I think the real truth is somewhere in the middle, between these extremes. Bush had his strengths, but he also had his faults—big spending, alien amnesty, leaving lousy leftists in charge of important parts of his administration.
But Bush was a decent guy, a real gentleman, who—as I said—also had his strengths.
As for this article, it’s just another twist on “blame Bush.” They can’t very well attack Bush for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since Obama is still fighting those, and has even started a couple more. So they blame the economic crisis on Bush and his big-spending ways.
That started when Paulson—one of those traitors whom Bush never should have left in charge of the Treasury—came up with the Dems’ big October Surprise—a terrible financial crisis that was all Bush’s fault.
Actually it started when Pelosi took the House. After the surge worked in Iraq she managed with the MSM to turn the war headlines into 24/7 propoganda about how we had the "worst economy since the depression" when the employment rate went up to 5.5%.
The relentless onslaught of lies guaranteed an economic crash.
“Bush was a decent guy, a real gentleman”
No disagreement here. His actions since leaving the Presidency has been admirable as well.
However with regards to Paulson - the buck stops at the President’s desk. As a candidate Bush advertised himself as a manager who would trust his appointees and delegate. He nominated Paulson - thus its on his head.