' himself be judged; if the people have a chance to do it on their own, as they should, he'll go down as the worst president in US history, and rightly so. All the problems the US is currently dealing with began on his watch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushisake - - if you don't like Bush, don't buy his book. I don't plan to. Won't be buying Obama's ghostwritten crap either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thetruthhurts, truth is that if you were paying attention, you would note I never said there were any bush apologists in this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3,

Then it just strikes me as whining at phantoms in the dark.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel genuine pity for the trees that were felled to make the wood pulp that wound up becoming Bush's book. What a waste.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will it be translated into English?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush was never more than a frontman, that was obvious going all the way back to his "ownership" of the Texas Rangers, which was just set up by his backers to give him credibility. You can criticize him for being willing to be a frontman, but the "Bush" policies were no different from what they would have been under any other Republican. If he was actually responsible for what happened, then the Republican party would have made changes to recover from his leadership, and the Democrats would have worked to undo the damage he caused. Neither happened.

Cut the guy some slack, he was just a small cog in the machine, and the machine is out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush bashing in this last election translated into something like a 3 percentage point advantage for the non-Dem in the district where it was being done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I judged him already. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One word describes Bush and his administration: squander

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo, lol! I just spotted it in a large Tokyo bookshop. No one was going near it. The publisher should give it away with an accompanying 'Study Guide' to help ESOL customers understand it. I bet it'll be as misunderestimated as he was. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will it be translated into English?

No need. Readers understand what Tony Blair meant when quoted as saying "woof woof!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush was never more than a frontman, that was obvious going all the way back to his "ownership" of the Texas Rangers, which was just set up by his backers to give him credibility.

Let's name those backers, shall we?

You do know their names, yes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is old news.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did Mr. Bush dedicate his book to Mr. Cheney for allowing him to be Mr. C's running mate, twice ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oberst - No, this book is non-fiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And did he draw the pictures himself?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush have the guts to say what is popular or not popular with the people of the USA, media, and the world. Obama is the total opposite of Bush. Obama always paints this rosy picture that Obama and the American people are one plus the world.

If I have to pick between Bush or Obama. It would be Bush.

When Bush was President people were allow free speech. Today free speech is not allowed because people must not be offended. Peace and happiness is sugarcoated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didn't vote Bush (or Gore) in 2000 and because of home state regs couldn't even vote in 04 but I like the way Dubya sends lefties into conniption fits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didn't vote Bush (or Gore) in 2000 and because of home state regs couldn't even vote in 04 but I like the way Dubya sends lefties into conniption fits.

Felony conviction?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Siouxchef: lol but ouch. However, that is certainly a state reg.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After two years of near silence, Bush is back.

In Far East Asia, Mike Chinoy-- former CNN North Asia-- summarized the BUSH Presidency best:

"(The) great tragedy of George Bush's time in office is that when he took office North Korea had enough weapons grade plutonium perhaps for one or two bombs. Today (Oct 2008) it has enough for six or eight or ten, it's staged a nuclear test, it's declared itself a nuclear power, and it's done so internally, the North Korean media made a big fuss about this to their own people.

That makes it much, much harder to roll back, and it means that there's much greater investment by the North Korean sort of military industrial complex in the nuclear program, and therefore the North is in a position to demand a much higher price from Washington for rolling it back, which I think would include diplomatic recognition, a presidential visit, the lifting of all sanctions.

It's not going to come soon if it comes at all, and it may well be even if the US is open to that if the North Koreans will decide in the end that like Pakistan, like India they want to have their bomb and have a good relationship with the US as well."

(Ref Bush policies fail to contain North Korea)

When it comes to Bush policies and the Far East, it's best to first assume that US had been largely indifferent to it.

(NO mention of multilateral approachment with the Chinese, largely deaf to accusations from Australia and the region that US subsidies on primary and secondary industries are akin to trade protectionism, almost bi-polar and indecisive when it comes to North Korea.)

On multilateral approachment, American lack of commitment to the idea somehow opened the door to further confusions and further misunderstandings, the absence of a coherent voice, today, from regional leaders should be attributed to it-- largely stemming from the previous administration's off-hand approach to bolster engagement with and within Asia.

MAEHERA's misjudgment on US interests in Asia as guarantee that the Americans would adopt a Japanese-first policy when it comes to territorial disputes with the Chinese seriously underlines that today. It, the Americans, would never head that direction of course as it is in US commercial and national interests to make certain that China's open policy remains unimpeded, and crucially transparent-- that to the uninitiated is RUMSFELD China doctrine.

AND WHEREAS FUKUDA and Taro ASO got it the first time-- on US engagement with the Chinese-- MAEHERA too have repeated their serious blunder by deflecting reasonable calls for a regional approachment with Beijing.

BUT WHAT, EXACTLY, are they all afraid of?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever he says....... History wll judge him he was the worst president we ever had.

I remember how this guy stole the 2nd term presidential election from Gore. He took us into Iraq with a credit card, and found no YELLOW CAKES. We still do not know how to pay for it.

He will release his memoir book tomorrow 11/9, but I will not read it until Bush reads it first. LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember how this guy stole the 2nd term presidential election from Gore.

2nd term election from GORE?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. Bush should have never believed what Clinton the democrats said about Iraq and its WMDs.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's name those backers, shall we?

Karl Rove, William DeWitt, Mercer Reynolds, Richard Rainwater, Rusty Rose, Tom Hicks.....

But hey maybe giving away 10% of the ownership of a baseball team as a gift is common stuff nice guy businessmen do in the sports world, and there were no other motives. I hear Jerry Jones gives away chunks of the Cowboys all the time!

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dubya was a two-term president. Sorry for his lib detractors but that right that there means history will regard him as a more influential and greater president than any post-war Democrat.The only post-war Dem elected twice was Clinton; but Clinton was president between the time Reagan brought down the Soviet empire and 9-11 - when a resurgent transnational Mohammedan army declared war on the West and on civilization. Those eleven years were a unique interlude in modern history, and are one reason why Clinton is often regarded as the luckiest American president ever. Obama, we all realized last Wednesday, will probably write his post-presidential memoirs sometime in 2013.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But hey maybe giving away 10% of the ownership of a baseball team as a gift is common stuff nice guy businessmen do in the sports world, and there were no other motives.

Who would have thought the Texas Rangers are part of the whole Bilderberg group that keeps so many here awake at nite.

But wait! Rangers lost the World Series, just last week. Bush was there, with his pappy. Threw out the ball and everthing. How can it be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. Bush should have never believed what Clinton the democrats said about Iraq and its WMDs.

Just finished reading the articles on memoir, it looks interesting-- but if I'm to go neutral on my comment I'd probably stay away from the Bush presidency. (NY Times summarized it for me: (Bush wrote in his memoir, he still) felt sickened that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Yet former President George W. Bush said that his worst moment in the Oval Office came when the rap star Kanye West claimed that the president didn’t care about black people.

If you're planning to buy Decisive Point, I'd recommend leap-frogging when he starts championing his presidency. Then maybe you'd understand and like the man, not the President...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

* If you're planning to buy Decisive Point, I'd recommend leap-frogging when he starts championing his presidency. Then maybe you'd understand and like the man, not the war-time* President...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When it comes down to it I am just not that interested in individual presidents and even less so when they tell their own story. In some ways "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was for me the bigger story. It is now more than clear that the so-called anti-war movement was mostly about hating George Bush.But I admit he is one of those people who brings out very visceral reactions in people. I admire the fact that he has refrained from criticizing Obama.

Politico - -

"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," he told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics, and he doesn't need me criticizing him. And I don't think it's good for the presidency. Other people have a different point of view."

In the interview, the former president — who is currently promoting his new memoir “Decision Points” — says he's "through with politics."

And he doesn't want to predict what might happen in 2012, either.

When asked to weigh in on the possibility of Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential bid, Bush deflected the question, saying "I am not a political pundit ... I'm really not."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipbeat: When Bush was President people were allow free speech

hmmm... if you had any questions about why the US went at war with Iraq and "proofs" provided, you were to be silenced (in term of media)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

any questions about why the US went at war with Iraq and "proofs" provided, you were to be silenced (in term of media)

Really? Would you have an example for us?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: Dixie Chicks, Phil Donahue for example. Rings a bell? No? Short memory?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: Dixie Chicks, Phil Donahue for example. Rings a bell? No? Short memory?

