im not saying bush caused all the worlds ills, im saying his presidency was a failure. thats different.

what is his legacy? what did he do well? hes not a fall guy, hes a fuckup.

I thought the whole reason of electing someone as 'leader' is that they shoulder all the responsibility for the group's failures, while accepting reward for success but still acknowledging the group as part of the success.

I dont even want to blame the ill of the world, or even the Americans on Bush. ALL im saying is that he should take responsibility for his own actions as president.... and he falls short on so many levels.

Actually his legacy will be great once we get passed everyone alive to remember all the liberals crying. Kind of like how FDR was a master president, but was despised when he was putting americans into internment camps.

Bush's legacy is that he did SOMETHING he tried to kill Americas enemies and enforce our strength. Which is more than Clinton ever did, he will be remembered by history as the guy who launched a war to get the press off his adultery in the oval office. Who let us be attacked continuously by the same group of terrorists (That Bush just smashed)

WHat hasn't he taken responsibility for? Wait you mean you want him to take responsibility for Hurricane Katrina wrecking NOLA? Or he should take responsibility for the mortgage situation? Or He should take responsibility for Oil prices rising? Uhhhh those are beyond his control.

how about his failure to respond appropriately to any of the events (both listed and others) that have happened during his term.

good job brownie.

It was the Presidents job personally to row up in a boat to help a bunch of morons who didn't leave town when they were told a hurricane was coming? He was personally going to visit every bank he could find and monitor who they gave mortgages to and at what %'s? Thats not the fault of morons who went out to buy a house at an adjustable rate on less than 50,000 dollars of income per year?

Although we do agree on 1 thing, he should have personally went to the House and Senate and started beating down liberal environmentalist democrat faggots who wouldn't let us drill in ANWR or open new refineries or any fucking thing to expand how we get our energy aside from government subsidized losses in Windfarms which cost more than they make.

1. it IS his job to appoint the people who deal with crisis, and it is his job to fire people who don't do their job well. Brownie being #1 on that list.

2. and I dont agree with you on the drilling issue, its a long term goal but not a fix for our current problem. he could however implement rules regarding commodities trading and speculating that are driving up oil costs, or god forbid hold OPEC to a higher standard than they are currently held. as for the dems and there liberal bullshit, its just another side of the same coin.

Bush is a failure in so many regards it is ludicrous to suggest elsewise.
He is NOT a conservative, he is not a republican, he is a simple yes man.
His deniability is running thin.

Back to the yellow cake, that stuff had been in the same barrels the IAEA put it in back in '91. It was untouched for over 10 years because Iraq had no clue as to how to enrich it to make premium weapons grade uranium.

As to wind farms, they do cost alot but are virtually maintanence free once built and can provide power for decades upon decades. They pay for themselves within a few years.

Between Nuclear power, wind power, and geothermal we could ween ourselves off of coal dependancy pretty quickly were the present administration to drop their idiot quest for corn based ethanol which does nothing but raise the price of corn and beef

You have vastly misconceived notions of what a leader is then.

I'll admit this much, that during the time we we're in, and the crisis we we're facing in the middle east, both Bush's have done an excellent job at liberating countries and destroying terrorist factions in the mid east, whereas Clinton did nothing at all in persepective. Some may argue that dropping thousands and thousands of bombs isn't a good way to liberate countries and kill suicide-bombing terrorists, but I do and you couldn't convince me otherwise. Bush, on the other hand, has destroyed our economy, sending billions of dollars to these people while the homeless and the people in America who should be collecting social security but can't because our social security system is fucked, starve to death and knife each other in the face for a half of a pizza or a fucking hamburger. Going to war is supposed to help our country acquire money, not piss it away like a first grader in a candy store. Clinton helped our economy in ways we could never imagine, and I don't have to argue that fact, just look at an almanac and check the national debt figures, so i'll be damned if Bush tried to enforce our strength more than Clinton did, I just do not agree with that statement. Would I vote for Bush again if it we're him and Bill in the race, hell yea I would, but not because he helped strengthen the American people or our economy in any way.

the only positive thing that i could say about Bush, is that he seems to have broken Tensquatawa's curse. though, depending on how you look at it, the credit for that might have to go to Ronnie Raygun.

whatever your views on Bush, he sanctioned an unprovoked (by the Iraqi military--i'm not quibbling about terrorists that may or may not have been there before we invaded) attack on a foreign nation. in the entire history of the United States, we have never invaded a nation without being attacked. Ever. those are irrefutable facts.

The fat lady has not sung yet

He still has a few months left in office

Yeah when did Serbia attack the US? or the Vietnamese? or the Koreans? Fuck when did the Germans attack us or the Vietnamese? or the Koreans? Fuck when did the Germans attack us?

or the Vietnamese? or the Koreans? Fuck when did the Germans attack us?

well there was that boat and there was some place in Hawaii. Of course if there were terroists in Iraq and there were dollars flowing through the country to terroists then the same guilt by assocation works for me as it did back in those infamous days

There are terrorist dollars flowing through the United States Shall we invade ourselves

Germany and Italy were part of the international coalition along with Japan, who bombed Pearl Harbor, and as such were guilty by association. Even though Germany was against introducing us into the war they supported Japans bombing of Perl Harbor and the senseless murder of hundreds of United States Military.

The Koreans invaded an ally To be specific, Sunday morning at 4am June 25th 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea, which is and was our ally, by barraging them with mortar fire and crossing their borders with infantry and tanks. We were honor bound to protect the interests of our ally.

Serbia we never declared war on we were merely part of the UN forces which were sent to protect the civilians from wholesale slaughter by their government.

The Vietnamese territory was originally a French Province which separated and beat the french back and created themselves a government that the United States never accepted or recognized. This led finally to war with them in 1965. From 1950 to 1965 the United States had a vested interest in Vietnam remaining a French Colony in order to NOT become a Communist Regime.

In ALL cases we had a vested interest and were provoked into declaring war.

This is not the case in Iraq. We had the right in 1991 to completely oust the government of Iraq but we did not. We have invaded a country for all of the wrong reasons and at the wrong time. Bush was in the wrong to do what he did regardless of personal opinion or feelings.