That other finger is for the democrats who were against her freedom
What’s the matter? Didn’t Bush invite you to his party? You must be crushed! By the way, did you have a date for your senior prom? Felt left out, huh?
Ping
The only thing bad about the Bush Administration is that it happened to energize and coincide with the second childhood of the hippies. They’re as bad as they were then, except now they have a sympathetic media that thinks their idiotic bleating is somehow cool.
Damn good thing they’re dying off.
"The Legacy of the Bush Administration?”
It is to early to answer this for anyone.
Bushy will be looked back upon with wistfulness one day, just like Harry Truman who also had poll numbers in the basement.
It will be a mixed bag of a (vitally!) masculine foreign policy and an embarassingly womanly domestic policy.
He will be lauded for his tax cut-driven rescue of a sick economy and denounced for refusing to reverse the invasion from the south.
Worst? Not even close.
Best? Not the best, but far, far better than the alternative.
The Republicans, after years of hard work finally had the house, senate, and presidency. With all the potential to show what conservatives could do, finally being in control, Bush chose to “ reach his hand to the other side of the isle “.
So what we got was a party that never went after the other side, no matter how corrupt they were, didn’t defend conservative principles, and joined the other side in going for pork.
That is his legacy.
In one of his books Bob Woodward asked about his legacy and quoted President Bush replying: “We won’t know. We’ll all be dead.”
I don’t think he ever expected to leave office as a popular
president. That’s very liberating if you think about it.
Sean Wilentz is Nina Burleigh with tenure. His opinion counts for zilch.
There were blunders and some were fairly monumental. I hope future Republicans learn from them. I will not be sorry to see Bush's tenure end and hope never to see another Bush in the White House.
But probably not the WORST president in history.
Historians who happen to be "Marxists" are bad enough, but Marxists who happen to be "historians" are even worse. The local library is relentlessly removing and disposing of older history works (keeping, of course, at least one dusty, totally ignored tome by the anglocommunist Hobsbawm), replacing them with a distressingly large collection of recent crap written by Wilentz or gushingly reviewed by Foner.
Just seeing those two names this early in the day is the visual equivalent of getting out of bed and stepping directly on a fresh hairball.
Mr. niteowl77
Destroyed two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and freed 50 million people.
Destroyed Al Qaeda and their allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Out of fear of what happened to Saddam Qadafi of Libya gave up his WMD program.
Forced the Syrian terrorist regime to leave Lebanon after 30 years of brutal occupation.
Cut our taxes which helped us a lot in avoiding a recession and the economy has been at one if it best historical performance for the last 6 years.
Appointed conservative judges including two great Supreme Court judges.
Signed a ban on partial birth abortion.
God bless President Bush.
Let’s revisit this question in say ... twenty years.
Losers said the same thing about Reagan.
Intellectually vacuous argument. Spending increases under EVERY President. Federal Spending DOUBLED under Ronald Reagan. The natural increase in mandatory Entitlement Spending sees to most of those increases.
It is intellectually disingenuous to talk about “Spending Increases”. It is especially dishonest to compare the peaceful calm Clinton era of the 1990s with the war and recession racked 8 years of Bush.
What would be intellectually honest would be to compare how much of GDP was consumed by the Govt during each President’s term. By that measure Bush is not much different from most Presidents.
Bush The Big Spender? Check Again
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1916924/posts
But I know, waste of time. The paused Conservative talking heads have screamed this lie about spending so loudly so long people cannot be bothered to actually look at the facts
After his reelection in 04, he pushed his globalist agenda.
He stuck his middle finger up at the conservative base and continued to push it.
He is still pushing it with the frequent (6+ in the last 2 years) attempts to pass amnesty for illegals.
It sank his legacy. He never seemed to be get a handle on using the political capital effectively. He never seemed to understand the use of the bully pulpit. And his last 2 years seem to hinge on his learning the meaning of ‘veto’ and finding his veto pen, as he has threatned some 18 vetoes since the Dems took both chambers in 06.