1 - If they were 'silenced' how is it you knew of the supposed censorship they suffered?

2 - With the Dixie Chicks I would wager it was the best career move they ever made.

3 - You look to talk show hosts and pop musicians for serious commentary on the mid East and US policy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is back

Just when you thought things couldn't possibly sink any lower

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: hehe. Still, they were pulled of the air. About number 3, you shot yourself in the foot. There is no "fair and balanced" media anymore. So, your argument failed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," (Mr. Bush) told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics, and he doesn't need me criticizing him. And I don't think it's good for the presidency. Other people have a different point of view."

Former-president Bush graciously makes no criticisms of Obama. In almost two years in office, Obama can't go ten minutes without whining and moaning about Mr. Bush. Yet another reason why Mr. Bush remains America's greatest president of the 21st century.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too bad he stayed out of the news before the November elections. Things might have turned out better for Obama and the Democrats. I think he actually cost them the election myself by that cold calculated move of his.

Once again, I blame Bush and its all his fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still, they were pulled of the air.

Ohhhhh, da poor Dixie Chicks.Pulled off of country stations across America. It was so traumatizing the D Chicks had to go and pose nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly to win back fans. Dat eeevil free market system! Whats with the neo-McCarthyism?Where's the sense of fairness? I mean, it's not like conservatives in Hollywood have to hide their political beliefs, eh.

There is no "fair and balanced" media anymore. So, your argument failed.

Tell me when there has ever been 'fair and balanced' media.

Why settle for one source? You have the net, YouTube, cable, foreign sources. Try as I might the argument that Americans are kept in the dark doesnt fly with me.

Moderator: All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on Bush's memoirs will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@MisterCreosote, do you plan to update everyone in JT, in near future, what you think of Bush' memoir. I'm interested to read your lit. criticism, as you sound like a fan of the former Prez-- a postscript will do ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimRussert: "When it comes down to it I am just not that interested in individual presidents and even less so when they tell their own story."

I can't blame you with the bush thing. I hope there are a lot of footnotes to explain what he really wants to say.

sailwind: "Once again, I blame Bush and its all his fault."

As do almost ALL Americans, and certainly anyone non-American. So you are not alone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: you wouldn't really blame everything on him. I guess you have your share like I do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

History will judge bush for what he was, the worst president ever.

God will judge him more harshly.

I couldn't be happier.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII - "Yet another reason why Mr. Bush remains America's greatest president of the 21st century."

And Saddam is hiding the WMD. lol!! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Saddam is hiding the WMD. lol!! :-)

Saddam's dead. Please try and keep up.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing how during the 2008 campaign Obama trashed Bush for taking the U.S. into Iraq among other things, yet in his memoirs Bush turns the other cheek, praising Obama's decision to add troops in Afghanistan, even though his top military advisors recommended more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yet another reason why Mr. Bush remains America's greatest president of the 21st century."

Preseident of what, the Flat Earth Society?

Heh, thanks for the laugh.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush turns the other cheek"

Goes to show he's got more class than his tantrum throwing followers....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Goes to show he's got more class than his tantrum-throwing followers"

Goes to show he's got more class than people who say he's got more class than his tantrum-throwing followers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the interesting areas of Decision Point is what Bush considers the "lowest point" of his presidency:

Not the horrible attacks of 9/11 Not the failure to find WMD which led to launching a war which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people. Not the total failure to react promptly and properly to the human suffering in the wake of Katrina Not in the days where the US economy was heading into an abyss.

No, folks, the lowest moment in Bush's two terms, as he himself describes it, came when Kanye West accused him of not caring about black people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

You can't blame the man for being embarrassed about having the truth said about him on national TV. Lowest point of his presidency...yeah, a bit egocentric and proof positive that the man cared more for himself than those he was supposed to serve, but I can see where it would rightfully sting.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

Bless your little heart.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lowest point of his presidency...yeah, a bit egocentric and proof positive that the man cared more for himself than those he was supposed to serve

Not only egocentric, Taka, but infantile. That Kanye West would rate mention in the man's memoirs speaks to the smallness of the man.

I am being kind here. Elsewhere in the book, Bush recounts the time during the drunken phase of his adult life where, at a formal dinner with family and friends, he asked the wife of one of his father's friends, "So, how is sex after 50?" Right at the table within earshot of everyone. Frankly, I don't know why he would include a story like that. It's not like he's advanced that much in his life.

Recounting the little skit he performed -- while Americans were dying in Iraq -- of him looking around the Oval Office for WMD. Same old George.

I don't know how much he deals with his childhood in the book. One of his childhood friends relates how much he and George use to enjoy catching frogs, putting firecrackers in their mouths, and then lighting them before throwing each frog. It's behavior along the lines of burning ants with a magnifying glass, but I am guessing that George never developed the kind of conscience that would result in a feeling of revulsion over causing harm to the small and weak.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

W lost me completely when he endorsed stipping people of their civil rights and resorting to torture. I am firmly of the opinion that if one person can lose their rights by being defined as "untermensch" or, "enemy combatant", then we can all lose our rights any time those in power decide we are the untermensch.

No book that Bush writes will ever remove that stigma from his presidency. IMHO, of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why isn't Bush trying to blame all of America's problems on Obama?

Perhaps a thing called class and responsibility prevent him from doing so. But don't worry, the American people will blame much on Obama before his time is done - who will continue to blame it all on Bush.

"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," he told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics, and he doesn't need me criticizing him. And I don't think it's good for the presidency. Other people have a different point of view."

Hmmm. Something that idiot Carter should subscribe to.

The past has shown that no matter how badly a former President is seen at the time of his administration, time has a way of changing things. Dick Nixon was essentially a crook, despite is denials, but I recall when he died there was talk of what a great President and man he really was (yes, his foreign policy was awesome). JFK wasn't president long enough to do much; the Soviets almost had missiles in our backyard, and the Bay of Pigs fiasco - but he's seen as a god since he took a bullet. Carter was/is the worst we've had, but he builds a few homes for the needy and the Libs still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think George will be fine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits, One thing I think we all can agree upon. Kanye West saying george bush didn't care about black people was probably the funniest thing Mike Meyers has been involved with in years. His reaction as he sat there was hysterical.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I saw him wearing a really exquisite suit. Which didn't become him at all. He will be remembered as the president who ruined USA, till she became second, then third, then...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@iruaustralia

2nd term election from GORE?

Correction, lst election, I meant. Well, it seems a long time ago, isn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am being kind here. Elsewhere in the book, Bush recounts the time during the drunken phase of his adult life where, at a formal dinner with family and friends, he asked the wife of one of his father's friends, "So, how is sex after 50?" Right at the table within earshot of everyone. Frankly, I don't know why he would include a story like that. It's not like he's advanced that much in his life.

You left off the most important part of that story. The ending. As well as serving to show the evils of drink, and how it hurt him when he was younger. It provided a moment of humor in the book. As the part you left out said, that the woman called him years later, once he turned 50, and asked him the very same question.

Yabits, One thing I think we all can agree upon. Kanye West saying george bush didn't care about black people was probably the funniest thing Mike Meyers has been involved with in years.

The sad thing is, while I'm sure Kanye has said and done things that were more idiotic since, this vicious slander is way, way up there.

I didn't like Bush, I really don't think he was a good President. He made some good calls, particularly after 9-11, but made a lot of really bad ones as well. And his economic policy, enlarging government even more, really bad. However say what you will about his decisions. He showed a hell of a lot of class. Particularly in how he chose not to respond to criticism by Obama after his Presidency. Its a Presidential tradition, followed by just about every President except Jimmy Carter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Derision Points

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

It's a shame he didn't show class when he was in the top job. I'll be the first to admit that I respect him for his respect since leaving office. And that's more than anyone can say for Mr 8% Cheney.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is back...

And is as welcome as a raging case of herpes.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Respect him for his attitude whoops

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love how some jump on the fact that he liked to drink in his youth. Many of you on here would not hesitate to go out this weekend and get loaded with friends. It's what non-prudish adult (and sometimes not so adult) people do, particularly in our western culture. The President is supposed to be an elected representative of the people, not an angel. Few of us haven't done the same thing or something similar. You all forgave Teddy K for killing a woman in his car while drunk. He was practically up for Sainthood when he offed it, but oooh the evil George Bush drank in his youth which shows his low moral standing. Hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another thing Tigermoth.

Just because someone acts based upon a lie, that does not excuse the liar of that lie. Crimeny. The liar that told the lie is still responsible for that lie. Not the person who followed the lie. In this case, the lying liar who told the lie was george bush.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love how some jump on the fact that he liked to drink in his youth.

Youth? Youth? His memoirs have him drunk, crass, and aimless into his early 40s. What qualities did this man possess that made conservatives believe he was so worthy of leadership and responsibility? And is it really their judgment that is in question.

You all forgave Teddy K for killing a woman in his car while drunk.

And history shows that the Democrats denied him the leadership of their ticket. The statement that "WE ALL" forgave him is a gross falsehood. We recognized and respected the tragic circumstances surrounding the deaths of Joe Jr., John, and Robert -- all in the service of their country.

Back to the memoirs, I am interested to know why George failed to show up for his flight physical and got himself grounded. After the government spent all that time and money teaching him to be a flight instructor, he never taught anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Currently Bush holds the title for WPE. Two events will keep him there for a very long time. The war in Iraq and its justification will always be judged harshly as history continues to divulge the true cost of the war. The Great Recession will eventually be placed squarely on Bush's shoulders when history is finally sorted out. All of Obama's efforts will be vindicated concerning the Great Recession.

Bush's bailout of financial institutions will also be seen differently through the eyes of historians. It will be seen as a redeeming factor; a factor when combined with Obama's effort to save the financial and banking industries turned a looming depression into the Great Recession. Just like history records, the events leading up to the 1929 crash, were the cause of a decade of depression, so will the prior administration's (i.e. Bush) be historically what continued the Great Recession so deep into the Obama administration. These idiots that claim we want to "blame it on Bush" and claim it is unwarranted would have been blaming Roosevelt for the Great Depression. History will render out the truth. The truth is that Bush's mistakes and inaction really did last this long and maybe longer. Economist already agree that the stimulus did work and should have been larger or followed by another stimulus bill.

Squandered resources will be Bush's legacy. Squandered budget surplus. Squandered goodwill of the world after 9/11. Squandered military resources.

I do not feel any ill feeling and have absolutely no ill will towards him. I actually feel sorry for him. Here was this, not so bright individual, who was thrust into the presidency by the forces around him. He did the best he could. Unfortunately it was crap. The social conservatives will still sing his praises - as demonstrated on this JT thread.

The best post presidential legacy he can attain would be to be quiet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another thing Tigermoth

...go out this weekend and get loaded with friends. It's what non-prudish adult (and sometimes not so adult) people do, particularly in our western culture.

I am not a prude and I don't drink. I have plenty of alcohol available in my home to those that do drink.

Bush was also snorting mountains of cocaine. But he would never state that something should be done concerning the disparity in the law concerning recreational drugs. (I don't do drugs either)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: "Currently Bush holds the title for WPE ( Worst President Ever ) ... I do not feel any ill feeling and have absolutely no ill will towards him."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finally, a thread where the Bush bashers can bash to their heart's content!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finally, a thread where the Bush truthtellers can tell the truth to their heart's content!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Former two-term President George W. Bush's book Decision Points is today number one on Amazon's bestseller list.

So much for the whole "worstest president ever!, in the whole history of America" meme.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who would have thought the Texas Rangers are part of the whole Bilderberg group that keeps so many here awake at nite.

Bilderberg??? They were, except for Rose and Hicks, his partners in the ownership group. Hicks was the guy who bought them out, and made George Bush a millionaire on his own, without having to depend on family money. If somebody wants to say this cozy little arrangement was related to Bilderberg, they are making much bigger accusations than I was.

Also, that the Kanye West thing would bother him is not so strange at all. I would say that judging from the things he said over the years that he is clearly NOT a racist or even a nativist, and if the policies and inaction made him look that way, he would be bothered by that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimRussert at 08:44 AM JST - 10th November

Former two-term President George W. Bush's book Decision Points is today number one on Amazon's bestseller list.

`

So much for the whole "worstest president ever!, in the whole history of America" meme.

And what pray tell does one have to do with the other. He could be both the best author that ever lived and the worst president ever. What evidence do you have that the two things are mutually exclusive?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gallup has Bush and Obama at a statistical tie in approval ratings.

ergo

Obama: Worst President Ever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush once said he believed it would take 75 years before the truth could be told about his Administration.

His memoir proves his point. The American people get nothing out of him, and suckers are paying $36 a pop to read the words of this incurious, unintelligent dullard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sentiments always tend to be more favorable to US Presidents once they leave office. Seems not to ex-VP Cheney though, probably because, unlike Bush, Cheney remains confrontational. Current polls still put Bush below Obama though, so Bush needs all the help he can get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It 's very sad when someone throws shoes at you !!!!

He's one of the best military leaders we had in a long time. He told everyone duriing a press conference, " I'm a WAR President, I got war on my mind ! ! ! " check youtube im not lying !!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Elected to two terms:

Not real sure if Obama can do the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Old friend,

"Obama: Worst President Ever."

You personally were screeching this before Obama's inauguraiton ceremony. Perhaps this is why you have absolutely no credibility?

Just a thought....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pres. Obama's approval rating is in the 40s. bush's was in the 20s. My boy is trying to rewrite history to claim President Obama is as bad as bush. My boy is lying. Figures, he's a conservative. It's what they do.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote -- Gallup has Bush and Obama at a statistical tie in approval ratings.

It took Mr. Bush seven years to achieve the tie in approval ratings that Obama has achieved in less than two years.

ergo Obama: Worst President Ever.

True dat.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Currently Bush holds the title for WPE.

Like Sarges response to this nonsense. You blew right by the real worst President ever, Carter, and quite a few others. Bush was bad, but next to Carter, he looks great. Obama is giving Carter a run for it though, so that may change depending on how his last 2 years go.

I do not feel any ill feeling and have absolutely no ill will towards him. I actually feel sorry for him. Here was this, not so bright individual, who was thrust into the presidency by the forces around him. He did the best he could. Unfortunately it was crap.

Not so bright individual? I suspect because he speaks with a southern accent, and has problems speaking clearly, you have bought into the Bush hater propaganda that says the man wasn't bright. The fact that he graduated from an Ivy League school suggests something quite different. Guess its just Dems that graduate from there that are smart. Conservatives are idiots no matter how smart they really are.

The reality is, Bush was far from an idiot. In fact, based on his overall level of competence, thus far Bush is a better President then Obama. But then, my dog would be a better President then Obama has been. There is still time though. He'll never become a good President, but depending on how his last 2 years go, maybe he'll make it to decent. He'll need the Republicans to help him though. I don't think he can make it there by himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It took Mr. Bush seven years to achieve the tie in approval ratings that Obama has achieved in less than two years

Bush went from an almost 92% approval rating to around a 22%~ approval rating. Obama started at 60% and is currently at about 43%(Apparently it may be 47% now). Bush managed to change the minds of 76% of the people who approved of him to disapprove of him. Whereas, Obama has currently only changed 29%(21% @ 47%) of people's opinion. Obama has to change the minds of 47%(55% @ 47%) more of the poeple who approve, in order to match Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because someone acts based upon a lie, that does not excuse the liar of that lie. Crimeny. The liar that told the lie is still responsible for that lie. Not the person who followed the lie. In this case, the lying liar who told the lie was george bush.

Taka

Sorry Taka - Dr. Seuss gives me less of a headache than what you wrote there. They yanked my other comment for as usual inexplicable reasons so I cannot even recall what I said. Quite obviously you think GB a liar. Fair enough - so is every other politician/president; seems to be in their nature. Trust me, your boy is no less of one.

Youth? Youth? His memoirs have him drunk, crass, and aimless into his early 40s. What qualities did this man possess that made conservatives believe he was so worthy of leadership and responsibility?

Again I say - so what? Grant was a drunk, Likely so were several others. Clinton could keep it in his trousers. They're human as are we all. I don't think it is necessarily certain characteristics that make a person 'electable'. Sometimes it's personality or the lack thereof of the opposition. Al Gore had no personality, so GB beat him (I know, questionably some will say). But he one a second term didn't he - if all you liberals were so sure he's the anti-christ and he was so horrible, how come you couldn't get enough of you out to vote him out? You got enough folks to vote Obama in, despite his being a Junior Senator with absolutely no experience for the job. Again, there was no one worthwhile running against him. American politics has too often involved voting for the perceived less of two evils.

We recognized and respected the tragic circumstances surrounding the deaths of Joe Jr., John, and Robert -- all in the service of their country.

What does that have to do with anything? Half the family was tragically killed, so give him the benefit of the doubt? You can do better than that lame excuse. How about taking into consideration that Joe Sr. was a defeatist with alleged nazi sympathies while ambassador in Britain before we entered the war. I know - off topic; just answering a comment.

Worst President ever? My nod will still go to carter, but the current one has a few years to go, so who knows?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Should have said 'Clinton couldn't keep it in his trousers'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush was bad, but next to Carter, he looks great.

Right. Thousands of American military (and civilians) dead and maimed under Bush. Not a single one under Carter. It's just "great" that so many Americans had to die.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again I say - so what? Grant was a drunk, Likely so were several others.

Grant was accused of being a drunk. Bush admitted it. We don't know the facts about the former. The crass behavior of man-child Bush is well-documented in his memoirs.

if all you liberals were so sure he's the anti-christ and he was so horrible, how come you couldn't get enough of you out to vote him out?

One word: War. In this case, it was two wars with the one against Iraq started under a total lie.

Moderator: All readers, please stay on topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush left with 22% and Cheney was at 8%.

You couldn't set the bar for failure much lower. You can't agree with any one politicians policies permanently, but the barrage of shrieking towards Obama for not being able to fix the mess he by and large inherited in the space of two years is simply mindless droppings.

Here's to 2012. They'll need more than a support group and meth-amphetamines if Obama were to be re-elected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GW Bush ... just the very name invokes a bad memory. Here's a man who was, along with his sidekick Dick Cheney, a military shirker, coward if you like. They had the audacity to send thousands off to war to be killed, maimed or otherwise psychologically injured looking for non existent WMD. Then almost single-handedly wreck an economy through allowing the markets to run wild and unregulated and now he wants his little piece of history? George belongs in the dustbin of history as the worst that ever was. Go count your millions fella and live with your, what seems to be at long last, growing bad conscience.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taking potshots at presidents like every guy on the net knows everything about everything. All anybody knows about anything is what you glean from the media. Who knows why presidents made decisions and which ones were personal vs. group ones vs. whatever ? Any democracy makes sure that no one man can ruin everything on his own. Lynch mob mentality runs rampant on the net. God help us, the road to hell paved with armchair Aristotles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not a single one under Carter. It's just "great" that so many Americans had to die.

Yep, true, but at least Bush wasn't weak like Carter or Obama and mind you the hostage situation under Carter that was 444 days and the man didn't do anything about it. Didn't quite help us a whole lot relationship-wise with Iran. So please don't make it like Carter was a good president. History wasn't so kind to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Grant was accused of being a drunk. Bush admitted it. We don't know the facts about the former. The crass behavior of man-child Bush is well-documented in his memoirs.

Difference being Grant was a drunk while in office, Bush quit drinking years ago. That really doesn't matter to one who is biased though. Someone like myself, who didn't think he was a good President, still believes he was far better then Carter. Obama is much worse then Bush ever was. And it has nothing to do with a war, or the lack thereof. But rather the whole. Is the country better off, or worse off. Bush was a mixed bag. Carter was all bad, and thus far, so has Obama. But unlike the previous 2, Obama still has time to change. He can turn things around, and perhaps even get himself re-elected. Though that would take stupidity on a scale never before seen, on the part of the American people. Still, it could happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is much worse then Bush ever was. And it has nothing to do with a war, or the lack thereof. But rather the whole. Is the country better off, or worse off.

To assess that, one has to judge the conditions of the nation when Bush took office relative to how they were when he departed. Bush can try to help history judge him all he wants, but he was an utter disaster for the nation. The conditions he passed to President Obama were not even remotely close to those he inherited from President Clinton. A complete catastrophe.

It's a shame that so many Americans had to die on Bush's watch in order for some people to get the feeling he was "tough." Bush doesn't even rise to the level of "decent."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To assess that, one has to judge the conditions of the nation when Bush took office relative to how they were when he departed. Bush can try to help history judge him all he wants, but he was an utter disaster for the nation. The conditions he passed to President Obama were not even remotely close to those he inherited from President Clinton. A complete catastrophe.

When he took office, the nation was in a recession. When he left office 8 years later, the nation was again in a recession. A recession, immediately made worse by Obama. The Dems insistence on massive spending increases during Bush's last 2 years hurt a lot as well. However between the time he was elected, and the time he left office, overall was a period of prosperity. So as I say, a mixed bag. For myself, I think he was a bad President. He did so many things wrong, that its hard to defend him. However he did a few things very right. Carter is the worst all time, Obama is making a strong case to succeed him. And putting Bush next to them, makes him look good, despite how bad he was. And whatever else you may say about him. Like him or not, he has class. Something lacking in both Carter and Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"> When he took office, the nation was in a recession. When he left office 8 years later, the nation was again in a recession.

That's like saying when the doctor got to the hospital, the patient wasn't feeling well, but by the time the doctor left the hospital, the patient was near death -- without mentioning any of the malpractice that occurred in between.

The "recession" inherited by Bush from Clinton -- and it was an extremely mild one -- was nothing like the one he passed on. The "prosperity" you mentioned in between was solely due to the housing bubble. It's not the kind of prosperity that could sustain itself, and certainly didn't.

The Dems insistence on massive spending increases during Bush's last 2 years hurt a lot as well.

I sincerely do not understand why you say things that are easily verified as being totally false. The federal budget deficit for 2006 was 248 billion. The deficit for 2007 -- the first year the Democrats regained Congress -- was 244 billion. However anyone slices it, a 4 billion decrease does not equate to a "massive spending increase." (The 2008 deficit was projected even lower until the economy tanked and stuff like TARP spending was being put forward.)

The budget that Bush inherited in 2001 had no deficit spending. Bush and the Republican Congress ratcheted it up on their own to over $248B in six short years.

So much for "massive spending increases" by the Democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's true, we all 'take potshots at presidents' as is our given right. Some with better insights and information than others and just the reading of some posters immediately reveals the extent of the same. So before you go off about going off, consider that a forum is for that purpose. GW was an abysmal failure ... a real, side-hip hugging, back patting, first name calling moron who inherited a country almost on the make and through idiotic decisions made the wreck that is modern America. Obama will get it right, this I'm sure of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

I sincerely do not understand why you say things that are easily verified as being totally false.

It's kind of like trying to say that Pres. Obama's approval ratings are as low as bush's.

Conservative's cannot except the reality that they jumped on the bandwagon and supported a guy who was the worst president ever. Now that the evidence is becoming harder and harder to deny, they are trying to taint the evidence to make President Obama to appear as bad as bush, which is a lie or they post things that are incorrect hoping no one will call them on it.

It all boils down to this: bush was the worst president in America's history and they attached their wagon to him and how they are trying to distance themselves because from bush or make bush seem not so bad to salve their egos.

The rest of them are just flat out liars.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conservative's cannot except the reality that they jumped on the bandwagon and supported a guy who was the worst president ever. Now that the evidence is becoming harder and harder to deny, they are trying to taint the evidence to make President Obama to appear as bad as bush, which is a lie or they post things that are incorrect hoping no one will call them on it.

Actually no. We're saying he is as bad as Carter, who makes Bush look like a good President. Whats amusing here is, people who seem to think that if they have a d by their name, then they can't be bad. If Obama nuked the entire world, so long as he has a d next to his name, to these people, he couldn't be bad. They're kool-aid drinkers basically. They've chosen their side, and their side is the party, not the person. Its both pathetic and sad, but you find em on both sides. Whats weird is finding people who aren't even American and have no skin in the game, yet they're kool-aid drinkers as well. Myself, I'm a conservative and an American. If I don't like the Republican, I vote for someone else. I sympathize and agree with the Tea Party, and its push for limited government. And to me, Bush was a bad President. He expanded government when he should have cut it. He fought 2 wars, at least one of which was unnecessary. However he wasn't an absolute disaster. American under his leadership was strong. Dictators around the world knew if he felt like they were threatening America, he would act. And unlike Obama he was a real leader. Even if you didn't like the direction he was leading.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm going to preempt Molenir's next post by asking him to answer one question.

If you thought he wasn't such a good president at the time, HOW COME NO CONSERVATIVE SAID A DAMN WORD OF DISSENT WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"> When he took office, the nation was in a recession. When he left office 8 years later, the nation was again in a recession.

Actually, national economy hit a nosedive in late November 2008 while he was still in the office. It sounds like he shoved off everything on the next president candidate to fix the national problem, since he was exiting his presidency. National economy in January 2009 was far worse than the time when W took office nine years ago.

And unlike Obama he was a real leader.

Yeah, W was supposed to be a ‘Father Figure,’ which his dad was NOT able to show. W had more talent and leadership than his father. But, most people know very clearly that his presidency began to tarnish in the second term-- especially after 2004-- with a significant drop of his approval rating to the lowest 27%(at the time of Hurricane Katrina).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whats amusing here is, people who seem to think that if they have a d by their name, then they can't be bad. If Obama nuked the entire world..."

Again, this is not true. I would submit, however, that if a Democrat was in office while the worst terrorist attack in US history occurred, and then he attacked a nation that posed no threat (under false pretenses no less), and then OK'd torturing people, and then sat back and watched an American city being destroyed by a flood, and then helped (through the promotion of home-ownership for all Americans) drive the nation's economy close to another Great Depression, I doubt if anyone, Democrat or Republican, would support him.

Putting an R by his name, however, we find that all these things do nothing to prevent rabid partisans from supporting him. What they hate most about Democratic presidents is the prospect that they might be successful. Bush is a bona fide failure and has been one all of his life. All the PR and spin in the world will not change that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You couldn't set the bar for failure much lower. You can't agree with any one politicians policies permanently, but the barrage of shrieking towards Obama for not being able to fix the mess he by and large inherited in the space of two years is simply mindless droppings.

I think it's an erroneous assumption to conclude that President Obama's low approval rating (and recent rebuke in the last round of elections) is solely due to his inability to bring the country out of the economic mess it currently finds itself. It's all part and partial, but there are other dynamics. I should think that the whole tea party thing exemplified this to a large degree.

Most thinking Americans (and despite what many of you who lean to the left and presume a natural predilection for genius seem to think, many on the right do think, and do so quite brilliantly) realize that there is no magic wand to cure what ails us. But these same thinking Americans are equally puzzled how spending huge amounts in a so-called 'stimulus package' which appears to have stimulated nothing in the realm of what was projected or hoped may not be the approach that is best for America. Neither is ramming through legislation with closed-door politics that is designed to press home a personal agenda that is also not in the way of thinking of many Americans. In short, it's not only how you get to an end, or even how quickly you get to that end - but how you accomplish this end result in the process. While you see that as obstructing policies that you, your party and your candidate favor, I think it's quite refreshing to see that the American people can still be roused to put paid to what they see as bad politics in a direction unintended for this democracy to go. Yes we need to move forward, but the American people don't seem to agree that the current administration has the right plan to get us there.

To point - so the moderators don't delete this - a President's approval rating with the American people can be measured by the character of the man as well as his policies and how he enacts them. Personally I don't think the sitting President has shown the type of character I wish the leader of this country to have. And yes, obviously they didn't see this in Bush either, but there is a stark difference between the man who believes the country is his agenda, and the one who believes his agenda should mold the nation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you thought he wasn't such a good president at the time, HOW COME NO CONSERVATIVE SAID A DAMN WORD OF DISSENT WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE?

This is a disorder known as selective blindness. You only see, what you want to see. Do a bit of research, and you'll see tons of voices in dissent. Even well known people like Rush Limbaugh who called him out for his Prescription Drug law. That you refuse to believe that lots of conservatives spoke out against him, says more that you refuse to listen, then that they weren't speaking.

Actually, national economy hit a nosedive in late November 2008 while he was still in the office. It sounds like he shoved off everything on the next president candidate to fix the national problem, since he was exiting his presidency. National economy in January 2009 was far worse than the time when W took office nine years ago.

It wasn't November. It was in the summer of 08 that it became really obvious. Of course if you were paying attention, you could have seen signs of this much earlier. I for example bailed out of the housing market in 05. I knew a crash was coming. Though I have to admit, I had no idea how far ranging the impact of it would be.

I doubt if anyone, Democrat or Republican, would support him.

You may actually believe what you're saying here. However its not true. The kool-aid drinkers can excuse anything. Look at it this way. 2 years ago, you and quite of few other lefties were going around criticizing Bush, and yet there were always people there supporting him. The same is true with Obama. Look at how he handled the gulf oil spill, remember how people were either totally quiet, or actually supporting him? Look at his handling of Afghanistan, how he waffled for months before deciding to commit, but only part of what the Generals asked for. People defended him, despite the attacks against him having merit. Too many people see the party first, and not the man.

tigermoth - Great as usual. Always enjoy reading your posts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a disorder known as selective blindness. You only see, what you want to see.

Do you mean like saying that the Democrats under Bush's final two years were responsible for "massive spending increases," when in fact the Republicans took the federal budget from a balanced state in 2001 to a $248 billion-dollar deficit in a mere six years? And the Democratic Congress decreased the deficit spending by nearly $5 billion in the first year they took over in 2007.

However its not true. The kool-aid drinkers can excuse anything.

Kool-aid drinkers may, but no real liberal would excuse taking a country to war on false pretenses. OR support the torturing of other human beings. Ever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "Do you mean like saying that the Democrats under Bush's final two years were responsible for "massive spending increases," when in fact the Republicans took the federal budget from a balanced state in 2001 to a $248 billion-dollar deficit in a mere six years?"

Molenir couldn't address these facts when you posted them the first time, he certainly won't the second. And the guy talks about 'selective blindness'? Hilarious doesn't even cover it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a disorder known as selective blindness. You only see, what you want to see. Do a bit of research, and you'll see tons of voices in dissent. Even well known people like Rush Limbaugh who called him out for his Prescription Drug law. That you refuse to believe that lots of conservatives spoke out against him, says more that you refuse to listen, then that they weren't speaking.

Excellent point. I criticize things like Bush ' s tariffs on imported steel (betrayed his free market stance); NCLB and the "compassionate conservatism" silliness (pandering); the attempted appointment of Harriet Meyers (cronyism) ; worked with McCain and Kennedy to enable amnesty for illegals, and most frustrating of all when he did succeed (AIDS prevention program in Africa, playing China quite well while cementing what will be a much more valuable alliance in the future - the one with India) he and his administration were absolutely awful at getting out any notice of their accomplishments. Granted, he faced a very hostile media but there were other options available.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir couldn't address these facts when you posted them the first time, he certainly won't the second. And the guy talks about 'selective blindness'? Hilarious doesn't even cover it.

Whats to address? The fact that the budget decreased slightly in 2007 before Dems took control? Or perhaps you would like me to talk about 2008, when Dems controlled the purse strings, and spending immediately ballooned out of control. Would you like me to mention that one of the first promises broken by Pelosi was her promise to cut the budget? Right after her promises of transparency and to drain the swamp.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact that the budget decreased slightly in 2007 before Dems took control? Or perhaps you would like me to talk about 2008, when Dems controlled the purse strings, and spending immediately ballooned out of control.

The Dems took control in 2007, as a result of the 2006 elections.

In 2008, the budget was prepared and submitted by President George W. Bush, and the Democratic-led Congress approved it.

It's amazing that a budget could go from a balanced state in 2001 to over $280 billion dollars in the red by the end of 2006 without Republicans complaining that spending was out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's amazing that a budget could go from a balanced state in 2001 to over $280 billion dollars in the red by the end of 2006 without Republicans complaining that spending was out of control.

And its even more amazing that Dems keep spinning that despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Lots of Republicans spoke up against it. Lots of Republicans opposed spending so much money. But thats not the spin, so its of course disregarded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lots of Republicans spoke up against it. Lots of Republicans opposed spending so much money.

The Republicans were the ones spending the money! Those budgets from 2001-2006 were passed by very narrow Congressional margins with most Democrats voting against.

Take Bush's 2006 budget, for example: It passed in the Senate by 52-48 with all Democrats save Mary Landrieu (LA) voting against. All Republicans except for 5 of them voted FOR the budget. The ratio was closely matched in the House, with most Democrats opposed.

In order to judge history properly, facts like this have to be brought out. Otherwise, you have people saying ludicrous things like "lots of Republicans were opposed," and "[Democrats enacted] massive spending increases."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually no. We're saying he is as bad as Carter, who makes Bush look like a good President.

LOL. You guys are a hoot! Carter actually presented a balanced buget, and inherited, IF YOU FORGET, a economy ravaged by an unpaid war in Vietnam. He INHERITED double digit inflation under a Republican who refused, refused, to raise taxes and have everyone sacrifice for the war effort. Remember, republicans are the WAR party, but it is a WAR party of WE ALSO AIN'T PAYING FOR IT party. Let it just come out in inflation and we stick the democrat with it and call him a bad president. Just like Obama! Same ole music. On the list that conservatives of evil and bad people Carter was NUMBER ONE. Strange. Osama Bin Laden NEVER MADE the list! You republicans are very, very, very strange!

However he wasn't an absolute disaster. American under his leadership was strong.

LOL, LOL, LOL. GIVE me ONE instance of when America was strong under his leadership? Was it that war that he went on, that did not have enough men or armor? Was it Katrina? A real hoot that was! Turning back ships from Venezula and letting people die as government can not and will not do ANYTHING. And then having a birthday cake with McCain! How about the 2008 disaster! Was that strong leadership? How the Patriot Act in which people can now be held WITHOUT TRIAL, (which the constitution explicitly states can NOT be done)? Was that strong leadership? The man was a monkey, a psychopathetic monkey who is trying to groom his brother, Jebbie boy, for the next turn at power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Carter was SMART. Worked on nuclear subs and actually was in the NAVY. Not like Bush who found ways to get out of doing his duty. Plus, Carter engineered the Middle East peace between Egypt and Israel. What did Bush ever do on the foreign policy front other than kill people?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ouch. The Telegraph (UK) headline for Nov 14

"The Decider returns to haunt Mr Nuance as George W. Bush eclipses Barack Obama"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheRat is spot on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Telegraph (UK) headline for Nov 14 "The Decider returns to haunt Mr Nuance as George W. Bush eclipses Barack Obama"

The Telegraphy is a piece of conservative nonsense. Of course, they will say anything, and I so mean ANYTHING to praise Bush because fools support fools. A little dope on the newspaper--| In 1937 the newspaper absorbed The Morning Post which traditionally espoused a conservative position and sold predominantly amongst the retired officer class. Originally William Ewart Berry, 1st Viscount Camrose, bought The Morning Post with the intention of publishing it alongside the Daily Telegraph, but poor sales of the former led him to merge the two. For some years the paper was retitled The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post before it reverted to just The Daily Telegraph.| So, just because fools print nonsense in stupid newspapers DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. The Soviet Union tried it. Strange how you right-wingers are no different from the drones in that time. They would believe anything too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheRat is correct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush is one of the greatest of all us presidents. history will reflect that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

George Bush is a great man, and was a great President. If Jimmy Carter was so great, how come he was only elected president for a 4 year term? I think that George Bush was maligned and villified by the Left in America and around the world. There was a deliberate campaign by the Leftish Mass Media to discredit him. He is a gentleman, and Laura Bush is a lady - one of the best First Ladies that America ever had. Bothe are warm-hearted people, and recently they went to the airport in Texas to welcome home troops who had been serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The look on their faces was priceless. I have never seen the "Anointed One" doing that!

George Bush will be remembered as the president who protected America and the Western World after 9/11. Obama will quickly be forgotten after he leaves the White House in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush was elected because he was the son of a President. He was totally unqualified to be President but that of course did not prevent the SCOTUS appointing him to the role when Gore won with 500k more votes.

Bush was a complete and total failure of massive proportions. There was nothing he did that will have any lasting positive value. He bankrupted the fed. budget with two failed wars and tax cuts for the rich who financed his campaigns. He corrupted the government with church involvement. He tried to gut social security but failed at that as well.

I have often challenged the knee jerk republicans who have no sense of history to name a single thing bush did that was good for the country. Never get a coherent reply on that one. He talked down the economy in 2000 as part of his campaign, he lied about McCain having a black love child in South Carolina, he lost the election but was placed in the WH anyway and it was all downhill from there. His whole life was a series of drunken screw-ups from his oil business to the rangers to the sad state of Texas to finally wrecking the whole country. It will take decades to recover from the massive mistakes of his sad, sorry eight years of failure

But still his bleeding heart followers cheer him on, the same ones who knew that WMD existed in Iraq and probably still do today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

George Bush will be remembered as the president who protected America and the Western World after 9/11.

By the same token, he should be remembered as the president who failed to protect America from that awful attack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush was elected because he was the son of a President.

LOL. No American believes such simplistic notions.

He was totally unqualified to be President

What are you talking aboat? Bush was governor of a state with an economy the size of Canada. Historically it is Obama who is the exception, and now we are seeing why he was such a mistake.

Looks like some people are pretty sore about the shellacking their hero Obama took 2 weeks ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Jimmy Carter was so great, how come he was only elected president for a 4 year term?

Because it is impossible to underestimate the intellect of the average American voter?

think that George Bush was maligned and villified by the Left in America and around the world.

Of course he was. He did stuff that deserved to be maligned and vilified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

he lost the election but was placed in the WH anyway

Do you have any idea how presidential elections work in the US? George Bush did not lose the election. He won the electoral vote. After all this time, don't you think it is about time to give up on this specious and incorrect line of argument?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because it is impossible to underestimate the intellect of the average American voter?

Another silly argument, why then was Carter elected in the first place? Is it because it is impossible to underestimate the intellect of the average American voter?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because it is impossible to underestimate the intellect of the average American voter?

Wow, just wow. behold the disdain for the average working class voter in that comment, the very people who, in your country, you no doubt like to think you 'fight' for. Seriously, if you have such hatred and contempt for an entire country, one which openly accepts every race on this planet, why even click on the article? I understand that American conservatives, being patriotic, tend to put off your average European, but to dismiss the entire electorate in a nation of 300 million and far, far more diverse than where you come from, is something I cannot fathom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really Cleo, some of us Americans are pretty smart. Just because some dolts believe Bush was great when he will go down as the WPE, it doesn't reflect on the rest of us.

Carter was and is a very intelligent man. Bush Senior was far superior to his low IQ son. Historians will rip "W" to shreds not only in the near future but throughout history; eons from now.

But like I said earlier, I feel sorry for Bush. He was propped up and installed as president when in reality he was never up to the mental challenge of being governor let alone President of the United States. He destroyed America in so many ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MrCreosote - come on now, don't get your knickers in a twist. It was a quote (albeit rather mangled) from HL Mencken, who since he was American must have been a self-hater, I suppose.

the very people who, in your country, you no doubt like to think you 'fight' for.

?? what makes you think I 'fight' for anyone? and what's with the inverted commas?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because some dolts believe Bush was great when he will go down as the WPE, it doesn't reflect on the rest of us.

WPE? Carter holds that title, for now. It is confirmed for me by the observation - of over three decades - that until Obama came along the vast majority of European,Brit, Canadian (and other Commonwealth) expats and travelers I have known, if pushed to answer (when telling me how bad Reagan or Bush Sr or Clinton or Bush jr was) would name Carter in response to my question asking who then is the best American president of modern times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world.

Dan "potatoe" Quayle, 9/21/88

George Bush did not lose the election. He won the electoral vote.

The courts gave him the 25 electoral votes he needed to get in, that's a little different from what you are claiming here. Gore definitely, without a doubt, without a need for the courts' help, won the popular vote...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really Cleo, some of us Americans are pretty smart. Just because some dolts believe Bush was great when he will go down as the WPE, it doesn't reflect on the rest of us.

Of course you are. Roughly half of you every four years, anyways. The other half are turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

I agree with you that Carter is and was an intelligent man - and by all accounts, a good one. Bush couldn't be more different if he tried.

American conservatives, being patriotic, tend to put off your average European

'They hate us for our patriotisms'? lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The courts gave him the 25 electoral votes he needed to get in, that's a little different from what you are claiming here.

No, it is not. He got the electoral votes legally. He won the election.

Gore definitely, without a doubt, without a need for the courts' help, won the popular vote...

It does not and did not matter. That is not how presidents are generally elected in the US. If you know this why even bring up the popular vote? It is a specious argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush is one of the greatest of all us presidents. history will reflect that.

Wow! That is some strong koolaid! Are you a Mormon or a Moonie, Flyingfisher. Or smoking something interesting. On what basis, logic, could this pyschopathetic monkey--Bush--ever be great, other than the greatest loser. If you like losers, that makes you a loser.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, it is not. He got the electoral votes legally. He won the election.

He cheated and STOPPED the vote in Florida, in which I partook, as an Absentee Voter. I mentioned in my letter to the Tallahasee Democrate when the count was starting, that only republicans have been the party of opposing all progressive action, it is actually the political Taliban, a anti-modern force, as all spending is PORK. A bullet train is PORK. Helping poor children is PORK. Building infrastructure is PORK. But when it comes to war, they are all over it. But just ain't EVER paying for it. That is a republican! Even going back to the times of Mark Twain, who noted the same thing, especially during the war on the Philippines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by the "same Token" HE was just president for 7 months! when it happened. Bush was bashed too much YES he spent way too much money. He did try to help, He decided to go against popular opinion. one thing you can say he doesn't get mad at things (shoe)and I KNOW that Bugs bushHaters. cry all you want to Bush WILL down in History as a man who Made democracy happen in Iraq. NO im NOT a republican & I voted for Obama & am pro Obama

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush was elected because he was the son of a President.

Actually, bush was appointed by the Supreme Court in a trumped up recount run by his brother and friends of the family. Never forget.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush fell asleep @ the wheel. left the door open. created a whole new world order whereby no one is safe. and no one feels safe anymore. thank you befuddled, corrupt Texas-oil billionaire! and your brother, the former governer of Florida.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Actually, bush was appointed by the Supreme Court"

Actually the election was sitting Vice President Al Gore's to lose and he lost it.

Thank God we had President Bush and not Al Gore in the White House after 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank God we had President Bush and not Al Gore in the White House after 9/11.

One of the key historical points that the Bush regime should be judged on is their handling of a key event nearly one month prior to the 9/11 attacks: A radical-Muslim was removed from a flight school by the FBI when erratic behavior was noted by his instructors. The FBI requested permission to thoroughly search the contents of the computer owned by the person who came to be known as "the 20th hijacker."

This is one month before the attacks, mind you. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to grant the search warrant.

Many conservatives will not even allow themselves the freedom to consider the likelihood that a Janet Reno-type AG would have certainly granted the search warrant. After Waco and Elian Gonzales, the Bush team wanted to show how much they cared about civil rights, even of a radical Muslim co-conspirator. Since the Clinton team warned the Bush team that radial Muslim terrorism would be the biggest challange facing them, it is unlikely that a Gore team would have dropped the ball so badly.

A Gore team certainly would not have proposed deep cuts in the FBI's counter-terrorism budget as Bush's team did in early 2001.

To my ears, the phrase "Thank God we had President Bush and not Al Gore in the White House after 9/11," rings the same way as "Thank God we had 9/11." With Gore in the White House, there much better than a 50-50 chance the attacks would have never taken place, for the simple reasons stated above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank God we had President Bush and not Al Gore in the White House after 9/11.

Yes. Thank God for Bush and his wise leadership.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care." Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

And who else could have taken the West so brilliantly into war in Iraq, (which had nothing whatsoever to do with Sept. 11) in search of those legendary "weapons of mass destruction".

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." --Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003

Way to go, George!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PeaceWarrior - The courts gave him the 25 electoral votes he needed to get in, that's a little different from what you are claiming here. Gore definitely, without a doubt, without a need for the courts' help, won the popular vote...

George Bush did not lose the election. He won the electoral vote. The US President has ALWAYS been elected by the Electoral College. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to make up your own facts to suit your argument.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the State of Florida's election process didn't violate any State or Federal laws. That's all they were requested to do. If Gore had ONLY lost in Florida, he would have become President. As it turned out, he conceed to Bush, twice, on election night.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush...still crazy after all these years. If historians give him credit for bringing democracy to Iraq, they must also give him credit for the fiscal quagmire America fell into due to attempting such an act.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul

The US Supreme Court ruled that the State of Florida's election process didn't violate any State or Federal laws.

Wrong! The Supreme Court stopped Florida's perfectly legal process of recounting the votes. YOU are the one who needs to get YOUR facts straight. You have made up pseudo facts to make the square peg fit in the round hole.

If the Supreme Court had done nothing Gore would have been president. If the Supreme Court had determined it was up to the state of Florida to determine the legal counting of votes Gore would have been president. Bush only won because the Supreme Court interfered and stopped the counting of ballots.

Look this was simple. Not complicated at all really. If you allowed all the votes to be counted in Florida Gore would have been president. The only way to stop this was to stop the recount. What was the rationale for stopping the recount. I defy one conservative to tell us the rationale in the court's decision. I have read Bush v. Gore; I suggest anyone up to the challenge do the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cry all you want to Bush WILL down in History as a man who Made democracy happen in Iraq

Um...what has democracy done for the average Iraqis? Stalemate, as any progress is not allowed. IT is so simple. If any Iraqi lawmaker gets credit for a reform or making a bridge, he gets attention, and then influence and then more attention and more influence, and then what? A new leader with huge power. So, the situation now is that ALL of the Iraqi lawmakers are checking the power on everyone else so that this does not happen. The result is that NOTHING gets done. I see this in Japanese meetings too. Ask the average Iraqi how he or she feels about their new government. Yeh--they are like so Positive about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Supreme Court stopped Florida's perfectly legal process of recounting the votes.

So, it is your claim that the Supreme Court acted illegally? How did you come to this conclusion? If that is not your conclusion, what is supposed to be your point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The SCOTUS cannot act illegally by definition, what it did however was make up its own laws. The neocons packed on the court by bush senior knew what they were doing was loony so they specifically stated that their decision could not be used as a precendent in future cases. It was a one-off decision with only one purpose, make bush president.

And that resulted in 9-11 happening while bush was on vacation and refused to read FBI reports of the probablity of a plane hijacking attempt by OBL. Who later bush let go free on Tora Bora. Its all so simple to see, it all goes back to oil and the bush family corruption to the core.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eager to help history judge him? I don't think history will need much help from that wino shape-pusher to form a judgement.

Apparently his first book is selling well. Straight to the top of the fiction list.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The SCOTUS cannot act illegally by definition, what it did however was make up its own laws.

Again, is this illegal or unusual? Is it not one of the functions of the SCOTUS to 'make up its own laws'? Just because the made the decision a 'one-off' does not mean they thought what they were doing was 'loony'. In fact, I find the very idea rather strange. Sorry, you have not made your case.

Who later bush let go free on Tora Bora.

Now, it seems you are suggesting, 'Bush' was in control of the situation in Tora Bora and made decisions that directly lead to OBL being 'let go free'. Again, this seems a rather ridiculous concept. Please share your thoughts as to how exactly this happened because it just seems you are trying to find things wrong with Bush and his presidency when there are so many obvious ones such seemingly fictional accounts hardly seem neccessary at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thetruthhurts

I knew you or anyone else would not try to argue the Supreme Court decision on merit, i.e. rationale like I previously requested. The case is "Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 60 (2000) (per curiam)." Nobody here argued that SCOTUS was not in a legal position to make a final decision. The SCOTUS has gotten decisions wrong in the past and they got this one wrong. Only this decision wreaks of corruption. It was wrong to stop the count of ballots cast by the Florida citizens. The citizens of Florida did not determine who their electoral votes would be cast for, the Supreme Court did and that is wrong. Nobody can argue the merit of stopping the ballot counting because it is nonsense. Like I said I dare anyone to try.

Concerning Tora Bora, even John McCain blamed Bush for allowing Osama bin Laden to escape. He said so many times if you could be bothered to look it up.

Letting Osama go was one of the biggest failures of Bush; especially after he promised over and over to get him.

Former CIA Director George Tenet confirmed that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora at the time. "Was Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora?" CBS correspondent Scott Pelley asked George Tenet in a "60 Minutes" interview. "We believe that he was," Tenet replied. Gary Berntsen, the key CIA field commander on the ground near Tora Bora at the time, says he requested 800 American army rangers to prevent bin Laden's escape. The request was denied by Gen. Franks, he claims, who argued U.S. troops were not necessary, because a local Afghan militia had been hired to fight in their place. Bernsten's account is corroborated by former CIA official Hank Crumpton, who personally briefed Bush, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Gen. Franks, about the need to go after bin Laden in Tora Bora at the time. Crumpton, who led the CIA's Afghan campaign in 2001, was in constant contact with Gen. Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move Marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining the "the back door was open" for escape into nearby Pakistan. Gen. Franks balked, however. Crumpton then turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal. "We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush. Cheney also attended the meeting. But Crumpton's pleas fell on deaf ears. No troops were redeployed to the area. Gary C. Schroen, the CIA field officer in charge of the initial CIA operation in Afghanistan after 9/11, also rejects the administration's official line. He appeared on "Meet the Press" in 2005 to tell his side of the story. Here is the relevant portion of that interview: TIM RUSSERT: In October 2004, General Tommy Franks offered this observation: "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp." You just disagree with that? SCHROEN: I absolutely do, yes. RUSSERT: And President Bush and Vice President Cheney all quoted General Franks saying "We don't know if bin Laden was at Tora Bora." You have no doubt? SCHROEN: I have no doubt that he was there. Franks is sticking to his story. "We don't know whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora," he told the New York Times. He was "never within our grasp." However, Franks reveals in his own memoir that he briefed the president in December 2001 about "unconfirmed reports that Osama has been seen in the White Mountains ... the Tora Bora area." And in mid-December 2001, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, told reporters that there had been "indicators" of bin Laden's presence at Tora Bora in early December. Moreover, the Associated Press, through a Freedom of Information Act request, recently uncovered a U.S. government document that describes how one of bin Laden's commanders now held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "assisted in the escape of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey,

My point about the SCOTUS was simple. Was what they did illegal? The answer is no. You have confirmed this. That you disagree with their decision is quite a different matter. This is a difference of opinion and one I could not care any less about.

Only this decision wreaks of corruption.

Prove it. It seems only to reek of people claiming corruption because they are unhappy with the decision. That is quite a different matter indeed.

As to Tora Bora, you failed miserably to prove Bush purposefully made decisions to let OBL go free as you seemed to be attempting to claim.

Quite a long post with very little to show for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many conservatives will not even allow themselves the freedom to consider the likelihood that a Janet Reno-type AG would have certainly granted the search warrant.

LOL! It was Reno who put the blocks in place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As it is, GWB's popularity is about to soar past Obama's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica

Let's see how history compares and contrasts the two, eh? I wonder which one will be respected by history...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thetruthhurts

You were the one that jumped into an existing argument so I care less what you now say your point is. Just because you unsuccessfully tried to shift the argument as to the silly assumption that any one of us would say a SCOTUS decision was illegal does not detract from the original argument that stated the courts gave Bush Florida; he did not earn the electoral votes.

zurcronium at 01:32 PM JST - 16th November

The SCOTUS cannot act illegally by definition

That should have clued you in that you were not having the same argument as we were putting forth. The reason is that all you can do is to continue to state, what we all acknowledged to be true, that by definition the SCOTUS cannot act illegally.

You even quoted PeaceWarrior:

The courts gave him the 25 electoral votes he needed to get in, that's a little different from what you are claiming here.

And then you disputed him and have every since been trying to put forth the strawman argument. No thank you, I won't take the bait. I'll stick to the original argument which YOU inserted yourself into. I agree with the original summation that the courts put Bush in. Continue to try to change the subject as you may wish but I am certain I and others stand by their assertions. You made up the premise that we were arguing the court's legality and we are not having it. Your first assertion was "No, it is not" to PeaceWarrior's quote above. Then you immediately provided a strawman's argument and have insisted we were arguing something you made up and no one claimed. If you will recall you commented on zurcronium comment "he lost the election but was placed in the WH anyway."

Like many of us said "The courts gave him the 25 electoral votes he needed to get in."

thetruthhurts said:

you failed miserably to prove Bush purposefully made decisions to let OBL go free

There you go again creating a strawman argument. No body claimed "purposefully." Nobody said he let Osama go on purpose. Rather we have submitted ample proof that Osama escaped because of Bush's incompetence. It was clear they told him they had Osama cornered. It was clear they explained to Bush that an escape route was not covered. It was clear they asked him for ample resources to close the escape route. It was clear Bush did not act. It was clear that Osama escaped due to Bush's inaction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey - Wrong! The Supreme Court stopped Florida's perfectly legal process of recounting the votes. YOU are the one who needs to get YOUR facts straight. You have made up pseudo facts to make the square peg fit in the round hole.

I have read Bush v. Gore I suggest anyone up to the challenge do the same.

HAHAHAHA You must be confusing the many court cases that were filed because of the Florida election results and proceedures or your confusing the Florida Supreme Court with the US Supreme Court.

In Bush v. Gore, the Florida court ruled against Gore. Gore's legal team managed to expidite the case to the US Supreme Court which REVERSED the Florida decision and remanded the case back to the Florida court. Gore's legal team never followed up by pursuing his case in the Florida court. So Gore lost - again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey,

It is obvious that at the point in which I jumped into the conversation, you and others were attempting to make it seem as though Bush had done something wrong/illegal or encouraged others to do something wrong/illegal in order to get elected. I merely have been pointing out that this was not the case. Bush got all of his electoral votes legally. That put him in the White House. Period.

It is clear that many have been suggesting Bush's influence got him into the White House and I have not seen clear evidence of this at all.

Nobody said he let Osama go on purpose.

BS. It is clear that many here have been suggesting this very thing. Look at the ramblings of people suggesting it had something to do with oil etc. It is clear that you and others are suggesting he did this on purpose.

It was clear they told him they had Osama cornered.

I have not seen that at all. It is merely clear that he was suspected by some of being there and not by others. He has also been suspected of being dead a few times, too. Clearly information related to this man up to now has hardly been clear and correct 100% of the time.

Sorry, but this has been yet another long but rather ineffective post on your part.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's also be clear, shall we, that there is plenty to criticize about the Bush presidency. If you want to talk about Afghanistan, there are also clear areas where huge mistakes were made. Let me state one of these: Bush's government allowed warlords to produce opium in return for supposed cooperation on the part of said warlords. 1) The warlords were not really all that cooperative. 2) Encouraging increased production instead of banning it was wrong and no amount of explaining changes this.

I could go on and on. However, Bush did win the election legally and I am not convinced that Bush did not really want to capture OBL. He did and I think he probably wanted to stuff the guy's head and have it mounted on his wall.

My problem with the criticisms often seen against Bush is that they are not reflecting actual truths and merely reflect a general anger at the man himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul and thetruthhurts,

Even when you argue that Bush won the election fair and square, we all know that if one of the justices had been a liberal instead of a conservative, Gore would have won it. Is that the way you "generally" choose a president?

goodDonkey, thanks for the posts. I didn't follow the discussion after I posted the comment.

Felony conviction?

SiouxChef's joke is really funny but it also brings up all the voters' list purges that happened before the elections by Harris and Blackwell.

But, really, if Americans are happy with having ONE judge being the deciding factor in their elections, who am I to disagree. You deserve what you are getting is probably a better way to look at it. Don't you worry about the popular vote, it's only the majority of the people in the states who really, really wanted to have Gore as president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, we don't care what you think.

And that's the attitude that's at the root of all your problems. And you wonder why you have a reputation as being obnoxious throughout the world. Senseless comment...

Are SCOTUS judges in the habit of interfering with elections as well? Is that something that's usual in your country?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW, that was such a predictable response... Thank you for continuing to give us proof that all the stereotypes about US conservatives are still truly alive and kicking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PeaceWarrior - Even when you argue that Bush won the election fair and square, we all know that if one of the justices had been a liberal instead of a conservative, Gore would have won it.

No, "WE" don't all know that. According to the US Supreme Court decision BUSH v. GORE the case was sent back to the Florida Court for reconsideration. The US Supreme Court DID NOT declare Bush the winner. They were not even asked to declare a winner in the race and they have no power to do so even if asked.

According to the US Supreme Court ruling:

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.

It is so ordered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He says he won’t be around to hear history’s ultimate verdict and he’s fine with that. But he offers this to the jury: “Commentators who once denounced President Reagan as a dunce and a warmonger talk about how the Great Communicator had won the Cold War.”

Spot on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites