• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Let's look back the Bush Presidency.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some columnist the other day wrote that the blatant DISREGARD of COMPETENCE was one of the worst features of the Bush presidency. Bush and cronies did not place competent people in positions of power, instead they appoint people who'd toe the line. Why? Because of POLITICS. The expansion of politics was one of the worst features of the Bush presidency. It was as if they'd never stopped campaigning!

Think of it this way. When you're appointed to a position, you can spend your time thinking, 'How can I keep this job for as long as possible? How can I make sure my party members get jobs in my organization?' Do your constituents benefit from that? No. Does your party benefit from that? Yes. Or you can spend your time thinking, 'How can I do this job best as I can?' That's the way it's supposed to go. (Ironically, even tho they expanded politics, Bush & co. have arguably tainted the Republican brand by increasing government size & being fiscally UNconservative.)

Some examples: Michael D. Brown, short-lived director of FEMA. "Good job Brownie!" Monica Goodling, totally unprepared fresh-out-of-Pat-Robertson's-school assistant to Alberto Gonzales. Rumsfeld, who thought it was a good idea to dismantle the Iraqi infrastructure before starting an occupation... blatantly incompetent, all of them.

This ties in with Bush's strange way of looking at the world. To Bush and his type, evidence that one might be wrong is seen as a CHALLENGE to the strength of one's convictions, not as a hint that one should update one's beliefs.

Remember that quote about Bush & co. "not living in the reality-based community." (See also that Draper book called 'Dead Certain'.)

So yeah, I'd have to say that Bush's defining feature is: DISREGARD of COMPETENCE.
 
Darkman M said:
Why did you comment if you weren't prepared to man up to what you had to say?

Maybe because I said I was going to comment now?

WARNING WALL OF TEXT!!!

Ok, what do I remember, lets go off of the main 4 "disasters" that people are talking about, Iraq, 9/11, Katrina, 2008 stock market problem.

1. Katrina, I can't really tell you much on this because I didn't really pay much attention to what happened after it hit New Orleans.

2. 9/11, There are people here who are saying Bush could of did something about it, this I highly doubt, terrorism wasn't as big of a concern as it is right now and no one then actually thought that was going to happen. People say he had 1 year to try and figure it out, Why didn't Clinton do something then in his 8 years, Bush was less than a year in when it happened, what happened that morning was tragic and you can not place blame on the president for this.

3. Iraq, after 9/11, we went into Afghanistan in search of Bin Laden, We took the fight to the terrorists and have ultimately troubled there network quite a bit, when we went into Iraq, we took down an awful dictator who was actually a murderer. I know someone who lived in a communist dictatorship back in the old Czechoslovakia (I believe that was the country), and he knows what its like to live in a country like that. Living under a dictator is much worse than living under a democracy. Since I also have known many soldiers that have fought, they say that the media makes the area seem unlivable when in fact it the American people aren't getting the actual story, that is a reason why I don't really trust most American news sources. People complain we went in there for WMD's and didn't find any or that we went for oil or something like that. What ever the reason is, is that what were in there and we need to finish what we started and I'll support it until the end.

4. 2008 Stock Market, The thing is that this mostly started because of the housing problem of people not being able to pay back their loans they got on their house and if I can remember, Good ol' Carter originally passed HR 3221 which allowed people who couldn't afford a loan, get one even when the banks knew they couldn't pay it back.

Am I saying Bush is perfect, no, not at all, I'm just saying what I believe, some facts may be off because and I didn't feel in every little detail of what I believe because I'm typing this in class but oh well, feel free to tear it limb for limb, don't know if I'll defend my positions or not because like I said earlier, I don't feel like arguing right now.
 
he was made fun of a lot and made a fool out of himself a couple of times. so he was good for a few laughs. thanks double-ya!!

now get the fuck out
 
CrazedArabMan said:
3. Iraq, after 9/11, we went into Afghanistan in search of Bin Laden, We took the fight to the terrorists and have ultimately troubled there network quite a bit, when we went into Iraq, we took down an awful dictator who was actually a murderer. I know someone who lived in a communist dictatorship back in the old Czechoslovakia (I believe that was the country), and he knows what its like to live in a country like that. Living under a dictator is much worse than living under a democracy. Since I also have known many soldiers that have fought, they say that the media makes the area seem unlivable when in fact it the American people aren't getting the actual story, that is a reason why I don't really trust most American news sources. People complain we went in there for WMD's and didn't find any or that we went for oil or something like that. What ever the reason is, is that what were in there and we need to finish what we started and I'll support it until the end.

This clarifies everything.
 
perryfarrell said:
Some columnist the other day wrote that the blatant DISREGARD of COMPETENCE was one of the worst features of the Bush presidency. Bush and cronies did not place competent people in positions of power, instead they appoint people who'd toe the line. Why? Because of POLITICS. The expansion of politics was one of the worst features of the Bush presidency. It was as if they'd never stopped campaigning!

Think of it this way. When you're appointed to a position, you can spend your time thinking, 'How can I keep this job for as long as possible? How can I make sure my party members get jobs in my organization?' Do your constituents benefit from that? No. Does your party benefit from that? Yes. Or you can spend your time thinking, 'How can I do this job best as I can?' That's the way it's supposed to go. (Ironically, even tho they expanded politics, Bush & co. have arguably tainted the Republican brand by increasing government size & being fiscally UNconservative.)

Some examples: Michael D. Brown, short-lived director of FEMA. "Good job Brownie!" Monica Goodling, totally unprepared fresh-out-of-Pat-Robertson's-school assistant to Alberto Gonzales. Rumsfeld, who thought it was a good idea to dismantle the Iraqi infrastructure before starting an occupation... blatantly incompetent, all of them.

This ties in with Bush's strange way of looking at the world. To Bush and his type, evidence that one might be wrong is seen as a CHALLENGE to the strength of one's convictions, not as a hint that one should update one's beliefs.

Remember that quote about Bush & co. "not living in the reality-based community." (See also that Draper book called 'Dead Certain'.)

So yeah, I'd have to say that Bush's defining feature is: DISREGARD of COMPETENCE.

Competency has no meaning when your core governing philosophy is that government doesn't work.
 
Der Spiegel has a funny gallery of the Bush presidency. Many famous photos, but others I've never seen before.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-36649.html

0,1020,1340569,00.jpg


0,1020,1340571,00.jpg


0,1020,1340490,00.jpg


0,1020,1340493,00.jpg


0,1020,1340537,00.jpg


0,1020,1340557,00.jpg


0,1020,1340487,00.jpg
 
Jackl said:
Thats part of the CRA under Jimmy's adminstration.
Clinton just signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

In short nearly every adminstration contributed to this clusterfuck. Bush had years to dismantle it, but if anything he made it worse.


Nice Try.

Bush in fact, attempted to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on many occasions, but was cockblocked in Congress by Democrats like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who also were at the very top of the list of recipients that received money from those institutions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

Even though this press release comes from the White House, the New York times corroborated it and theres even a NYT article out there that I can't find right now that shows how Bush attempted to fix F/F all the way back to 2003, and Barney Frank claimed that there was no problem at all. Many Democrats and their supporters were ready to claim that any attempt at all by the administration or Republicans to clean up FM/FM would be perceived as racist. Yes..Bush and the Republicans wanted to clean up FM/FM because they don't think that poor blacks should be able to own a home and if they tightened up sub-prime lending guidelines then poor blacks would be affected the most. Barney Frank was widely quoted that he didn't think there was a problem with FM/FM and there's no need to try to fix what isn't broken.
 
bill0527 said:
Nice Try.

Bush in fact, attempted to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on many occasions, but was cockblocked in Congress by Democrats like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who also were at the very top of the list of recipients that received money from those institutions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

Even though this press release comes from the White House, the New York times corroborated it and theres even a NYT article out there that I can't find right now that shows how Bush attempted to fix F/F all the way back to 2003, and Barney Frank claimed that there was no problem at all. Many Democrats and their supporters were ready to claim that any attempt at all by the administration or Republicans to clean up FM/FM would be perceived as racist. Yes..Bush and the Republicans wanted to clean up FM/FM because they don't think that poor blacks should be able to own a home and if they tightened up sub-prime lending guidelines then poor blacks would be affected the most. Barney Frank was widely quoted that he didn't think there was a problem with FM/FM and there's no need to try to fix what isn't broken.

Liberal MSM strike again.
 
bill0527 said:
Nice Try.

Bush in fact, attempted to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on many occasions, but was cockblocked in Congress by Democrats like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who also were at the very top of the list of recipients that received money from those institutions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

Even though this press release comes from the White House, the New York times corroborated it and theres even a NYT article out there that I can't find right now that shows how Bush attempted to fix F/F all the way back to 2003, and Barney Frank claimed that there was no problem at all. Many Democrats and their supporters were ready to claim that any attempt at all by the administration or Republicans to clean up FM/FM would be perceived as racist. Yes..Bush and the Republicans wanted to clean up FM/FM because they don't think that poor blacks should be able to own a home and if they tightened up sub-prime lending guidelines then poor blacks would be affected the most. Barney Frank was widely quoted that he didn't think there was a problem with FM/FM and there's no need to try to fix what isn't broken.


So between his influence on the Treasury, the Fed, SEC, and OTS his hands were completely tied until 2 months ago? I don't buy it. Alot of agencies looked the other way under his administration for years.

Fan and Fred paid off everyone on the hill, but Fan and Fred weren't the only ones bending the rules.
 
I hope that while he's making his final walk out of the White House...Just for a minute he feels the weight of what he's done. I hope he feels depression come over him. Just for a minute.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Bush gets a bad wrap for the economy, but we must remember that the democrats have been muddling things for the last two years. And even before they gained control there was 911, which severely injured our economy. With those two things in mind I think Bush should be praised for steadying the ship. It's been tough but we haven't tipped over. Who better to hand over the steer to than a former Navy man?

Great. We have "one of those" people here.

Obvious reasons for this being misrepresented are obvious.
 
Regardless of your politics, President Bush presided over four of the worst catastrophic disasters in American history: 9/11, Iraq II, Katrina, and the 2008 Market Crash. No other president in 200 years comes close to that.

1. 9/11 could have been avoided. There was intel. There were warnings. And I won't open the idea of it being an inside job, but honestly, google Operation Northwoods and you'll see it's not that crazy. 9/11 was clearly used to go to...

2.Iraq. Why are we here. This is stupid. This is not where our focus should be.

3.Katrina's handling was an even bigger disaster than Katrina.

4.2008 Market Crash...the one his policies fueled.

Why are you crediting him with his failures? These things could have been prevented or handled a lot differently (ie: BETTER)
 
I found the article.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.


The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.


The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.


Damn, I should be on mythbusters. Here we've busted another myth that Republicans have attempted to de-regulate everything in sight and let unfettered capitalism run roughshod over the poor unsuspecting American people.

Protip: The Bush Administration has put forth more new regulations on business than the previous administration. Notably because of Enron, Worldcom, Tycho, etc. See: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is a 70+ page piece of legislation telling companies how they can count their money. You can't even get a job as an accountant today unless you know Sarbanes-Oxley like the back of your hand.

This is just another of many examples of how Bush has been anything but Conservative. He may be an evangelical, but his policies are extremely liberal. Not much about his administration has been conservative, at least not in the Reagan mold of conservatism.
 
Well, look, Bush isn't really to blame for everything that happened in the past 8 years. That's a fact. Now, on the other hand, he didn't do very much to prevent these things from happening. Bush has just been a really useless President, maybe the most do-nothing-useful President we've ever had. I'm having trouble thinking of any big accomplishments of his.

But hey, it's great to see people like TA defending him, and I can't wait for them to move to the Obama Defense Force after the election, and start blaming everything that goes wrong on Bush.
 
TDG said:
But hey, it's great to see people like TA defending him, and I can't wait for them to move to the Obama Defense Force after the election, and start blaming everything that goes wrong on Bush.

The sad thing is, is that I can see this happening too.
 
soul creator said:

I don't know who that cartoon represents, but it certainly isn't me. It's going to be a long time before the US government is fulfilling it's function as I see it. Healthcare doesn't begin to cover it.
 
CrazedArabMan said:
The sad thing is, is that I can see this happening too.
I certainly hope so. It would be incredibly hypocritical to blame Bush's failures on Clinton and then not blame Obama's failures on Bush.
 
It was pretty funny how much Bush was getting ragged for taking so much vacation time prior to 9/11. I think he really thought he'd gotten an easy job.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Bush gets a bad wrap for the economy, but we must remember that the democrats have been muddling things for the last two years. And even before they gained control there was 911, which severely injured our economy. With those two things in mind I think Bush should be praised for steadying the ship. It's been tough but we haven't tipped over. Who better to hand over the steer to than a former Navy man?


HAHAHAHAH!!!!!

GTFO!!!!!
 
PhoenixDark said:
Bush gets a bad wrap for the economy, but we must remember that the democrats have been muddling things for the last two years. And even before they gained control there was 911, which severely injured our economy. With those two things in mind I think Bush should be praised for steadying the ship. It's been tough but we haven't tipped over. Who better to hand over the steer to than a former Navy man?
What? I think you're confusing Bush the Younger with his father as Dubya was never in the Navy.
 
TDG said:
I certainly hope so. It would be incredibly hypocritical to blame Bush's failures on Clinton and then not blame Obama's failures on Bush.

The thing is though, is that were not blaming Clinton for everything at all, we just don't think it seems right to blame Bush for everything when some stuff was actually not his fault, (Gasp!!), but then you can say the same thing about everyone else blaming Bush, and then if Obama is elected and screws up, people will probably still blame it on Bush instead of Obama. You have to look at it from both sides.
 
theBishop said:
I don't know who that cartoon represents, but it certainly isn't me. It's going to be a long time before the US government is fulfilling it's function as I see it. Healthcare doesn't begin to cover it.

just thought that it ties into the "government is always bad get it out my way" philosophy that you made reference to, and how most average people kinda want "big government" these days after the failures of the past 8 years.
 
TDG said:
But hey, it's great to see people like TA defending him, and I can't wait for them to move to the Obama Defense Force after the election, and start blaming everything that goes wrong on Bush.

You got the wrong guy..


Toxicadam Mea Culpa said:
Bullshit. Starting Jan. 20th 2009, everything is Obama's fault.

So, I will finally come clean. Bush was responsible for Katrina. Bush purposefully ignored the glaring hints of the 9/11 attack. Bush was wholly responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent stock market crash. They all happened on his watch, so ultimately he bears 99.9 percent of the blame. Those are just the plain facts ... he was President during that time, so he is to blame. You can't deny that reality.

We are on the same team, brother. Can't wait for January 20th.
 
ToxicAdam said:
You got the wrong guy..




We are on the same team, brother. Can't wait for January 20th.
Cute. Hey, I'm with you, I have a basic understanding of economics, I know and have stated that Bush gets far more blame than he deserves.

I just somehow suspect that you and your Republican friends won't be so considerate and fair-minded towards the nation's problems after Obama's Presidency.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
If by Reagan mold of conservatism, you mean increasing the national debt as a percentage of GDP, Bush has been pretty ace at that.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

-passing the largest entitlement program since the 1960's
-increased government regulations on business as a result of the corporate scandals at the early part of the decade
-increased government regulation over the airline industry as a result of 9/11
-wanting amnesty for illegal immigrants
-increasing the size and scope of government in order to 'protect' Americans

One thing libruls have in common with a lot of true conservatives, i.e. non-neocons, - they both hated most of the Bush policies, albeit for different reasons.
 
A huge spender that never saw a bill he wanted to veto.

Passed tax cuts to keep economy afloat after 9/11. When I see someone blame Bush for this economic crisis I know they are a die hard lefty or uninformed. It's ridiculous.

Handled the year or so after 9/11 great but got a big head with huge approval ratings.

Katrina was terrible and it was his appointment but I really doubt that he thought some of the things I have heard repeated. It was a mismanagement issue IMO.

Dropped the ball on immigration and our deficit. I'm still pissed off about these. He is suppossed to be a conservative and conservatives shouldn't disregard fiscal responsibility.

Iraq is the key. If it somehow evolves into a western democracy type of civilization he will be looked back in a favorable opinion in 50 or so years.
 
Red Scarlet said:
What comes to mind during the Bush Presidency:

bushtold.jpg

911flag.jpg

tankinbaghdad.jpg

bfquote.jpg

katrinaaftermath.jpg

gas.jpg


Not many happy times, but there were some hopeful ones. Eventually it just turned to disgust and indifference for what else could happen.

For some reason I can't see the links but from the looks of the URL, I agree.
If anyone of them pics aren't "Mission Accomplished", i will be disappointed -_-
 
icarus-daedelus said:
I would certainly agree that Bush has been spectacularly worse than both of them, though. :D

I dunno. Bush never locked up American citizens just for being an undesirable ethnicity or for speaking bad about him.
 
Death_Born said:
How about worst presidency in the history of the United States, singlehandedly leading the US into a new great depression, turning a national surplus into a huge trade deficit and killing American soldiers for no reason while destablilizing an entire region of the world and giving Iran unparalleled freedom and power. This, all because of a personal vendetta which his dad would never have gone through with. Not to mention a vice president who became the most powerful vice president ever and declared himself a 4th branch, while siphoning money from defense contracting in Iraq.

If you think Bush was the worst president in history, you completely lack any kind of historical perspective. How about James Buchanan, who refused to prevent the civil war? Or Herbert Hoover who aggravated/caused the great depression? Or Lyndon B. Johnson, who started the vietnam war which cost 10x more american lives?

America has been through worse times than we have been the last 8 years. Maybe it's time you picked up a history book.
 
i think it's veracious to say that bush was the worst modern president.

historians 50 or so years from now will probably rank him way down there, though
 
PhoenixDark said:
Bush gets a bad wrap for the economy, but we must remember that the democrats have been muddling things for the last two years. And even before they gained control there was 911, which severely injured our economy. With those two things in mind I think Bush should be praised for steadying the ship. It's been tough but we haven't tipped over. Who better to hand over the steer to than a former Navy man?
Democrats barely had a majority in the Senate, and tools like Lieberman often to blame for spoiling the fun.

With a Democratic President you will see a much clearer direction. Washington is highly partisan. Democrats in Congress + Bush and Cheney = chaos. Like oil and water. I doubted from day one that the Dems would be able to achieve a lot because of the current administration, that being said they did pretty much accomplish most of the stuff they campaigned on back in '06, save ending the war because the President always shot those attempts down.
 
I like the guy myself. What he's done, notsomuch.

That said he has helped Africa a lot and is quite popular there.

Heck I miss Tony Blair already.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
He's certainly never authorized torture, either.

Wait...

He authorized torture of his own citizens?

Oh I can't wait to see the article I'm sure you're going to link us to.
 
bill0527 said:
He authorized torture of his own citizens?

Oh I can't wait to see the article I'm sure you're going to link us to.

Man, you really have a hard-on for the guy, don't you? Amazing. Dude basically shat on the country for almost his entire term. *shakes head*
 
bob_arctor said:
Man, you really have a hard-on for the guy, don't you? Amazing. Dude basically shat on the country for almost his entire term. *shakes head*

If you look back the past year on my post history, you'll find me shitting on Bush with the best of them. I don't mind the bashing when its deserved, but IMO people who equate George Bush to Saddam Hussein are nuts, like in a certifiable sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom