You aren't a Democrat by chance? Me, I could care less about parties.

Well since no one gives him credit for when he does well, I have to do it. As you bash him for things that he didn't even cause.

Actually no. First of all, Bush didn't run his campaign. Karl Rove did, and Rove is actually quite smart. Running a bad campaign - as the Giuliani, Gore, Clinton, and Kerry teams did - just means you're terrible at campaigning or you hired bad advisors. None of them are retarded. By contrast, Bush himself is incredibly inept and stupid. See the difference?

And listening to your rather inane comments couldn't make me more relieved that there are only 19% of you left defending this dumbass president.

You're directly contradicting yourself again. You're saying that he handles the economy "well" even though we're about to head into a recession, which you claim he has nothing at all to do with. Is he responsible for the economy or not?

Bush hasn't done anything well. In fact, it's been a while since we've had a president with no redeeming qualities... even Nixon had positive accomplishments. And this coming from somebody that supported him in 2004.

That's an understatement. Far worse than doing nothing well, he's monumentally and catastrophically fucked things up. He's spent America into a giant hole and mired us down in a war that we may never get out of. He's made cronyism into an art form and reversed basic Constitutional rights and freedoms and at an unprecedented level. He's turned torture and the rejection of science into Republican values and made America almost universally disliked around the world.



And let the record show that Bush's approval ratings are now well below what Nixon's ever were. And the year isn't over yet!

WTF? You, of all people, voted for Bush? Holy crap! So I'm curious, what was it that duped you into voting for him?

...No.

Who, in 50 years, is going to look back at Bush's eight years and go, "Wow! Amazing!"

No one, is going to say that, but history is either going to flesh out all of his flaws (war,economy,etc.) or going to glorify his one great moment (right after 9/11) I think the former is much more likely, but the latter is possible.

Ah, the all purpose Republican excuse: Blame Clinton for everything! Even if the facts are the complete opposite!

Of course, if Clinton were President on 9/11, he would take the blame, wouldn't he? I mean, logically, the guy who is in charge when an attack happens usually takes the blame. Security guards don't get to blame the security guard from a year earlier.

But no, can't have Bush being responsible for anything, even when he ignored reports that were called "BinLaden determined to strike inside the US" and briefings about the danger of bin Laden and where he was located that was given to them by the Clinton people as they left.

And let's see -- who has been in charge since 9/11 and hasn't yet done enough to catch bin Laden? Oh, I know! It has to be Clinton's fault that Bush didn't capture bin Laden after 7 years, right?

Bush can d no wrong, and everything that has happened bad since he took office must be the fault of the guy before him who led our country into a time of peace, strong economy and a balanced budget.

Who needs facts when you have blind loyalty?

Perhaps, like in Truman's case, historians who look back at the era without being mired in current politics?

I doubt Bush's presidency will be considered "amazing" but I think that he will be rated as average to slightly above average.

Joe made no such argument. He mentioned 9/11 as a Clinton failure. That was all. He made no sweeping statement that blamed Clinton for "everything!" and praised Bush to high Heaven.

If you cannot look back and see that the Clinton administration was partially at fault, along with Bush, for 9/11, then you are simply ignoring failures of presidents that you obviously like.

Don't you ever get dizzy from spinning so much?

That's not Beeble you're talking to... so... you must be mistaken.

If I were to ask where Reagan ranks among the presidents, not a single Republican would hesitate by saying we need to wait 30 more years. They ALL claim, and have done so since Reagan left office, that he is among the greatest, and historians have mostly kept to that view.

It's only because you're among the last 19% still supporting this ass clown that you want to withhold judgment and let history decide after we're all dead. How convenient. Sorry, Bush is an incompetent retard and no one but the 19%ers need history to tell them that.

I repeat, George W. Bush has no redeeming qualities. He has no positive accomplishments worthy of remembrance. It's been a long time since we had a president of such low caliber.

How about Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito?

1. Many of us don't call those accomplishments.

2. That's all you can come up with? He appointed some people that conservatives like and liberals hate? How is that an accomplishment?

3. Even if I grant you that, they are offset by appointments like Gonzales, Meiers, Rumsfeld, "Brownie", and hundreds of other incompetents who were forced to resign in disgrace or who were indicted.

4. Seriously, can you come up with one real accomplishment? Social security? Nope. Getting Bin Laden? Nope. Balancing the budget? Bringing peace to the middle east? No child left behind? Nopenopenope. Even under Bush's own agenda, he hasn't accomplished anything.

I didn't list other things because no matter what you will claim they were failures. But, since you insist.

Tax cuts, protecting the homeland for more attacks, judicial appointments, and he presided over a strong economy, for the most part.

I make no claim that Bush is the greatest president ever. However, he does have accomplishments.

Clinton was not partly at fault for 9/11. Had he held information that indicated Bin Laden was going to stage a massive terrorist attack on the eleventh of September 2001, then yes he would've been at fault. But he didn't, so he wasn't.

Saying he's to blame for a catastrophe he had absolutely no idea would happen just because he didn't catch Bin Laden "when he had the chance" is akin to blaming Regan for training and funding the guy in the first place. Neither could've foreseen the events of 9/11 occurring. Bush, on the other hand, practically let it happen.

Snrub for president!

Supreme Court appointments do not count as accomplishments. I could do that too, if I just happen to be president.

For the very very very very rich. Are you very very very very rich? Then why do you see that as an accomplishment? That's not an accomplishment, it emptied out our surplus and helped to put us deep into debt. Seriously, I won't deny it helped rich people, how did that help America as a whole?



The absence of somthing is something? This is a man who cut the budget for certain national security positions and wanted to give control of our ports to a dictatorship in the middle east. There may have been no more attacks anyway.



Every Preesident does that. How is that an accomplishment?



In Bizzaro-land perhaps. The American dollar is lower than it has been in years, foreclosures are at the highest level in years, the cost of living is increasing faster than inflation, we are in a greater debt to China and other foreign countries than we have ever been before, and you see these as signs of a strong economy? I think just about every unbiased economist in the world would disagree with you...

Geez, you're really reaching here.

Astute observers would remember George Bush opposed nation building and slashed the federal counter-terrorism budget before 9/11 occurred. National security became a way to scare up votes thereafter.

As a policy conservative and disillusioned Republican, I am extremely distressed by the fascist undertones of our country's national dialogue in the past few years. Trivialities such as flag lapel pins and hand placement during the Star Spangled Banner are so utterly irrelevant that such accusations only reflect upon the immaturity of those involved. In a time when patriotism is measured by bumper magnets and not selfless service, it might be too much to ask for some respectability. These star spangled morons fail to realize that one is free to agree in any country on earth, whereas on in a truly free country is one free to disagree.

Besides, to assert that this phony "war on terrorism" is anywhere close to the magnitude of our nation's challenges in years past, is an insult to the greater generations of yesteryear.

To clear up a point: being a policy conservative does not mean agreeing to using Orwellian psychology to manipulate the electorate.

i agree with everything in that post.