NationStates Jolt Archive

Found this. It's interesting. I know most of you are, first thing, going to think "See Spot Run;" I know these forums well. But I think this guy makes some valid points:

We Owe Him an Apology by Dr. Rosalie de Rosset




By the time this commentary is aired, President George W. Bush will be over his eight-year presidency. The Wall Street Journal in an editorial which ran a couple of months ago says that the way he has been treated by the mainstream media has been a national disgrace.




Certainly, never in my lifetime, have I ever heard a president so reviled, even savaged, so continually attacked on almost every level, cursed at continually with the foulest language, referred to as almost subhuman by comedians and television talk show hosts; in short, there are times when I wondered if he would become responsible for the com mon cold or bunions.




And all this against a man who overcame alcoholism decades ago and has never fallen back, who unlike a recent president, never molested interns, has never been unfaithful to his wife, gives more of his income to charity by far than the about-to-be president and those before him, who is disciplined about time and does not tolerate lateness from his staff, who is respectful of his enemies and kind to prominent people (including former presidents) who have spoken against him abroad, who had enough sense of humor (not to mention athletic ability) to handle with grace and sensibility having shoes thrown at him publically.




And everyone, almost to a person, who has been close to his work and seen him operate with staff, argues that this is a man of strength and character and honesty to his convictions, who has refused (that seems pretty clear) to run his office by popularity polls.




Through the years there has been a consistent tendency in the liberal media and in man-on-the-street comments to attack Bush's intelligence. It seems possible to suggest that even his supporters aren't aware of just how bright he is.




In a recent editorial, Karl Rove refers to the myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. In fact, says Rove, who ought to know, Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them.




One New Year's Eve, Rove and Bush challenged each other to read a book a week. Three days later President Bush turned to Rove and said, "I'm on my second, where are you?" They began recommending volumes to each other. By the end of the first year, Rove had read 110 books to Bush's 95. . . . And, Bush was busy being the Leader of the Free World.




Lest you think President Bush's choice of books is simple minded as certain of the media would have you believe, the truth is a bit riveting. His nonfiction choices ran from biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, and Babe Ruth to works of history and volumes on current events and a few on sports.




The contest between Rove and President Bush has continued, and each year, his list has been astounding in its breadth and significance.




In addition, each year, the president has read the Bible cover to cover, along with a devotional. As Rove concludes, "In the 35 years I've known George W. Bush, he's always had a book nearby.




"He plays up being a good ol' boy from Midland , Texas , but he was a history major at Yale [with better grades than Al Gore I might add] and graduated from Harvard Business School . You don't make it through either unless you are a reader."




For two terms in the White House, Mr. Bush has been in the arena, keeping America safe and facing enormous challenges, all the while acting with dignity, all the while apparently leaving his reputation in God's hands, knowing that this is where the best defense lies.




Someday, I hope he gets his apology.

Discuss.

what are we supposed to apologize for?

is this like that cheney thing where he shoots a guy in the face and the guy apologizes for being a bother?

...No...

For the sheer visceral treatment he's received during his tenure as President, a great deal of it unwarranted.

From my understanding of this, we should apologize to Bush because he...read books. Well, fair enough, I'll be the bigger man.

I truly apologize Former President George W. Bush. I had no idea you knew how to read. I see I was mistaken. I'm sorry. My one true regret is that in all the books you read, none of them taught you how to be a better leader.

I bet the books he read had lots of pictures. ;)

i apologize for..... uh.....nope, cant think of anything.

George Bush is the king of lowered expectations.

Look, guys, he's LITERATE! So that totally makes up for everything, right?

For the sheer visceral treatment he's received during his tenure as President, a great deal of it unwarranted.

Given what he's done and had done at his behest, he's earned a lot worse than he'll ever get.

No way in Hell.

George Bush is the king of lowered expectations.

Look, guys, he's LITERATE! So that totally makes up for everything, right?

isn't it somewhat telling that the best defense they can come up with to attack claims of ineptitude and blatant stupidity is "it's not true, he can read!"

isn't it somewhat telling that the best defense they can come up with to attack claims of ineptitude and blatant stupidity is "it's not true, he can read!"

Now that you mention it, yes.

I'll apologize to him.





Right after he's promised to spend the rest of his life locked up in Gitmo.

I'll apologize to him.





Right after he's promised to spend the rest of his life locked up in Gitmo.

Why would you assume Bush would come through with any promise?

I didn't like George W Bush because he refused listen to the American peoples wishs. That is what this country is supposed to be about. Our fore fathers meant us to have a say in government and he did his best to take that away.

ok ok im ready to apologize now

i apologize that i have somehow given you the impression that its your lack of heavy reading that has made you the worst president we have ever had.

I didn't like George W Bush because he refused listen to the American peoples wishs. That is what this country is supposed to be about. Our fore fathers meant us to have a say in government and he did his best to take that away.

Yup. All those elections we were supposed to have to keep him out of office...

Shame they never happened...

Why would you assume Bush would come through with any promise?

Oh, he wont, so I wont have to apologize either :)

Why?

Ever since I was a kid, starting with Nixon, it was commonplace to lampoon the President, to disrespect him and the office at every turn, and to blame him for everything.

Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the First Bush, Clinton, the Second Bush...

It's only a matter of time before the comedians start ragging on Obama wholesale. And if the economy doesn't turn around, he'll go down in history as the man who lied to us.

Why apologize? We do this to all of our Presidents.

Was this man born in 2000? Was he touring the caves of the Moon for Clinton's second term?

i apologize that i have somehow given you the impression that its your lack of heavy reading that has made you the worst president we have ever had.

:D

If I could sig this, I would.

Yup. All those elections we were supposed to have to keep him out of office...

Shame they never happened...

You're right, it IS a shame that George Bush actually wasn't elected to his first term in office.

We agree! Huzzah for bipartisanship!

Why?

Ever since I was a kid, starting with Nixon, it was commonplace to lampoon the President, to disrespect him and the office at every turn, and to blame him for everything.

Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the First Bush, Clinton, the Second Bush...

It's only a matter of time before the comedians start ragging on Obama wholesale. And if the economy doesn't turn around, he'll go down in history as the man who lied to us.

Why apologize? We do this to all of our Presidents.

That's not what's happening in Bush's case. In his case, we're talking about errors that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

:D

If I could sig this, I would.
thank you!

That's not what's happening in Bush's case. In his case, we're talking about errors that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

You may be dismayed to know that the Lancet's figures have been completely discredited.

And all this against a man who overcame alcoholism decades ago and has never fallen back, who unlike a recent president, never molested interns, has never been unfaithful to his wife, gives more of his income to charity by far than the about-to-be president and those before him, who is disciplined about time and does not tolerate lateness from his staff, who is respectful of his enemies and kind to prominent people (including former presidents) who have spoken against him abroad, who had enough sense of humor (not to mention athletic ability) to handle with grace and sensibility having shoes thrown at him publically.
And everyone, almost to a person, who has been close to his work and seen him operate with staff, argues that this is a man of strength and character and honesty to his convictions, who has refused (that seems pretty clear) to run his office by popularity polls.

That might all be true, but most of the things that were thrown at him (including shoes) are related to his policies. They are related to the way he treats the people whom he does not know on a personal level but who are still affected by his policies (does "who is respectful of his enemies" also count for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?). They are related to his unintelligent appearing. None of that has anything to do whatsoever with what's listed in the quoted text.
On a personal level Bush might be quite a nice chap. However that doesn't mean he was a good president or should have ever become one in the first place, so there's absolutely no reason to apologize for what I might have said or thought about him as president.

You may be dismayed to know that the Lancet's figures have been completely discredited.

Let's assume it was merely TENS of thousands, then. What the hell is your point?

Let's assume it was merely TENS of thousands, then. What the hell is your point?

The point is that people were making this sort of fun of him long before Iraq. Hatred, bile, etc. - ascribing every venal motive to his every word and gesture.

It's what we do to all of our Presidents, and that's what the OP was asking for an apology for.

What they actually fuck up is something else.

The fact that he can read makes the utterly absurd things he did even worse.

I won't apologize to the man who played fast and loose with our civil liberties, started an unnecessary war, falled to act decisively to relieve the victims of Katrina, condoned torture, manipulated scientific studies to make them seem to say what he wanted them to say, outed a CIA agent and drove the economy into the abyss through unwarrented deregulation.

If anything he owes me an apology. So the man can read, the question is does he comprehend what he reads?

I've never had a problem with Bush personally. I'd be glad to have him as a drinking buddy or a member of the weekly poker game. He was just in way over his head as president and apparently, unlike Reagan, not smart enough to pick the right advisors.

Maybe reading the bible every year was the fucking problem. Maybe he should have read something a little more applicable. You know, non-fiction rather than fantasy.

Maybe reading the bible every year was the fucking problem. Maybe he should have read something a little more applicable. You know, non-fiction rather than fantasy.

Is that how you explain how Carter is and was a fucking idiot?

You're right, it IS a shame that George Bush actually wasn't elected to his first term in office.

We agree! Huzzah for bipartisanship!
I'm no fan of Bush by far, but people that still parrot this junk need to move on. The guy's out of office, for goodness sake.

That might all be true, but most of the things that were thrown at him (including shoes) are related to his policies. They are related to the way he treats the people whom he does not know on a personal level but who are still affected by his policies (does "who is respectful of his enemies" also count for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?). They are related to his unintelligent appearing. None of that has anything to do whatsoever with what's listed in the quoted text.
On a personal level Bush might be quite a nice chap. However that doesn't mean he was a good president or should have ever become one in the first place, so there's absolutely no reason to apologize for what I might have said or thought about him as president.
thats what makes the OP quote so delusional. i dont recall anyone dissing the president over the conduct of his private life. i dont recall anyone calling him a procrastinator or of running a sloppy office. (although i have been known in real life to state that i thought he spent the entire last 6 months of his time in office drunk.)

why does anyone need to apologize for something they didnt do?

Tsrill, the quote meant political enemies, not necessarily military ones.

And the "OMFG I HAET BUSHOVITE," "WORST PRESIDENT EVAR," etc. is kiiiiinda what the quote is talking about. I'm not going to try and defend the guy, but I will say that screaming about how much you hate him, instead of a calm discussion, say, is not something that I think Bush warranted, whatever you think of his policies.

And Bottle? I didn't say that...

Is that how you explain how Carter is and was a fucking idiot?

What's your point? Carter is, and hopefully always will be, the second worst president we ever had (or at least that I've personally experienced).

The challanges of the presidency were also way over his head so the "fucking idiot" tag probably applies as well. Republicans don't have a monopoly on incompetence.

The one thing I can say for both Bush and Carter, as opposed to say Nixon, was they probably honestly believed what they were doing was right. They were both just horribly wrong.

That's not what's happening in Bush's case. In his case, we're talking about errors that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...........................................What?

What's your point? Carter is, and hopefully always will be, the second worst president we ever had (or at least that I've personally experienced).

The challanges of the presidency were also way over his head so the "fucking idiot" tag probably applies as well. Republicans don't have a monopoly on incompetence.

one would think that the line of "you can't call him stupid, he went to Yale!" would apply equally to the US Naval Academy.

Dear Former President Bush,

I am very sorry that because of your deep convictions and strength of character that you applied catastrophic policies, which damaged the United States of America. I am also sorry that you never admitted your mistakes, and never tried to fix your shortcomings. Most of all, I am sorry that the American people did not hold your hand and stroke your hair to make you feel better about your disastrous eight years as our leader. Kudos for not raping anyone or having a mistress, though.

Your buddy,
Miiros (hereafter known to you as Skippy or Joe the Internet Poster)

.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...........................................What?You've been in touch the last eight years right? Surely you've heard about a certain war or wars I might say?

What's your point? Carter is, and hopefully always will be, the second worst president we ever had (or at least that I've personally experienced).

Carter is a born-again Christian, and is a Baptist who teaches Sunday School.

Dear Former President Bush,

I am very sorry that because of your deep convictions and strength of character that you applied catastrophic policies, which damaged the United States of America. I am also sorry that you never admitted your mistakes, and never tried to fix your shortcomings. Most of all, I am sorry that the American people did not hold your hand and stroke your hair to make you feel better about your disastrous eight years as our leader. Kudos for not raping anyone or having a mistress, though.

Your buddy,
Miiros (hereafter known to you as Skippy or Joe the Internet Poster)
You forgot to congratulate him on being able to read. ;)

Carter is a born-again Christian, and is a Baptist who teaches Sunday School.

And...???

One can be a great Sunday School teacher, a humbly devout Christian and a wonderful family man and still be a lousy president.

The trick is understanding your limitations. If you think you'd make a great president and end up royally screwing the pooch, accpt the fact that you are going to get roundly criticized including being called lots of uncomplimentary names.

The last time I looked, the bible was not a primer on surviving the oval office (which is not to say it may not help with some inspiration from time to time).

Found this. It's interesting. I know most of you are, first thing, going to think "See Spot Run;" I know these forums well. But I think this guy makes some valid points:



Discuss.

He messed up. You don't apologise to the guy who messes up in his job, no matter how many times he read the bible and how many years he never two-timed his wife. You fire the guy. And hope the next one doesn't mess up as badly.

You've been in touch the last eight years right? Surely you've heard about a certain war or wars I might say?

"Hundreds of thousands" is beyond "stretching it." "Hundreds of thousands" is a hyberbole, at best. At worst, a flat-out lie.

He messed up. You don't apologise to the guy who messes up in his job, no matter how many times he read the bible and how many years he never two-timed his wife. You fire the guy. And hope the next one doesn't mess up as badly.

Does that warrant a shoe assault?
Does that warrant the extreme hatred he's gotten?

The answer, of course, is "no" to all.

When you fire a guy because he does a bad job, you don't throw a shoe at him, question his intelligence, then viscerally hate him for the rest of his days. You say, "We don't need you anymore" and the matter's done. Why can't you (and everyone else for that matter) do the same?

"Hundreds of thousands" is beyond "stretching it." "Hundreds of thousands" is a hyberbole, at best. At worst, a flat-out lie.



Does that warrant a shoe assault?
Does that warrant the extreme hatred he's gotten?

The answer, of course, is "no" to all.

When you fire a guy because he does a bad job, you don't throw a shoe at him, question his intelligence, then viscerally hate him for the rest of his days. You say, "We don't need you anymore" and the matter's done. Why can't you (and everyone else for that matter) do the same?

Because his "bad job" included MURDERING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE! You're damn right he shouldn't have gotten a shoe, he should have gotten THE CHAIR!

And all this against a man who overcame alcoholism decades ago and has never fallen back, who unlike a recent president, never molested interns, has never been unfaithful to his wife, gives more of his income to charity by far than the about-to-be president and those before him, who is disciplined about time and does not tolerate lateness from his staff, who is respectful of his enemies and kind to prominent people (including former presidents) who have spoken against him abroad, who had enough sense of humor (not to mention athletic ability) to handle with grace and sensibility having shoes thrown at him publically.

I think the distinction the author fails to take into account is that Bush can be a great a guy as he wants - he was a garbage President, kindness or not.

When you fire a guy because he does a bad job, you don't throw a shoe at him, question his intelligence, then viscerally hate him for the rest of his days. You say, "We don't need you anymore" and the matter's done. Why can't you (and everyone else for that matter) do the same?

usually because when someone gets fired at my workplace, it isn't because he started a war based on false pretenses that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, and demonstrably crippled our economy, while providing no tangible benefit to the country.

Ya know, just sayin'

usually because when someone gets fired at my workplace, it isn't because he started a war based on false pretenses that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents, and demonstrably crippled our economy, while providing no tangible benefit to the country.

Ya know, just sayin'

Your employer is obviously aiming too low.

He did much good like his AIDS work in Africa, as Governer of Texas he extended government funding for organizations providing education of the dangers of alcohol and drug use and abuse, and helping to reduce domestic violence, opposed any new embryonic stem cell research, and has limited the federal funding of existing research,The Clear Skies Act of 2003, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

He did much good like his AIDS work in Africa, as Governer of Texas he extended government funding for organizations providing education of the dangers of alcohol and drug use and abuse, and helping to reduce domestic violence, opposed any new embryonic stem cell research, and has limited the federal funding of existing research,The Clear Skies Act of 2003, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Several of those are of subjective good, as I hope you realize.

Several of those are of subjective good, as I hope you realize.

Do you not agree with some of the things I stated?

Several of those are of subjective good, as I hope you realize.

Damn right, where would we be if I couldn't smack my bitch up for burning my dinner?

... I've said and done nothing concerning Frm Pres G W Bush that warrants an apology from me.

Do you not agree with some of the things I stated?

I think that stem cell research is a good thing and that the government should always fund such projects.

Do you not agree with some of the things I stated?

do I disagree that some of the things you stated were "good"? Yes, most certainly I do.

I think that stem cell research is a good thing and that the government should always fund such projects.

Bush supports adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research. However he opposed new embryonic stem cell research.

Bush supports adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research. However he opposed new embryonic stem cell research.

exactly.

do I disagree that some of the things you stated were "good"? Yes, most certainly I do.

like?

exactly.

adult stem cells taken from patients themselves avoids immune rejection better than embryonic stem cells, and this could be a more cost effective approach to treatment.

Bush supports adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research. However he opposed new embryonic stem cell research.

I am not a scientist, but from what I have heard from scientists the research allowed by such stem cells is quite limited.

He did much good like his AIDS work in Africa, as Governer of Texas he extended government funding for organizations providing education of the dangers of alcohol and drug use and abuse, and helping to reduce domestic violence, opposed any new embryonic stem cell research, and has limited the federal funding of existing research,The Clear Skies Act of 2003, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Even if, and that a pretty ten mile high big 'if', that were good, I can still think of a lot of bad policy that well and truly overshadows it.

Certainly, never in my lifetime, have I ever heard a president so reviled, even savaged, so continually attacked on almost every level, cursed at continually with the foulest language, referred to as almost subhuman by comedians and television talk show hosts; in short, there are times when I wondered if he would become responsible for the com mon cold or bunions.Clinton...?

Even if, and that a pretty ten mile high big 'if', that were good, I can still think of a lot of bad policy that well and truly overshadows it.

Oh yes i agree there was very bad policies under Bush: USA PATRIOT Act, Bush had opposed efforts to repeal the criminal prohibition on "homosexual conduct", as governor of Texas he failed to give serious consideration to clemency requests.

adult stem cells taken from patients themselves avoids immune rejection better than embryonic stem cells, and this could be a more cost effective approach to treatment.

maybe, maybe not. Kinda hard to tell when you can't test the alternative, innit?

He did much good like his AIDS work in Africa, as Governer of Texas he extended government funding for organizations providing education of the dangers of alcohol and drug use and abuse, and helping to reduce domestic violence, opposed any new embryonic stem cell research, and has limited the federal funding of existing research,The Clear Skies Act of 2003, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

He also declared "Jesus Day" as governor of Texas. Perhaps he might one day want to read the Constitution or, perhaps better, have someone explain to him what it means.

Look, no one is saying Bush isn't a nice guy nor that he didn't do some good things. He's not the anti-Christ, but, and this is the big but, the bigger the job you take on, the bigger the backlash and criticism you should expect if you fuck it up, and the bigger you fuck it up, the faster the level of criticism mounts.

President of the United States is a damn big job. There are over 300 million people that need you to make a decent go of it. Bush arguably screwed it up worse than anyone else in history.

So sorry, no apology.

maybe, maybe not. Kinda hard to tell when you can't test the alternative, innit?

point taken.

He also declared "Jesus Day" as governor of Texas. Perhaps he might one day want to read the Constitution or, perhaps better, have someone explain to him what it means.

Look, no one is saying Bush isn't a nice guy nor that he didn't do some good things. He's not the anti-Christ, but, and this is the big but, the bigger the job you take on, the bigger the backlash and criticism you should expect if you fuck it up, and the bigger you fuck it up, the faster the level of criticism mounts.

President of the United States is a damn big job. There are over 300 million people that need you to make a decent go of it. Bush arguably screwed it up worse than anyone else in history.

So sorry, no apology.

but...but...he knows how to read! That's gotta count for something right? Right??

Bush arguably screwed it up worse than anyone else in history.

I still don't see what he did to screw it up?

he can't help being the stupid bumbling village idiot shrub. he couldn't then and he can't now. glad he's not president. he didn't deserve the presidency. probably a children's bible he read lol.
bush i'm sorry you are an idiot shrub and that you were ever "elected" president.

Is that how you explain how Carter is and was a fucking idiot?

Eh? He studied nuclear physics and contributed to the development of the nuclear submarine. Does that mean Einstein was a retard?

And all this against a man who overcame alcoholism decades ago and has never fallen back, who unlike a recent president, never molested interns, has never been unfaithful to his wife, gives more of his income to charity by far than the about-to-be president and those before him, who is disciplined about time and does not tolerate lateness from his staff, who is respectful of his enemies and kind to prominent people (including former presidents) who have spoken against him abroad, who had enough sense of humor (not to mention athletic ability) to handle with grace and sensibility having shoes thrown at him publically.


Oh, he overcame alcoholism? He has a sense of humor? He can dodge a flying shoe?

Let's just ignore the half million innocent Iraqis dead then!


One New Year's Eve, Rove and Bush challenged each other to read a book a week. Three days later President Bush turned to Rove and said, "I'm on my second, where are you?" They began recommending volumes to each other. By the end of the first year, Rove had read 110 books to Bush's 95. . . . And, Bush was busy being the Leader of the Free World.

Lest you think President Bush's choice of books is simple minded as certain of the media would have you believe, the truth is a bit riveting. His nonfiction choices ran from biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, and Babe Ruth to works of history and volumes on current events and a few on sports.

Pardon me, I spoke too soon. He can read books more quickly than Karl Rove. Hell, he doesn't just deserve an apology, he deserves sainthood.

You know you can blame the shrub. They don't have a President for dummies book or an Idiots guide to being the President....

You know you can blame the shrub. They don't have a President for dummies book or an Idiots guide to being the President....

That's not the point, you liberal America- and Freedom-basher. Even if there isn't such a book, Bush could read it. Faster than Karl Rove!

Bush is absolved of all wrongdoing! The evil liberal media hivemind should now apologize, and hopefully bend their knee, to him.

Pardon me, I spoke too soon. He can read books more quickly than Karl Rove. Hell, he doesn't just deserve an apology, he deserves sainthood.

He can't even do that. Rove read 110 books to Bush's 95. I wonder if Sideways Stories From Wayside School was one of Bush's books.

Weak argument for such an incredible request.

I bet the books he read had lots of pictures. ;)

My Pet Goat: The Director's Cut Special Edition

I still don't see what he did to screw it up?

You do know about the torture in Gitmo, the monitoring (without warrent) of American domestic phone calls, the state of the budget deficit (which was balanced when Bush took office), the fact that over 4,000 Americans are dead in Iraq, a war we should NEVER have started, and the fact that some of those troops are dead because they didn't have the proper numbers nor the proper equipment? You remember Rumsfeld's "just enough force" horseshit don't you? In war "just enough force" gets people killed. You want OVERWHELMING force whenever you can get it.

You do remember the catastrophe of Katrina and the failure of the administration to respond in a timely manner? You are aware of the U.S Attorney firings scandal? You have heard about the outing of a CIA operative? You have noticed the current unemployment numbers and level of the DOW or, as we like to say, how the economy has gone to hell and we're on the brink of economic meltdown?

YOU DID HEAR ABOUT 9-11-2001 WHICH HAPPENED ON BUSH THE UNLAMENTED'S WATCH???

Would you like me to continue?

Now granted, Dubyah isn't personally responsible for all of these things but, unfortunately for him, they did all happen while he was at the helm and unlike Kings, who get stuck with the job by virtue of their birth, he volunteered to take on the job.

Maybe Al Gore would have been even worse, but that doesn't let little Georgie off the hook.

So sorry, no apology.

Yeah. I'd apologise. No wait, that's the wrong word, I'd -

*gets extradited to guantanamo*

Yes, people make fun of Bush despite him not actually displaying the flaws ascribed to him. They have done the same to every other president, and practically every other national leader who wouldn't execute them for it, since the beginning of satire. Bush gets no apologies for that. If his detractors were somewhat more vitriolic than usual, it's because he did a worse job than usual. Carter's critics say the same things about him, and presumably Herbert Hoover's critics said the same things about him, and so on and so forth.

Found this. It's interesting. I know most of you are, first thing, going to think "See Spot Run;" I know these forums well. But I think this guy makes some valid points:



Discuss.

We Owe Him an Apology by Dr. Rosalie de Rosset

Physician, remove thine head from thine ass.

To those who homed in on the strawman argument that the OP is saying the President reads, ergo he should be apologized to, you've either missed the point in your own blindness, or willfully, and have demonstrated that he's smarter than you are.

I have my issues with the job he did but the OP makes a valid point. While it's true that it's common for us to lampoon our leaders, there's been a level of vitriol directed toward Bush that is highly unusual. Most of that vitriol has been against his intelligence (despite his having outperformed both Gore and Kerry in College, two men who were characterized as far smarter than Bush.)

Frankly, I think it has a lot to do with the idea that he didn't listen to the people. I think his biggest failing is that the communication lines between the White House and America seemed to be closed. In both directions, I might add.

Frankly I do think the media owes him an apology, because they're largely responsible for shaping public perception of him. I know it's not gonna happen, and if anything the media will get all uppity with their "who, me?" response, but it is what it is.

Yes, people make fun of Bush despite him not actually displaying the flaws ascribed to him. They have done the same to every other president, and practically every other national leader who wouldn't execute them for it, since the beginning of satire. Bush gets no apologies for that. If his detractors were somewhat more vitriolic than usual, it's because he did a worse job than usual. Carter's critics say the same things about him, and presumably Herbert Hoover's critics said the same things about him, and so on and so forth.

And yet Carter came back with unauthorized visits to foreign governments and has frequently criticized the White House during Bush's term. Bad form. Even Clinton didn't do that.

Things like this make me think he wasnt treated badly enough...

*nod*

Frankly I do think the media owes him an apology, because they're largely responsible for shaping public perception of him.

Can you provide some examples of where the media's reporting on Bush's actions and the actual actions differed?

he can't help being the stupid bumbling village idiot shrub. he couldn't then and he can't now. glad he's not president. he didn't deserve the presidency. probably a children's bible he read lol.
bush i'm sorry you are an idiot shrub and that you were ever "elected" president.

That's the kind of attitude the article's talking about...

*Goes off to laugh at irony*

To those who homed in on the strawman argument that the OP is saying the President reads, ergo he should be apologized to, you've either missed the point in your own blindness, or willfully, and have demonstrated that he's smarter than you are.

I have my issues with the job he did but the OP makes a valid point. While it's true that it's common for us to lampoon our leaders, there's been a level of vitriol directed toward Bush that is highly unusual. Most of that vitriol has been against his intelligence (despite his having outperformed both Gore and Kerry in College, two men who were characterized as far smarter than Bush.)

Frankly, I think it has a lot to do with the idea that he didn't listen to the people. I think his biggest failing is that the communication lines between the White House and America seemed to be closed. In both directions, I might add.

Frankly I do think the media owes him an apology, because they're largely responsible for shaping public perception of him. I know it's not gonna happen, and if anything the media will get all uppity with their "who, me?" response, but it is what it is.

Finally, someone gets the point of the OP. :salute:

Can you provide some examples of where the media's reporting on Bush's actions and the actual actions differed?

And what, pray tell, would you accept as a valid source to compare with the mainstream media's portrayal, that didn't itself come from the mainstream media?

To those who homed in on the strawman argument that the OP is saying the President reads, ergo he should be apologized to, you've either missed the point in your own blindness, or willfully, and have demonstrated that he's smarter than you are.

I have my issues with the job he did but the OP makes a valid point. While it's true that it's common for us to lampoon our leaders, there's been a level of vitriol directed toward Bush that is highly unusual. Most of that vitriol has been against his intelligence (despite his having outperformed both Gore and Kerry in College, two men who were characterized as far smarter than Bush.)


Frankly, I don't think most people who sold the "bush is dumb" line actually believed him to be of below average intelligence, in a general sense. Some might have believed that to be literally true, but I think that's a minority.

Rather "Bush is dumb" has been a convenient shorthand for "Bush is woefully incompetent and is utterly incapable of doing his job". Which has been fairly well demonstrated to be true.

And what, pray tell, would you accept as a valid source to compare with the mainstream media's portrayal, that didn't itself come from the mainstream media?

Can you see how poor of an argument this is? Try an academic source.

I have my issues with the job he did but the OP makes a valid point. While it's true that it's common for us to lampoon our leaders, there's been a level of vitriol directed toward Bush that is highly unusual.

Again, like I said, it's because he did an unusually bad job of being president. (If he had done a good job, he would not have received this kind of vitriol. Q.E.D.)

(But more seriously, however, a lot of the vitriol is due to many Americans starting to feel very afraid for the future of their nation under Bush's tenure. It wasn't all his fault; 9/11 helped; but the Patriot Act, the executive orders, Katrina, the '08+ financial crisis, and all those wars are pretty much on his head. True, the financial crisis had its roots much before Bush, but he could have prevented it from being quite so bad, had he been less interested in allowing his wealthiest supporters and allies to gain a windfall from it and more interested in the majority of Americans.)

"Hundreds of thousands" is beyond "stretching it." "Hundreds of thousands" is a hyberbole, at best. At worst, a flat-out lie.Including civilians and military personnel, I believe the number is at least over 100,000, so no I don't think it is a hyperbole.

SCOTUS ruled because Bush is due an Apology he gets another 8 years.
Last two elections over turned. Bush enjoy your 3rd and 4th terms.

SCOTUS ruled because Bush is due an Apology he gets another 8 years.
Last two elections over turned. Bush enjoy your 3rd and 4th terms.

How did they reconcile this with their views that the Constitution should be read verbatim?

How did they reconcile this with their views that the Constitution should be read verbatim?

they inserted by a republican in crayon before read.

How did they reconcile this with their views that the Constitution should be read verbatim?

They'll put George W. Bush in the Witness Protection Program. Change his name, address, information, social security number, give him a makeover, etc. Thus, when "John Jones" runs for President in 2012 on a sufficiently different-sounding platform, nobody will suspect.

"Hundreds of thousands" is beyond "stretching it." "Hundreds of thousands" is a hyberbole, at best. At worst, a flat-out lie.


The Iraqi Health Ministry Survey (to 2006) says 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. A Lancet survey says 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. ORB says 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict.

Hundreds of thousands is not "stretching it," nor is it "hyperbole," nor is it a "flat-out lie." And your argument seems to mean that if it was only a few tens of thousands, it's not so bad and the media is being mean and unfair for criticizing the Commander in Chief for it.

Which is ridiculous.

Does that warrant a shoe assault?

Do you even know how ridiculous you seem? Let's ignore the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost... and focus on a "shoe assault" that didn't harm a hair on anyone's head. Mean, mean liberal media!


Does that warrant the extreme hatred he's gotten?

Yes.

The answer, of course, is "no" to all.

The wrong answer.

When you fire a guy because he does a bad job, you don't throw a shoe at him

Bush had his country invaded and occupied. That's not "a bad job." And the shoe-thrower, Muntadhir Al-Zaidi, is one man.

, question his intelligence

Questions are bad, mmkay?

, then viscerally hate him for the rest of his days. You say, "We don't need you anymore" and the matter's done. Why can't you (and everyone else for that matter) do the same?

Why can't you? If he's "gone" and if "the matter's done," why are we having this conversation? Because people like you demand "apologies" to Bush for the "liberal media" being SO MEAN to him. You make apologies for him. You downplay the deaths. You lie. You squirm.

So yes. He will be hated. Deal with it.

they inserted by a republican in crayon before read.

Article V: Amendment Process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by crayon, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Looks legit to me.

Looks legit to me.

Ah, but what kind of crayon did they mean? Recall that that was 1787. Crayons then may have been different from crayons today! And what colour? Is purple crayon more valid than green crayon? Is one brand of crayons more legitimate than another? This raises knotty Constitutional questions indeed.

Ah, but what kind of crayon did they mean? Recall that that was 1787. Crayons then may have been different from crayons today! And what colour? Is purple crayon more valid than green crayon? Is one brand of crayons more legitimate than another? This raises knotty Constitutional questions indeed.

SCOTUS has interpreted this to mean what ever they crayon into the document. darker colors take preference as they can write over lighter colors.

Ah, but what kind of crayon did they mean? Recall that that was 1787. Crayons then may have been different from crayons today! And what colour? Is purple crayon more valid than green crayon? Is one brand of crayons more legitimate than another? This raises knotty Constitutional questions indeed.

It is obvious that the vagarities of this particular part of the Constitution were intended so that future generations would have plenty of leg room to deal with the changes in crayon technology and the social constructions of crayons the founders were wise enough to allow for.

Frankly, I don't think most people who sold the "bush is dumb" line actually believed him to be of below average intelligence, in a general sense. Some might have believed that to be literally true, but I think that's a minority.

Rather "Bush is dumb" has been a convenient shorthand for "Bush is woefully incompetent and is utterly incapable of doing his job". Which has been fairly well demonstrated to be true.

How about shortening it further by saying

Bush followed the peter principle.

Hmmm.

To those who homed in on the strawman argument that the OP is saying the President reads, ergo he should be apologized to, you've either missed the point in your own blindness, or willfully, and have demonstrated that he's smarter than you are.

I have my issues with the job he did but the OP makes a valid point. While it's true that it's common for us to lampoon our leaders, there's been a level of vitriol directed toward Bush that is highly unusual. Most of that vitriol has been against his intelligence (despite his having outperformed both Gore and Kerry in College, two men who were characterized as far smarter than Bush.)

Frankly, I think it has a lot to do with the idea that he didn't listen to the people. I think his biggest failing is that the communication lines between the White House and America seemed to be closed. In both directions, I might add.

Frankly I do think the media owes him an apology, because they're largely responsible for shaping public perception of him. I know it's not gonna happen, and if anything the media will get all uppity with their "who, me?" response, but it is what it is.
what did the quote in the OP want us to apologize for? or who did it want to apologize for what?

Found this. It's interesting. I know most of you are, first thing, going to think "See Spot Run;" I know these forums well. But I think this guy makes some valid points:

*very funny article*

Discuss.

This is, without a doubt, the funniest parody thread I've read in a very long time.:D:hail:

To those who homed in on the strawman argument that the OP is saying the President reads, ergo he should be apologized to, you've either missed the point in your own blindness, or willfully, and have demonstrated that he's smarter than you are.

I've demonstrated I can read. Apparently you chose not to.

Your mistake.

I have my issues with the job he did but the OP makes a valid point. While it's true that it's common for us to lampoon our leaders, there's been a level of vitriol directed toward Bush that is highly unusual. Most of that vitriol has been against his intelligence (despite his having outperformed both Gore and Kerry in College, two men who were characterized as far smarter than Bush.)

Utter nonsense; a strawman.

The conclusion was Bush needs an apology. The arguments made were laughable. There is no real defense of them, and your idiotic "lol, Bush is smarter than U!" ad hominem blanket dismissal is certainly not a valid argument.


Frankly I do think the media owes him an apology

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

, because they're largely responsible for shaping public perception of him.

The media made him invade Iraq.

I know it's not gonna happen, and if anything the media will get all uppity with their "who, me?" response, but it is what it is.

Ah, more about "the media" borg hive mind. Classic. That's a lovely tinfoil hat you've got there.

Liberals never apologize. They just blame someone else.

Liberals never apologize. They just blame someone else.

Exactly, it's all Clinton's fault anyway. ;)

Liberals never apologize. They just blame someone else.

I have no problem apologizing if there is a compelling reason to. "Bush can read, neener neener neener!" is not one.

Liberals never apologize. They just blame someone else.

Who are you calling liberal, you evil baby-eating capitalist pig-dog corporate slave?! >.<

Found this. It's interesting. I know most of you are, first thing, going to think "See Spot Run;" I know these forums well. But I think this guy makes some valid points:

Discuss.

Some of the article is true. Some of it isn't. The idea that it's Bush's ability to be punctual, or to read enough books, is frankly laughable. The idea that Bush is somehow a 'good' person because he didn't have relations with that woman - but he DID authorise torture - isn't eeven risible, it's ridiculous.

Bush gained a lot of scorn - most of it, he earned.

Bush should be apologising to the world, not the other way around.

Again, like I said, it's because he did an unusually bad job of being president. (If he had done a good job, he would not have received this kind of vitriol. Q.E.D.)

(But more seriously, however, a lot of the vitriol is due to many Americans starting to feel very afraid for the future of their nation under Bush's tenure. It wasn't all his fault; 9/11 helped; but the Patriot Act, the executive orders, Katrina, the '08+ financial crisis, and all those wars are pretty much on his head. True, the financial crisis had its roots much before Bush, but he could have prevented it from being quite so bad, had he been less interested in allowing his wealthiest supporters and allies to gain a windfall from it and more interested in the majority of Americans.)

TBH I think the real source of the vitriol comes from two sources:

1)Utterly ignoring those who opposed him politically and more importantly:
2)Election 2000.

The 2000 election wasn't a good start, but Bush actually started out with pretty good support, and had a massive mandate just after 9/11. It was his clusterfuck of politics that bought him down in many people's estimation - torture, illegal wars, ignoring the constitution, those 'little details'.

I've demonstrated I can read. Apparently you chose not to.

Your mistake.


Uh, sure.


Utter nonsense; a strawman.

The conclusion was Bush needs an apology. The arguments made were laughable. There is no real defense of them, and your idiotic "lol, Bush is smarter than U!" ad hominem blanket dismissal is certainly not a valid argument.

Um... yeah that's just what I said. Is this the same level of reading comprehension you applied to the OP? It certainly appears to be.


Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.


k.


The media made him invade Iraq.


Yes, that's just what I said.


Ah, more about "the media" borg hive mind. Classic. That's a lovely tinfoil hat you've got there.

Ah yes. Anyone who questions the absolute and perfect objectivity and journalistic integrity of the American media is, by definition a conspiracy theorist/paranoid. What a wonderful argument you have there.

The 2000 election wasn't a good start, but Bush actually started out with pretty good support, and had a massive mandate just after 9/11. It was his clusterfuck of politics that bought him down in many people's estimation - torture, illegal wars, ignoring the constitution, those 'little details'.
yeah the public loved him after 9/11.

then we had to deal with his incompetence. with the collusion of the republican congress.

The 2000 election wasn't a good start, but Bush actually started out with pretty good support, and had a massive mandate just after 9/11. It was his clusterfuck of politics that bought him down in many people's estimation - torture, illegal wars, ignoring the constitution, those 'little details'.

Meh. There's always been a core that never forgave him for winning 2000. It's where we got the bumper stickers with stupidity like "He's not MY president!" That was the seed.

Uh, sure.


Um... yeah that's just what I said. Is this the same level of reading comprehension you applied to the OP? It certainly appears to be.



k.



Yes, that's just what I said.


More insults and non-argument. That it then, you're done? Aw.


Ah yes. Anyone who questions the absolute and perfect objectivity and journalistic integrity of the American media is, by definition a conspiracy theorist/paranoid.

Burn that strawman, baby.

No, anyone who rants about "the liberal media," demands "an apology" from "the media" (I guess everyone on television gets together and signs it? Or do they elect a single representative?) is wandering into conspiracy nut land.

What a wonderful argument you have there.

Thanks, it seemed sufficient to reduce you to babbling irrationally, so I think it's certainly adequate.

Meh. There's always been a core that never forgave him for winning 2000. It's where we got the bumper stickers with stupidity like "He's not MY president!" That was the seed.

I'm not denying that some people have refused to put the 2000 election behind them. And maybe they're right - the 2000 election was a shambles.

But that's not why Bush was getting worse approval ratings than Nixon.

Bush came by most of his acidic reactions the hard way - he earned them.

To even PRETEND that a man who directly contravened at least four constitutional amendments, that capitalised on a terrorist event to redefine what he thought a president SHOULD be, and be able to do... and that actually made warcrime a POLICY... to even PRETEND that that man has been getting a hard time over election peculiarities, is comedy gold.

hmm... funny the guy that wrote the first statement is and idiot himself... they were probably color books... but even then he probably couldn't get that right. He also doesn't mension all the world leaders (some who live in huts without access to any foriegn media) all but 3 said that he wasn't fit mentally to be a world leader. (oh and by the way of the 3, 2 are now out of office by there own countrymen go figure). hmm... i wonder if the victums of katrina would say he wasn't an idiot for not sending sufficient aid which may i remind you he had access too until 1 or 2 weeks after the event. also lets not forget the "weapons of mass destruction" iraq had... *sighs* but even then maybe he's right i mean heck the american populace was stupid enought to vote for him are we not all responsible for his actions in some small way even if you didn't you lived in america under him so in some way you did concent to his being president... but i believe that some of his mistakes could be considered criminal but its likely he'll never stand trial for them, so thats my statement take it or leave it is bush to blaim fully... no but is most of it his fault... likely.

For those of you talking about all the deaths to Iraqis the Iraq War has caused: Iraq's population has increased or remained the same every year since the war began. the death rate per 1000 citizens in Iraq has gone down significantly since 2000: 6.4 / 1000 in 2000 and 5.14 per 1000 in 2008. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en Death rate goes down and population rises. Tell me how this is costing lives again?

For those of you talking about all the deaths to Iraqis the Iraq War has caused: Iraq's population has increased or remained the same every year since the war began. the death rate per 1000 citizens in Iraq has gone down significantly since 2000: 6.4 / 1000 in 2000 and 5.14 per 1000 in 2008. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en Death rate goes down and population rises. Tell me how this is costing lives again?
so..... its OK to kill person A as long as baby B is born to replace him?

so..... its OK to kill person A as long as baby B is born to replace him? Agreed your also not calculating american fatalities, and often in lessor world countries most of the statistics are terribly scewed due to incefficient funds, uneducated masses, ect.

so..... its OK to kill person A as long as baby B is born to replace him?

this is NS, where population is just a statistic. so yeah. if you kill a thousand of my 337 million citizens, I'll still have 342 million tomorrow.

or did you mean in the real world? 'cause that's a tougher question. I'd say "yes" if I don't know Person A myself, and "no" if I do.

A smaller percentage of people are dying...How is that killing one and giving birth to another? LESS deaths!!! Do you not understand that part?

I'll grant you that perhaps we're killing one to save a couple...But I personally think that's OK. And this is going to sound incredibly callous, but approx. 5000 Americans have died in Iraq. 5000 Americans die every twelve hours here, no one seems to give a **** about them. 49,000 american violent deaths in 2003.

A smaller percentage of people are dying...How is that killing one and giving birth to another? LESS deaths!!! Do you not understand that part?

Meaning 9/11 was A-OK, because the American population increased since then? Or that kind of BULLSHIT line of thought only works with brown people?

I'll grant you that perhaps we're killing one to save a couple...But I personally think that's OK. And this is going to sound incredibly callous, but approx. 5000 Americans have died in Iraq. 5000 Americans die every twelve hours here, no one seems to give a **** about them. 49,000 american violent deaths in 2003.

And, faced with the choice of 49000, or 49500, you'd spend a trillion dollars for that extra bonus five grand?

I'll grant you that perhaps we're killing one to save a couple...But I personally think that's OK. And this is going to sound incredibly callous, but approx. 5000 Americans have died in Iraq. 5000 Americans die every twelve hours here, no one seems to give a **** about them. 49,000 american violent deaths in 2003.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Meaning 9/11 was A-OK, because the American population increased since then? Or that kind of BULLSHIT line of thought only works with brown people?

Less people are dying... The population has increased, yes, but a smaller percentage of people are dying now then prior to the war. A smaller percentage of people died during the war each year then prior to the war. What don't you get? Out of 1000, a smaller number of people died each year during the war than they did before the war. Do I have to repeat myself or can you understand that? Iraqi deaths were smaller during the first year of the war than the year before the war, smaller still during the second year, and the trend continued every year.

Less people are dying... The population has increased, yes, but a smaller percentage of people are dying now then prior to the war. A smaller percentage of people died during the war each year then prior to the war. What don't you get? Out of 1000, a smaller number of people died each year during the war than they did before the war. Do I have to repeat myself or can you understand that?

It's the idea that the numbers are related to one another, or that one makes the other alright.

By your 'logic' - 9/11 was okay, because Bush's war in Iraq has killed more Americans than flying planes into the WTC did.

Surely, the OP should have read "Apologize For Bush"?

what are we supposed to apologize for?

The US electors should apologise to him for inflicting upon him a second term at the White House, while it was clear as crystal that he was doing ALL he could to get sacked.

The US electors have been so cruel to him. He just wanted to go back in Texas to smoke out some armadillos. Poor guy.

;)

Grave n idol ? don't really get what you mean.

Grave n idol ? don't really get what you mean.

You are arguing that the deaths in Iraq are irrelevent, because the population has increased overall, and the deaths have decreased - overall.

You are arguing that the lesser number of deaths is the better outcome.

Okay - by that 'logic' - 9/11 was 'better' for America than Bush's war.

Grave n idol ? don't really get what you mean.

Color me unsurprised.

First off, I compared the death counts over a year to another year. Secondly, there are less deaths in Iraq because of the war in Iraq. The war lessened deaths in Iraq. 9/11 did nothing to lessen deaths. 9/11 was one day, if you want to take war casualties for one day and compare it to 9/11 go ahead.

First off, I compared the death counts over a year to another year.

And you ignored the mountains of evidence showing that from 150,000 to over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the war as of 2006. So you are intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, there are less deaths in Iraq because of the war in Iraq.

False, see above.

The war lessened deaths in Iraq.

You're just repeating yourself.

9/11 did nothing to lessen deaths. 9/11 was one day, if you want to take war casualties for one day and compare it to 9/11 go ahead.

Why? You're the one who seems to want to make ludicrous comparisons that dodge the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of the war. No one else here does.

No apology is warranted for Bush.

He owes the American people and the world several though.

The article is just silly.

What factor changed in Iraq so that their deaths per year were less 2003-2008 than 2000-2002? Is it possible that a war has made made a country safer? Or has something else changed that has reduced deaths in Iraq? And how is less deaths not a better outcome? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en

What factor changed during Iraq so that their deaths per year were less 2003-2008 than 2000-2002? Is it possible that a war has made made a country safer? Or has something else changed that has reduced deaths in Iraq? And how is less deaths not a better outcome? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en

Since the death rate was decreasing before the war, your claim that the war "lessened deaths in Iraq" remains unproven.

What factor changed in Iraq so that their deaths per year were less 2003-2008 than 2000-2002? Is it possible that a war has made made a country safer? Or has something else changed that has reduced deaths in Iraq? And how is less deaths not a better outcome? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en

Are you just going to ask stupid questions? Are you really not understanding or reading what anyone says to you? Are you just trolling? I think you are?

Nofukwitusmon: Correlation does not imply causation. Or as Mister Spock would say, "That is not logical."

For no particular reason, this thread reminded me of this song by John Prine:

Father forgive us for what we must do
You forgive us we'll forgive you
We'll forgive each other till we both turn blue
Then we'll whistle and go fishing in heaven.

(Although it isn't particularly intelligent commentary, I submit it is as relevant and cogent as some of the posts in this thread. :wink:)

Nofukwitusmon: Correlation does not imply causation. Or as Mister Spock would say, "That is not logical."

I find it hard for the death rate to Go down despite their being a war going on.


Then again issue with his data is it is just death rates. Not violent deaths. So this could just be a population cycle thing.

What factor changed in Iraq so that their deaths per year were less 2003-2008 than 2000-2002? Is it possible that a war has made made a country safer? Or has something else changed that has reduced deaths in Iraq? And how is less deaths not a better outcome? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en

If we bombed Iraq into glass, we'd have a really HIGH death-toll this year, and NONE next year.

How can that not be a better outcome?

What factor changed in Iraq so that their deaths per year were less 2003-2008 than 2000-2002? Is it possible that a war has made made a country safer? Or has something else changed that has reduced deaths in Iraq? And how is less deaths not a better outcome? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en

your site list the US debt as a % of GDP shrinking to some 36 %
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=143&c=us&l=en

I question the validity of your source.

So Bush is a nice devout sober guy. Doesn't stop me from deriding his presidency as a trainwreck.

If we bombed Iraq into glass, we'd have a really HIGH death-toll this year, and NONE next year.

How can that not be a better outcome?

Technically, if we can ensure that nobody much settles in Iraq for the next hundred years or so after that, the high death rate the first year would be dismissed by statisticians as a random spike meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Unless, y'know, someone notices all the mushroom clouds.

your site list the US debt as a % of GDP shrinking to some 36 %
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=143&c=us&l=en

I question the validity of your source.

That would seem to be numbers taken from the CIA world factbook?

That would seem to be numbers taken from the CIA world factbook?

CIA world fact book list it as 60.8% for 2007. his source list it as 64.7%. for 2007. so unless Obama paid off half our debt before he got in office i am not seeing that.

"Hundreds of thousands" is beyond "stretching it." "Hundreds of thousands" is a hyberbole, at best. At worst, a flat-out lie.
According to Iraq Body Count, the current civilian death toll in Iraq is 99,000. Add in the number of US troops killed, Iraqi troops killed, and Afghanis killed and numbers who wouldn't have died had the US not deliberately targeted infrastructure and it's way over 100,000.
So yes, "Hundreds of thousands" is stretching it. However it's hardly a flat-out lie.


Does that warrant a shoe assault?
Does that warrant the extreme hatred he's gotten?

The answer, of course, is "no" to all.

When you fire a guy because he does a bad job, you don't throw a shoe at him, question his intelligence, then viscerally hate him for the rest of his days. You say, "We don't need you anymore" and the matter's done. Why can't you (and everyone else for that matter) do the same?
Why shouldn't we just say, "We don't need you anymore" and the matter's done?
Because his 'bad job' led to a war based on lies, the pointless deaths of >100,000, crippled the US economy (and helped cripple the World economy), which will take years - perhaps decades - to recover, implemented policies that caused World opinion of the US to plummet, and dropped the ball of North Korea allowing them to develop nuclear weapons amongst other various fuck-ups.
That's not a 'bad' job. That's an obscenely bad, completely incompetent, rephrensible job. And thus deserving of our derision.

To those who homed in on the strawman argument that the OP is saying the President reads, ergo he should be apologized to, you've either missed the point in your own blindness, or willfully, and have demonstrated that he's smarter than you are.
no, you've missed the point.
The 'he reads!' bit that various posters have latched onto is not the be-all and end-all of their argument. It's just the easiest one to lampoon.
Their arguments against the OP article is that it's excusing GWB the president based on the OP's opinion that GWB the person was/is a nice guy.
Which is a total load of crock. As many have already pointed out, it doesn't matter if GWB is a genuinely nice bloke who can read 2 books a week and spends his spare time hugging sick puppies. He totally screwed up - and screwed the US - during his time in office. His screw-ups have led to the deaths of tens of thousands innocent lives and crippled the US economy.

No amount of books read, bottles of whiskey left undrunk or interns not screwed is going to change this, nor undo the amount of damage his policies have caused.

Pretty much all that counts in a Presidency is competence. You can forgive anything else to one who has it, but nothing else makes up for the lack of it.

I'll apologise to him if he can go back in time & lose the 1999/2000 election.

I'll apologise to him if he can go back in time & lose the 1999/2000 election.

No need, he did, remember? lol...

I think thats what really gave Bush his negative image, at all times over half the Country hated his guts cause Gore was screwed...

According to Iraq Body Count, the current civilian death toll in Iraq is 99,000. Add in the number of US troops killed, Iraqi troops killed, and Afghanis killed and numbers who wouldn't have died had the US not deliberately targeted infrastructure and it's way over 100,000.
So yes, "Hundreds of thousands" is stretching it. However it's hardly a flat-out lie.

This is Iraq Body Count's methodology (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/methods/2). It should be pretty easy to figure out why this will result in a number well below the actual death toll.

To those who homed in on the strawman argument that the OP is saying the President reads, ergo he should be apologized to, you've either missed the point in your own blindness, or willfully, and have demonstrated that he's smarter than you are.

I have my issues with the job he did but the OP makes a valid point. While it's true that it's common for us to lampoon our leaders, there's been a level of vitriol directed toward Bush that is highly unusual. Most of that vitriol has been against his intelligence (despite his having outperformed both Gore and Kerry in College, two men who were characterized as far smarter than Bush.)

Frankly, I think it has a lot to do with the idea that he didn't listen to the people. I think his biggest failing is that the communication lines between the White House and America seemed to be closed. In both directions, I might add.

Frankly I do think the media owes him an apology, because they're largely responsible for shaping public perception of him. I know it's not gonna happen, and if anything the media will get all uppity with their "who, me?" response, but it is what it is.

Yes, the "level of vitirol" against Bush the Younger has been unprecedented, quite unlike the white-glove treatment the Republicans and conservatives gave to Bill Clinton. It's not like widely distributed accusations of rape and murder were leveled at Clinton.

Oh, snap ....

Yes, the "level of vitirol" against Bush the Younger has been unprecedented, quite unlike the white-glove treatment the Republicans and conservatives gave to Bill Clinton. It's not like widely distributed accusations of rape and murder were leveled at Clinton.

Oh, snap ....

Seriously, Rush Limbaugh and his clan of Clones prettymuch negates any attempts to complain about "Vitriol" towards Bush....

Seriously, Rush Limbaugh and his clan of Clones prettymuch negates any attempts to complain about "Vitriol" towards Bush....

Not to mention those that are already referring to President Obama as "The Dark Lord" and equating his election with Fort Sumter!

Seriously, Rush Limbaugh and his clan of Clones prettymuch negates any attempts to complain about "Vitriol" towards Bush....

Even those who railed against Bush didn't say things like "I hope he fails". There are rightwingers who would see America burn, to spite Obama.

I don't say Bush is stupid, I say he's evil. And probably a puppet. No apologies.

Not to mention those that are already referring to President Obama as "The Dark Lord" and equating his election with Fort Sumter!

And those are the moderate Republicans. The extremists are convinced he's the anti-Christ.

And that confuses them. They're not sure whether they should oppose his actions or support them in hopes of accelerating the onset of the Rapture.

Personally, I think we should encourage them to go all out for the Rapture. ;)

No need, he did, remember? lol...

I think thats what really gave Bush his negative image, at all times over half the Country hated his guts cause Gore was screwed...

That's not really true. Prior to 9/11 his approval rating was hovering around 55%. Right after 9/11 it skyrocketed to almost 90% (you unite in times of danger or crisis).

By the commencement of the Iraq war it had dropped back to about 55% and jumped to 75% (again a sign of the country, in some cases reluctantly, uniting for a war which was a fait accompli).

It only really began to dive bomb after the 2004 election. Here's the graph.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

i dont know what prompted dr rosset (professor at moody bible college) to write this essay but its simplemindedness reminds me of the bush legacy project.

she takes an irrelevant criticism of bush--that he is "stupid"--and pretends that it is the basis for our dislike of him. by showing that he is NOT stupid, we are supposed to be ashamed that we have come to loathe him for what turns out to be no good reason. he's a smart man, what was i thinking? he is a moral man, what was i thinking? he never cheated on his wife with a whitehouse intern, what was i thinking?

it reminds me very much of mr bush's last press conference where he defended his katrina record with the notion that when he did his fly over of the hurricaine devastation if he had LANDED we would have been mad at him for not just flying over. as if THAT was his big failure. as if we should say "oh yeah, landing would have been stupid, i guess i was wrong to be disgusted at his handling of the katrina crisis. what was i thinking?"

i find it insulting that anyone should think that that kind of bullshit could ever be enough to make us forget why we despise george bush.

Fact of the matter is: he's the one who should say sorry for everything, including very slow responding to those affected by Katrina back in 2004 and veto legislation that would have allowed our troops to leave and come home.

i dont know what prompted dr rosset (professor at moody bible college) to write this essay but its simplemindedness reminds me of the bush legacy project.

If I remember correctly, Evangelical Christians are the only demographic group which still overwhelmingly believes Bush did a great job.

Which actually surprises me. I'm really not sure why they've remained loyal to him.

If I remember correctly, Evangelical Christians are the only demographic group which still overwhelmingly believes Bush did a great job.

Which actually surprises me. I'm really not sure why they've remained loyal to him.
ive never understood it either. i guess he is "one of their own" but he sure did make them look bad.

If I remember correctly, Evangelical Christians are the only demographic group which still overwhelmingly believes Bush did a great job.

Which actually surprises me. I'm really not sure why they've remained loyal to him.

simple. he killed brown people. Bonus points due to the fact that they worshiped Satan.

simple. he killed brown people. Bonus points due to the fact that they worshiped Satan.

Quoted for unfortunately appalling truth.

Does that warrant a shoe assault?


If you tell someone on your payroll, "Go to that man's house, burn it down, kill him and turn his family into homeless people", and you tell him to do it to a thousand people, and he does it, it generally warrants a hail of lead or the rest of your natural life behind bars.

Bush got off light.

Who are you calling liberal, you evil baby-eating capitalist pig-dog corporate slave?! >.<

You've just been possessed by Angry Internet Stalinist?

Does that warrant a shoe assault?
Does that warrant the extreme hatred he's gotten?

The answer, of course, is "no" to all.

When you fire a guy because he does a bad job, you don't throw a shoe at him, question his intelligence, then viscerally hate him for the rest of his days. You say, "We don't need you anymore" and the matter's done. Why can't you (and everyone else for that matter) do the same?

You might remember that the guy who threw the shoe was not in a position to fire Bush, although he did suffer from Bush's actions directly. Throwing that shoe was an expression of helpless anger and frustration resulting directly from the incompetency of the target.

Likewise, I was never in a position to fire Bush, but had to live with the effects his decisions had on my life. The people who could have fired him didn't.
Are you honestly surprised that people who had to live with the incometent actions of a fool they never put into such a powerful position were - and still are - frustrated and angry?

Not to mention those that are already referring to President Obama as "The Dark Lord"

...actually, I think that being called "the Dark Lord" is quite cool. Think of Sauron, but without the need for the Ring. Think of Vader, but without the need for a breath-mask.

Now, if he just had a lightsaber...

I would also like to take this opportunity to appeal for an official statement from the free democratic nations apologising to Hitler.

He was an intelligent man, with an appreciation of classical music and great interest in the study of German cultural history. In spite of a troubled childhood and an abusive father, he rose to become the leader of Germany and transformed it into one of the world's major powers during the 1930s.

And yet, as soon as it became politically expedient to do so due to war, we mocked him in popular films such as "The Great Dictator" and wrote propaganda songs insulting him about his missing testicle. In more recent times, I myself have (I am ashamed to say) written several very mean essays about him during history lessons, making him appear a bad man just because of his politics.

Almost everyone who worked with him, was close to his work and had seen him operate with staff developed an almost obsessional admiration for the great man. He was a man of strength and character and honesty to his convictions.

Yet even today he is demonised by the media. Never have I heard a politician be so reviled, even savaged, so continually attacked on almost every level, cursed at continually with the foulest language, referred to as almost subhuman by comedians and television talk show hosts; in short, there are times when I wondered if he would become responsible for the common cold or bunions.

Someday, I hope he gets his apology.

Merely being literate doesn't make up for the fact that pretty much every one of his relevant policies were completely destroying this country.

I would also like to take this opportunity to appeal for an official statement from the free democratic nations apologising to Hitler.

He was an intelligent man, with an appreciation of classical music and great interest in the study of German cultural history. In spite of a troubled childhood and an abusive father, he rose to become the leader of Germany and transformed it into one of the world's major powers during the 1930s.

And yet, as soon as it became politically expedient to do so due to war, we mocked him in popular films such as "The Great Dictator" and wrote propaganda songs insulting him about his missing testicle. In more recent times, I myself have (I am ashamed to say) written several very mean essays about him during history lessons, making him appear a bad man just because of his politics.

Almost everyone who worked with him, was close to his work and had seen him operate with staff developed an almost obsessional admiration for the great man. He was a man of strength and character and honesty to his convictions.

Yet even today he is demonised by the media. Never have I heard a politician be so reviled, even savaged, so continually attacked on almost every level, cursed at continually with the foulest language, referred to as almost subhuman by comedians and television talk show hosts; in short, there are times when I wondered if he would become responsible for the common cold or bunions.

Someday, I hope he gets his apology.

Sarcasm for the win! :D

...No...

For the sheer visceral treatment he's received during his tenure as President, a great deal of it unwarranted.

The article complained about the way he was treated as president because he overcame alcoholism.

If the editorial board has to look back to the man's 40's to find something he actually accomplished and that was just his overcoming a massive character flaw with a slightly smaller character flaw, then this just shows how much worse the Wall Street Journal, already a right-wing rag, has become since Rupert Murdoch took it over.

The media was treating Bush like it's darling for his entire tenure. He deserved far worse than what he got. If he got even a tenth of what he got in the press he'd never have won a second term.

I would also like to take this opportunity to appeal for an official statement from the free democratic nations apologising to Hitler.

He was an intelligent man, with an appreciation of classical music and great interest in the study of German cultural history. In spite of a troubled childhood and an abusive father, he rose to become the leader of Germany and transformed it into one of the world's major powers during the 1930s.

And yet, as soon as it became politically expedient to do so due to war, we mocked him in popular films such as "The Great Dictator" and wrote propaganda songs insulting him about his missing testicle. In more recent times, I myself have (I am ashamed to say) written several very mean essays about him during history lessons, making him appear a bad man just because of his politics.

Almost everyone who worked with him, was close to his work and had seen him operate with staff developed an almost obsessional admiration for the great man. He was a man of strength and character and honesty to his convictions.

Yet even today he is demonised by the media. Never have I heard a politician be so reviled, even savaged, so continually attacked on almost every level, cursed at continually with the foulest language, referred to as almost subhuman by comedians and television talk show hosts; in short, there are times when I wondered if he would become responsible for the common cold or bunions.

Someday, I hope he gets his apology.

GODW...

Missing testicle?

GODW...

Missing testicle?

Hitler has only got one ball... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball)

You mean you didn't know the song? :eek:

One New Year's Eve, Rove and Bush challenged each other to read a book a week. Three days later President Bush turned to Rove and said, "I'm on my second, where are you?" They began recommending volumes to each other. By the end of the first year, Rove had read 110 books to Bush's 95. . . . And, Bush was busy being the Leader of the Free World.

No he wasn't, he was clearly reading books.

i can't find the time to read 95 books a year, lucky his presidency was uneventful.

Honestly, what was he doing all this time, he had a hands-off, I trust people to do the work, little attention to detail attitude when an extremely focused president was required.

I would also like to take this opportunity to appeal for an official statement from the free democratic nations apologising to Hitler.

He was an intelligent man, with an appreciation of classical music and great interest in the study of German cultural history. In spite of a troubled childhood and an abusive father, he rose to become the leader of Germany and transformed it into one of the world's major powers during the 1930s.

And yet, as soon as it became politically expedient to do so due to war, we mocked him in popular films such as "The Great Dictator" and wrote propaganda songs insulting him about his missing testicle. In more recent times, I myself have (I am ashamed to say) written several very mean essays about him during history lessons, making him appear a bad man just because of his politics.

Almost everyone who worked with him, was close to his work and had seen him operate with staff developed an almost obsessional admiration for the great man. He was a man of strength and character and honesty to his convictions.

Yet even today he is demonised by the media. Never have I heard a politician be so reviled, even savaged, so continually attacked on almost every level, cursed at continually with the foulest language, referred to as almost subhuman by comedians and television talk show hosts; in short, there are times when I wondered if he would become responsible for the common cold or bunions.

Someday, I hope he gets his apology.
best godwin ever.

Hitler has only got one ball... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball)

You mean you didn't know the song? :eek:

I'm fluent and I'm a translator, but I can't be expected to know EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of the American and British culture. :p

No he wasn't, he was clearly reading books.

i can't find the time to read 95 books a year, lucky his presidency was uneventful.

Honestly, what was he doing all this time, he had a hands-off, I trust people to do the work, little attention to detail attitude when an extremely focused president was required.

What he was doing all this time? Reading books and being on vacation was a surprisingly big part of it, it seems...

I'm fluent and I'm a translator, but I can't be expected to know EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of the American and British culture. :p

Well, ok, I got a BF who sings that song a couple times a week... everytime there's a WW II docu on Discovery. It becomes less and less funny each time. :(

Well, ok, I got a BF who sings that song a couple times a week... everytime there's a WW II docu on Discovery. It becomes less and less funny each time. :(

*Dr. Phil Mode*

And how does that make you feel?

(SOME details I DO know. ;) )

I would also like to take this opportunity to appeal for an official statement from the free democratic nations apologising to Hitler.

He was an intelligent man, with an appreciation of classical music and great interest in the study of German cultural history. In spite of a troubled childhood and an abusive father, he rose to become the leader of Germany and transformed it into one of the world's major powers during the 1930s.

And yet, as soon as it became politically expedient to do so due to war, we mocked him in popular films such as "The Great Dictator" and wrote propaganda songs insulting him about his missing testicle. In more recent times, I myself have (I am ashamed to say) written several very mean essays about him during history lessons, making him appear a bad man just because of his politics.

Almost everyone who worked with him, was close to his work and had seen him operate with staff developed an almost obsessional admiration for the great man. He was a man of strength and character and honesty to his convictions.

Yet even today he is demonised by the media. Never have I heard a politician be so reviled, even savaged, so continually attacked on almost every level, cursed at continually with the foulest language, referred to as almost subhuman by comedians and television talk show hosts; in short, there are times when I wondered if he would become responsible for the common cold or bunions.

Someday, I hope he gets his apology.
:tongue::fluffle::D

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! were suppost to apppligize to bush because he knows how to read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! every president knewto read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bush got us in this hell hole where we are and were suppost to appoligize to him???????????????????? NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

I really hate Liberals. For god sake people, If we had algore as president for the last 8 years, most of you would not be alive. This would be the United Taliban Sates of New Afghanistan

I really hate Liberals. For god sake people, If we had algore as president for the last 8 years, most of you would not be alive. This would be the United Taliban Sates of New Afghanistan

But at least they'd be using solar-powered bombs, and blow up solar-powered cars with them.

*Dr. Phil Mode*

And how does that make you feel?

(SOME details I DO know. ;) )

*shurgs*

I tend to point out the lack of UK world championship wins in the last 60 years. Usually shuts him up right away. :D

I really hate Liberals. For god sake people, If we had algore as president for the last 8 years, most of you would not be alive. This would be the United Taliban Sates of New Afghanistan

You don't know anything you're talking about.

I really hate Liberals. For god sake people, If we had algore as president for the last 8 years, most of you would not be alive. This would be the United Taliban Sates of New Afghanistan

That is hardly fair. True the Taliban would have invaded America, rapidly defeated the woefully underfunded US forces and triumphantly introduced Shari'ah law. But at least Gore would have dealt with Manbearpig.

I really hate Liberals. For god sake people, If we had algore as president for the last 8 years, most of you would not be alive. This would be the United Taliban Sates of New Afghanistan
taking the worst case analysis of gore we would have ineffectually bombed afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 (which afghanistan did not plan or carry out). bin laden would have escaped.

we wouldnt have even thought of invading iraq. saddam hussein would be alive today.

hmmmmmmmm while the republicans would have bitched like gore was a traitor, we would have spent far less money and lives to get a better result.

No he wasn't, he was clearly reading books.

i can't find the time to read 95 books a year, lucky his presidency was uneventful.

Honestly, what was he doing all this time, he had a hands-off, I trust people to do the work, little attention to detail attitude when an extremely focused president was required.

Um, 95 books is not many at all. While I haven't kept count, I think I've gone through about 30 since Christmas, possibly more. Approximating to 30 books every two months, that puts down a lower bound of 180 books in a year.

I really hate Liberals. For god sake people, If we had algore as president for the last 8 years, most of you would not be alive. This would be the United Taliban Sates of New Afghanistan

Complete nonsense. There has not been a credible threat of invasion to the United States since WWII at the very latest, and even that is only just arguable.

Besides, I live in the Kingdom of Drachenwald, Principality of Insulae Draconis.

That is hardly fair. True the Taliban would have invaded America, rapidly defeated the woefully underfunded US forces and triumphantly introduced Shari'ah law. But at least Gore would have dealt with Manbearpig.

Superserial. *nods*

Um, 95 books is not many at all. While I haven't kept count, I think I've gone through about 30 since Christmas, possibly more. Approximating to 30 books every two months, that puts down a lower bound of 180 books in a year.

Indeed, neither you nor George Bush seem to be running a country.

Indeed, neither you nor George Bush seem to be running a country.

*applauds*

Found this. It's interesting. I know most of you are, first thing, going to think "See Spot Run;" I know these forums well. But I think this guy makes some valid points:



Discuss.

I can't apologize either, but that's because I've supported him since I've become politically aware (though, the fact that he didn't run from the DWI accusation that Gore tried to use against him made me respect him, even before I knew his stance).

Of course, feeling that his status as a literate is the focus of the article is quite daft. I believe it addresses the fact that many people think he is stupid because he isn't a great public speaker, I guess thats the mark, he can't speak well in public, so me must be an idiot.

George Bush led with strength, and conviction. Mere political opposition, though understandable, is not enough to warrant the insults thrown at him. perhaps after Obama is out of office, and not running against Bush any more people will start to realize the skilled leader we had had the whole time.

Then again we're Americans, and our memory is short, so maybe not. Too bad, really, for everyone.

Well United Floridians I hate conservatives more. Name one thing president bush did to help our Foreign policy respect, or our economy!!! The al quiada attacked the twin towers not the Taliban. Al gore would have helped our economy not push it into a hell hole. Bush just went to Iraq to usurp the oil not to help it. And if we had set up to capture Osama bin laden, we would have been successful, instead of just rushing into Iraq!!! That is what your conservatives did United Floridians why should we owe any of them, especially bush an apology. All they did is push us into a hellhole. Make our economy and foreign policy one of the worst in the world? Why give him an apology??? Think about it?????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't apologize either, but that's because I've supported him since I've become politically aware (though, the fact that he didn't run from the DWI accusation that Gore tried to use against him made me respect him, even before I knew his stance).

Of course, feeling that his status as a literate is the focus of the article is quite daft. I believe it addresses the fact that many people think he is stupid because he isn't a great public speaker, I guess thats the mark, he can't speak well in public, so me must be an idiot.

George Bush led with strength, and conviction. Mere political opposition, though understandable, is not enough to warrant the insults thrown at him. perhaps after Obama is out of office, and not running against Bush any more people will start to realize the skilled leader we had had the whole time.

Then again we're Americans, and our memory is short, so maybe not. Too bad, really, for everyone.

freudian typo?

no i dont think that our opinion is going to change. leading us confidently to ruin isnt going to get any better over time.

...actually, I think that being called "the Dark Lord" is quite cool. Think of Sauron, but without the need for the Ring. Think of Vader, but without the need for a breath-mask.

Now, if he just had a lightsaber...

http://www.boingboing.net/images/x09/DSC_4681.jpg

Well United Floridians I hate conservatives more. Name one thing president bush did to help our Foreign policy respect, or our economy!!! The al quiada attacked the twin towers not the Taliban. Al gore would have helped our economy not push it into a hell hole. Bush just went to Iraq to usurp the oil not to help it. And if we had set up to capture Osama bin laden, we would have been successful, instead of just rushing into Iraq!!! That is what your conservatives did United Floridians why should we owe any of them, especially bush an apology. All they did is push us into a hellhole. Make our economy and foreign policy one of the worst in the world? Why give him an apology??? Think about it?????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ever see the Stock market before it crashed?
It Boomed. Bush did ruin the economy when it crashed though, running off with 700 Billion.

So, you are an Islamo-Fascist as well?
It seems that you are opposed to the liberating of a country. Interesting. I bet if you were around in the 1940's you would have said the same things about the Jews. You have NO idea what went on with Sadam Hussein and his concentration camps. The Nazis treated the Jews a lot better.

Who cares what other nations think about us?
Really now. think about it. We are the single most powerful nation on the planet. You Islamo-Fascists believe that in order to invade Iraq, we need to have France vote on it. That is quite sad actually. Sure. France does not like our foreign policy. I doubt the Soviet Union liked our foreign policy. or Germany in the 1940's. I'm pretty sure you people would be saying the same thing about FDR and Reagan.

To end, Tell me one thing that you have not heard from the Liberal Media that is bad about Bush. One thing. I highly doubt you can, an even rarer thing to find in you're small ignorant un-educated head is this: Point to me one thing reported by the Liberal Media that was good about Bush. All of you Islmao-Fascists have been brainwashed. Period.

*snip*

Anything named Florida never fails to live up to expectations, it's like death and taxes.

I can't apologize either, but that's because I've supported him since I've become politically aware (though, the fact that he didn't run from the DWI accusation that Gore tried to use against him made me respect him, even before I knew his stance).

Of course, feeling that his status as a literate is the focus of the article is quite daft. I believe it addresses the fact that many people think he is stupid because he isn't a great public speaker, I guess thats the mark, he can't speak well in public, so me must be an idiot.

George Bush led with strength, and conviction. Mere political opposition, though understandable, is not enough to warrant the insults thrown at him. perhaps after Obama is out of office, and not running against Bush any more people will start to realize the skilled leader we had had the whole time.

Then again we're Americans, and our memory is short, so maybe not. Too bad, really, for everyone.

Okay, you're right. Bush did indeed lead with conviction. He thought "this is what is right" and did it.

Unfortunately, he lacked competence and ability. He based decisions off faulty intelligence, refused to listen to opposition, refused to compromise and work with others, and refused to change his position after committing himself.

I do not give a damn if my leader leads with conviction. I do not see uncompromising inflexibility as a virtue in a leader. They must be competent, and willing to recognise their own limitations and work with other to overcome them. Bush was none of these.

Time and time again throughout his presidency, he only listened to people who were saying what he wanted to hear. Bush had a goal, a mission, a crusade, and he carried it out. If anything got in the way, he dealt with it, including such trifles as the US constitution.

Bush and his administration were confident. So confident that they charged ahead blindly, fingers in their ears, ignoring any advice that didn't fit with their stated goals. They were completely incompetent, and have a persistent record of mismanagement and failure. Bush deserved nearly every one of the attacks he's been recieving, and much more besides.

I really hate Liberals. For god sake people, If we had algore as president for the last 8 years, most of you would not be alive. This would be the United Taliban Sates of New Afghanistan

You forget that the Wolverines would have taken the fight to the enemy, as Al Gore would have made Arnold Schwartzenegger his Secretary of Awesome Countermeasures and given him enough resources to finish the job. After all, the new sources of Kryonium would have ensured a huge economic boost for the US.

Besides, with George Takei being crowned emperor of the new Ruasian Empire, the Taliban would have had other things to worry about.

Not to mention that the return of Jesus would have forced them to focus their attention elsewhere.

Ah, don't you love unprovable hypotheticals? Yes, yes you do.

My name is George Dubya Bush.
You have Weapons of Mass Destructification.
Prepare to be democracified!

Ever see the Stock market before it crashed?
It Boomed. Bush did ruin the economy when it crashed though, running off with 700 Billion.

Bush had power for eight years, and the ability to set economic policy while he was there. By the end of said eight years, the US economy is completely trashed.


So, you are an Islamo-Fascist as well?
It seems that you are opposed to the liberating of a country. Interesting. I bet if you were around in the 1940's you would have said the same things about the Jews. You have NO idea what went on with Sadam Hussein and his concentration camps. The Nazis treated the Jews a lot better.

Haha, 'Islamo-Fascist'? My dear sir, I am a Christian Anarchist. Islamo-Fascist (whatever that is) is almost, but not quite entirely, unlike me.

You have no idea what went on with Saddam's 'Concentration Camps' either, because you can't give me any sources about them.


Who cares what other nations think about us?
Really now. think about it. We are the single most powerful nation on the planet. You Islamo-Fascists believe that in order to invade Iraq, we need to have France vote on it. That is quite sad actually. Sure. France does not like our foreign policy. I doubt the Soviet Union liked our foreign policy. or Germany in the 1940's. I'm pretty sure you people would be saying the same thing about FDR and Reagan.

Again with the flaming - you might want to cut it out.

I believe that you should not have invaded Iraq. If you really felt it was necessary, surely the evidence would have been so clear or overwhelming that the rest of the West agreed. As it was, most of them disagreed from the very start. The clusterfuck that has occurred there merely shows us they were right.

Back in 2003 I was talking about it with a friend older and wiser than I. He said "I would lay good money on Iraq still not being a stable country for at least 10 years". At the rate things are going, he may very well be right.


To end, Tell me one thing that you have not heard from the Liberal Media that is bad about Bush. One thing. I highly doubt you can, an even rarer thing to find in you're small ignorant un-educated head is this: Point to me one thing reported by the Liberal Media that was good about Bush. All of you Islmao-Fascists have been brainwashed. Period.

I can't think of many things reported good about Bush, because I can't think of many good things that Bush did. From what I have associated with Bush:

Iraq - clusterfuck, based on flat out lies
Afghanistan - more debatable, I suppose
Katrina - clusterfuck
Economy - busy ceasing to exist
NCLB - shattered school standards in the US
Various abortion bans - bad idea
Stem-cell research opposition - bad idea

etc. I've heard mention of AIDs work, but don't know enough about it to evaluate it.

Please present good things that Bush did which have gone unreported.

As for 'undeducated' and 'ignorant', I shall be wandering off to University this autumn. A small place, that you just might have heard of. Cambridge ring a bell?

Then again we're Americans, and our memory is short, so maybe not. Too bad, really, for everyone.
Then again...

The world won't forget as easily, nor will it fail to remind America of what's happened.


So, you are an Islamo-Fascist as well?
It seems that you are opposed to the liberating of a country. Interesting. I bet if you were around in the 1940's you would have said the same things about the Jews. You have NO idea what went on with Sadam Hussein and his concentration camps. The Nazis treated the Jews a lot better.

This is bullshit, and you're simply a troll. Nice to know.

I'm astounded at the complete naïveté of the OP.

Presidents accept abuse, lampooning and mockery as part of the job, and have had to since the conception of the free press (especially the political cartoon). If they can't handle that kind of scrutiny and opinion-lobbing, they ought not to run.

To honestly post in such a way as to imply that Bush was the only leader ever to receive such abuse at such levels is not only childish, it's ignorant. Ignorant of the fact that Presidents are often praised (or revered) with a fervor equal to the vilifiers' vitriol. Ignorant of history from as recent as 10+ years ago, when the same comedians and regular folk shredded BOTH Bill and Hillary Clinton (albeit for different reasons) with unabashed glee.

Where was the OP then? I'm wagering he or she was too young to recall that abuse, and while youth is an excuse, it's not a defense.

As for the shoe-throwing incident, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the OP hasn't lived anywhere directly affected by some of the more destructive aspects of US-conducted military actions. People who are powerless to stop what's happening sometimes devise ways to make themselves heard in any way possible. Is it really so hard to put yourself in someone else's position and see how getting a chance to be within shoe-throwing distance of someone you believe is personally responsible for the personal misery of you and your entire family just might make one go ahead and hurl a Hush Puppy?

The narrow-mindedness of the OP is glaring. Of course the President deserves respect. Were I ever to meet George W. Bush, I would accord him the respect his service in the office deserves -- that's what you're supposed to do. However, in my own life, I'm free to say whatever I like. That's the delightful contradiction of living in the USA. The man charged with protecting and defending that freedom protects and defends the very means of mocking him relentlessly.

What's great about that is this: you learn a lot about an individual by how they choose to use their freedom. So the OP shouldn't be supporting this adolescent ("but it's not fair!") prolonged whine -- he or she should use their discernment to sort out who does and does not agree with them about the President, and work to make the one group understand the other. That does not involved childish demands for an apology.

So, you are an Islamo-Fascist as well?
It seems that you are opposed to the liberating of a country. Interesting. I bet if you were around in the 1940's you would have said the same things about the Jews.

You Islamo-Fascists believe that in order to invade Iraq, we need to have France vote on it.

All of you Islmao-Fascists have been brainwashed. Period.

I'm reporting it, and I'm enjoying it.

So, you are an Islamo-Fascist as well?
It seems that you are opposed to the liberating of a country. Interesting. I bet if you were around in the 1940's you would have said the same things about the Jews. You have NO idea what went on with Sadam Hussein and his concentration camps. The Nazis treated the Jews a lot better.

So I take it you've been to both a camp in Iraq and eastern Europe between 1939 and 1945?

Wow. This part of your post is eight kinds of stupid. Anything you say after this is just cricket chirping background. Also, flaming is frowned upon here, so please stop it. If you have something to say about the argument, go ahead. Attacking and insulting the poster is bad ju-ju.

My name is George Dubya Bush.
You have Weapons of Mass Destructification.
Prepare to be democracified!

Nice one! :D

So, you are an Islamo-Fascist as well? <snip>
You Islamo-Fascists believe ... <snip> ... you're small ignorant un-educated head <snip> All of you Islmao-Fascists ...

This is flaming. Flaming is not allowed on this site. Check out The One-Stop Rules Shop link in my signature for a collection of the rules. There are penalties for breaking them.

It's flaming because it's addressed to the person posting, not to the argument they use in their post. I don't know what you mean by "Islamo-Fascist", but it's clear from the way you use it that you mean it as an insult.

It's not a forbidden term. You could use it in a discussion, if you do it by saying something like "these are Islamo-fascist arguments, because you say (this), which makes it Islamo, and (this), which makes it Fascist ...". You'd be expected to stick around in the thread to defend those statements, otherwise you might be accused of trolling, which is basically "make a provocative statement and run".

You're allowed to argue vigorously, but you're not allowed to insult vigorously. This is a friendly warning.

EDIT: You can also see that it leads others to flame as well. Cut it out, folks.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! were suppost to apppligize to bush because he knows how to read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! every president knewto read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bush got us in this hell hole where we are and were suppost to appoligize to him???????????????????? NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

What an intelligent and thoughtful response.

Um, 95 books is not many at all. While I haven't kept count, I think I've gone through about 30 since Christmas, possibly more. Approximating to 30 books every two months, that puts down a lower bound of 180 books in a year.

Were you also busy being president over 300 million + people during that time? No? OK then.

Complete nonsense. There has not been a credible threat of invasion to the United States since WWII at the very latest, and even that is only just arguable.

One could argue that a Communist invasion/attack was rather feared, especially during Castro's little side-show in Cuba, but that's an argument for another thread.

So I take it you've been to both a camp in Iraq and eastern Europe between 1939 and 1945?

One doesn't need to have read Mein Kampf to know that Hitler had a thing against the Jews. Second-hand "experience" in historical matters is generally considered valid. But I digress. Hussein had tortured his citizens, probably some political dissenters, but most likely Kurds; they weren't exactly buddy-buddy, if you know what I mean. I can't exactly see the Iraqis as in-love with Hussein, either.

Ah, look, I'm off-topic already. On-point: Yes, every president gets mud slung at him at some point. But Bush has gotten more than mud slung. What he's gotten is more than your average President gets; not to mention the flak he gets from ex-Presidents (which is generally considered a no-no). Carter doesn't get this crap, and his term wasn't exactly a Golden Age in American history (gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis, stagflation, etc.).

And the media has not been kind to Bush (do the names "Mary Mapes" and "Dan Rather" ring a bell?). His treatment from the media was far worse then what Clinton ever got (keeping in mind the media does far more to influence public opinion than anything else in this country), and in public debates, Bush's treatment has gotten to be downright visceral. So what Bush did doesn't seem all that great to you. Awesome. Does that mean you have to hate the guy as if he personally wronged you? Because that's what the article's talking about. Yes, there's a large tangent that everyone's focusing on concerning his reading habits, but the main point still stands: Bush has gotten a lot of crap in his tenure, some of it deserved, yes, but much of it is sheer hyperbole, at best (says the eternal optimist). At worst, it's a sign of the degredation of public integrity.

Ah, look, I'm off-topic already. On-point: Yes, every president gets mud slung at him at some point. But Bush has gotten more than mud slung. What he's gotten is more than your average President gets; not to mention the flak he gets from ex-Presidents (which is generally considered a no-no). Carter doesn't get this crap, and his term wasn't exactly a Golden Age in American history (gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis, stagflation, etc.).

And the media has not been kind to Bush (do the names "Mary Mapes" and "Dan Rather" ring a bell?). His treatment from the media was far worse then what Clinton ever got (keeping in mind the media does far more to influence public opinion than anything else in this country), and in public debates, Bush's treatment has gotten to be downright visceral. So what Bush did doesn't seem all that great to you. Awesome. Does that mean you have to hate the guy as if he personally wronged you? Because that's what the article's talking about. Yes, there's a large tangent that everyone's focusing on concerning his reading habits, but the main point still stands: Bush has gotten a lot of crap in his tenure, some of it deserved, yes, but much of it is sheer hyperbole, at best (says the eternal optimist). At worst, it's a sign of the degredation of public integrity.

Well, look at it this way : How many deaths has Bush directly been responsible for? How much misery has he directly caused for how many people? And what kind of a legacy has he left behind?
I think even you will appreciate that those numbers aren't going to endear him to anybody but the most hard-nosed sociopaths.

What an intelligent and thoughtful response.



Were you also busy being president over 300 million + people during that time? No? OK then.



One could argue that a Communist invasion/attack was rather feared, especially during Castro's little side-show in Cuba, but that's an argument for another thread.



One doesn't need to have read Mein Kampf to know that Hitler had a thing against the Jews. Second-hand "experience" in historical matters is generally considered valid. But I digress. Hussein had tortured his citizens, probably some political dissenters, but most likely Kurds; they weren't exactly buddy-buddy, if you know what I mean. I can't exactly see the Iraqis as in-love with Hussein, either.

Ah, look, I'm off-topic already. On-point: Yes, every president gets mud slung at him at some point. But Bush has gotten more than mud slung. What he's gotten is more than your average President gets; not to mention the flak he gets from ex-Presidents (which is generally considered a no-no). Carter doesn't get this crap, and his term wasn't exactly a Golden Age in American history (gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis, stagflation, etc.).

And the media has not been kind to Bush (do the names "Mary Mapes" and "Dan Rather" ring a bell?). His treatment from the media was far worse then what Clinton ever got (keeping in mind the media does far more to influence public opinion than anything else in this country), and in public debates, Bush's treatment has gotten to be downright visceral. So what Bush did doesn't seem all that great to you. Awesome. Does that mean you have to hate the guy as if he personally wronged you? Because that's what the article's talking about. Yes, there's a large tangent that everyone's focusing on concerning his reading habits, but the main point still stands: Bush has gotten a lot of crap in his tenure, some of it deserved, yes, but much of it is sheer hyperbole, at best (says the eternal optimist). At worst, it's a sign of the degredation of public integrity.

Clinton had consensual relations with that woman, and lied about it.

Bush had non-consensual sex with the American population, Iraq, and the Constitution... and lied about the reasons why we should cause the deaths of tens of thousands of foreigners.

Bush gets far worse media attention than Clinton did, because Bush is far more of a cockbite than Clinton was.

perhaps after Obama is out of office, and not running against Bush any more people will start to realize the skilled leader we had had the whole time.

I've heard this argument from right wingers before. The "one day, he won't be here for us, and you'll remember all the mean things you said about him and you'll be sorry!"

Not coincidentally, it's the same argument 6 year olds use when threatening to run away from home.

Okay, you're right. Bush did indeed lead with conviction. He thought "this is what is right" and did it.

Unfortunately, he lacked competence and ability. He based decisions off faulty intelligence, refused to listen to opposition, refused to compromise and work with others, and refused to change his position after committing himself.

I do not give a damn if my leader leads with conviction. I do not see uncompromising inflexibility as a virtue in a leader. They must be competent, and willing to recognise their own limitations and work with other to overcome them. Bush was none of these.

Time and time again throughout his presidency, he only listened to people who were saying what he wanted to hear. Bush had a goal, a mission, a crusade, and he carried it out. If anything got in the way, he dealt with it, including such trifles as the US constitution.

Bush and his administration were confident. So confident that they charged ahead blindly, fingers in their ears, ignoring any advice that didn't fit with their stated goals. They were completely incompetent, and have a persistent record of mismanagement and failure. Bush deserved nearly every one of the attacks he's been recieving, and much more besides.

Sometimes I wonder if this incompetence actually was incompetence, and not merely the appearance thereof. In other words, if Bush was very competent at fulfilling his core goals (delivering nearly complete power to the executive office, rewarding his friends and allies, legalizing torture and domestic spying, setting in motion legislation and plans that would have increasingly long-term effects, and stacking SCOTUS in favour of all this) and affected incompetence in other fields in order to become an object of ridicule and scorn, rather than one recognized as a threat to the US. We would call him incompetent and not realize that he was dangerous. Moreover, it was entirely possible his failure was engineered by someone in the US Government to ensure the election of, say, a charismatic Democratic politician who promised things would change, but then use a financial crisis and other challenges to quietly continue the restructuring of the US Government into (50-60 years down the line) an imperialistic police-state where every aspect of daily life is monitored, a token minority is rounded up into execution camps for horrendous medical experiments, journalists who disagree with the government simply "disappear", and the citizens still insist they are living in the freest democracy in the world because things have changed too slowly for them to know any different.


Or, y'know, not.

Were you also busy being president over 300 million + people during that time? No? OK then.

One could quite reasonably argue that Bush wasn't either, when one bears in mind the amount of holiday he took. But even so, it's completely irrelevant. I haven't been hating on Bush for not reading enough, I've been hating on Bush because practically everything he did as President has ended up a total wreck.


One could argue that a Communist invasion/attack was rather feared, especially during Castro's little side-show in Cuba, but that's an argument for another thread.


It's also completely irrelevant. I was talking about a credible threat of invasion, not a public fear of invasion. The public may have feared Cuban invasion, just like some people over here fear a wave of incoming Indians diluting our good British ways. Doesn't make it credible.

What an intelligent and thoughtful response.

Reading the logic of the article. The response was warranted.

Were you also busy being president over 300 million + people during that time? No? OK then.

With the amount of vacations he took; no problem. Never mind the fact they only gave a couple titles. The rest could have been fluff.

One could argue that a Communist invasion/attack was rather feared, especially during Castro's little side-show in Cuba, but that's an argument for another thread.

Hmmm a democrat took care of that and didn't devastate that country and put our country into financial chaos.

Ah, look, I'm off-topic already. On-point: Yes, every president gets mud slung at him at some point. But Bush has gotten more than mud slung. What he's gotten is more than your average President gets; not to mention the flak he gets from ex-Presidents (which is generally considered a no-no). Carter doesn't get this crap, and his term wasn't exactly a Golden Age in American history (gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis, stagflation, etc.).

:D Hmmmm looking at Bush and Carter. I think I would gladly trade the Carter era for the last 8 years.

Carter didn't have a large number of people thinking their children will have it worst them they did.

The shrub earned everything that has been thrown at him. He was the worst President we have ever had.

And the media has not been kind to Bush (do the names "Mary Mapes" and "Dan Rather" ring a bell?). His treatment from the media was far worse then what Clinton ever got (keeping in mind the media does far more to influence public opinion than anything else in this country), and in public debates, Bush's treatment has gotten to be downright visceral.

Maybe that was from the fact the Shrubs people had it out that to question the administration or it's actions marks you as a traitor.

The fault of the media is that they were cowed for 8 years.

So what Bush did doesn't seem all that great to you. Awesome. Does that mean you have to hate the guy as if he personally wronged you? Because that's what the article's talking about.

:D ahh the recycling of the hate defense. I will let a nice gal who was named Molly Ivins answer you.

It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

Yes, there's a large tangent that everyone's focusing on concerning his reading habits, but the main point still stands: Bush has gotten a lot of crap in his tenure, some of it deserved, yes, but much of it is sheer hyperbole, at best (says the eternal optimist). At worst, it's a sign of the degredation of public integrity.

Please. Ignore all that he has done because he read all those books!

Sorry the shrub earned most of what he received.

No man who is allowed to lead a nation this powerful deserves an apology...ever.

I would rather apologise to messrs Hitler,Mussolini,Franco,Stalin and Milosovic,at least they were honest enough to not wear the mask of a democratic leader when setting up a Concentration camp.

The point isn't to appologize to him to show you dont think what he did was his fault, the point is to appologize for how most of the American populace showed their dissapproval towards his policys. Things like insulting his intelligence, which he clearly does have, or calling him a drunk, something he clearly is not. I am sure very few people, including Bush, would take the same path if given a secound chance, and although that does not absolve him of guilt, it does mean the American people can act like funtioning, mature, adults, and when they disagree with someone, bring real arguments, and solutions, and be willing to compromise and be flexible. None of which has been displayed over the past years towards Bush.

Hmmm a democrat took care of that and didn't devastate that country and put our country into financial chaos.

I'm sorry, but re-read what I said: Communist, not Cuban, attack. In case you forgot, Soviet Russia was around then, as was Communist China, as well as the myriad other countries that were becoming Communist then. It wasn't much of a stretch to imagine the Soviets et al using Cuba as a staging platform for an eventual attack (unless you want to believe the missiles were for aesthetic purposes).

Is that to say it was credible? Not necessarily. But the threat was very real.

:D Hmmmm looking at Bush and Carter. I think I would gladly trade the Carter era for the last 8 years.

Carter didn't have a large number of people thinking their children will have it worst them they did.

Have your Carter; I'll still take Bush over him any day.

The shrub earned everything that has been thrown at him. He was the worst President we have ever had.

That's -highly- debatable. CIP: the fact that we experienced a huge economic boom before this bust (which, by the way, happens all the damn time). Also, Alan Greenspan, who has more brains than all of NSG combined, said he never saw this bust happening. It's pretty safe to say that whoever would president from 04-08 would be presiding over what we're seeing now.

Maybe that was from the fact the Shrubs people had it out that to question the administration or it's actions marks you as a traitor.

The fault of the media is that they were cowed for 8 years.

Ahh, the recycling of the old "Der Feind hort mit"-style defense. The government's listening, making sure we're good little obedient citizens...

I'll agree with the "cowed" comment, but only if today's opposite day.

Please. Ignore all that he has done because he read all those books!

Sorry the shrub earned most of what he received.

I never said to ignore what he's done because he's well-read. The article uses that to illustrate that he's not some doofus with the IQ of a 5-year old, like lots of people would like to believe (coloring books? seriously?).

And I said he's earned quite a bit of it, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that all the extreme hatred and and contempt for GWB is over-the-top.

I would rather apologise to messrs Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin and Milosovic, at least they were honest enough to not wear the mask of a democratic leader when setting up a Concentration camp.

Go ahead and apologize, I suppose. I can't, I have to report to my local "Shrubya's Concentration Camp" for the daily screening.

:rolleyes:

I find it hilarious that someone is getting ripped into rather heavily for suggesting that maybe George W. Bush wasn't a complete monster.

Did he deserve all the contempt he received? Who cares? He received it, it's over, he can go back to raising tomatoes on his Texas ranch or whatever ex-Presidents do while they're writing their memoirs. Why focus on the past?

I find it hilarious that someone is getting ripped into rather heavily for suggesting that maybe George W. Bush wasn't a complete monster.

Did he deserve all the contempt he received? Who cares? He received it, it's over, he can go back to raising tomatoes on his Texas ranch or whatever ex-Presidents do while they're writing their memoirs. Why focus on the past?

Bush can WRITE? Quick, let's call the Pope! Bush needs to be CANONIZED!

Bush can WRITE? Quick, let's call the Pope! Bush needs to be CANONIZED!
dont be ridiculous.

he can write his NAME but he cant write a book. he'll have a ghost writer.

dont be ridiculous.

he can write his NAME but he cant write a book. he'll have a ghost writer.

So, his ghostwr...

Wait a second...

I'm a TRANSLATOR.

I can read AND write in TWO languages, fluently!

BOW BEFORE YOUR NEW GOD!!!

So, his ghostwr...

Wait a second...

I'm a TRANSLATOR.

I can read AND write in TWO languages, fluently!

BOW BEFORE YOUR NEW GOD!!!
lol

so as long as he doesnt let someone else read it first he wont know that you have subtly protrayed him as a complete fool.

The point isn't to appologize to him to show you dont think what he did was his fault, the point is to appologize for how most of the American populace showed their dissapproval towards his policys. Things like insulting his intelligence, which he clearly does have, or calling him a drunk, something he clearly is not. I am sure very few people, including Bush, would take the same path if given a secound chance, and although that does not absolve him of guilt, it does mean the American people can act like funtioning, mature, adults, and when they disagree with someone, bring real arguments, and solutions, and be willing to compromise and be flexible. None of which has been displayed over the past years towards Bush.

Well, they voted him into office twice, so clearly they are not mature nor functioning.

Bush never brought real arguments to back up his policies. All he brought were lies. Like when he was accused of saying that Osama Bin Laden didn't matter. Did he care to explain himself? No. He said it never happened when he was on tape saying it.

He told everyone that Saddam Hussein tried to buy yellow cake from Niger, even though he knew it wasn't true and spent weeks touting his whole "smoking gun...mushroom cloud," line. Total nonsense.

You can't bring real arguments to a discussion that is a complete lie.

There's nothing to discuss. Was there ever a worse president? No. Therefore, Bush was the worst American President ever.

Was there ever a worse president? No.

I'm sure someone will dispute this, but I'm too tired to remember which of all the other forty-two currently claim the title.

If I remember correctly, Evangelical Christians are the only demographic group which still overwhelmingly believes Bush did a great job.

Which actually surprises me. I'm really not sure why they've remained loyal to him.

I actually still have strong ties to a local Evangelical community up here in the Northwest. Bush gets no love from them.

I'm just sayin'.

I'm sure someone will dispute this, but I'm too tired to remember which of all the other forty-two currently claim the title.

James Buchanan, I think?

http://www.darrelplant.com/images/bush_middle_finger.jpg


I think he's already told them what he thinks....

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv204/Backer101/bushgtfo.jpg?t=1234657596

Anyway, no apologies necessary. He got everything he deserved.

That being said, I think it's about time to start crackin' wise about some new political tools, rather than the obsolete and now invisible Shrub. The Left (tm) should collectively move on to bigger and better targets.

I'm sure someone will dispute this, but I'm too tired to remember which of all the other forty-two currently claim the title.

Before they answer "Carter or Clinton was the worst!"

There's nothing to discuss. Was there ever a worse president? No. Therefore, Bush was the worst American President ever.

Well, Jackson orchestrated a genocide, Van Buren carried a genocide out, and Reagan was complicit in a genocide so I'd argue that there were three Presidents worse than Bush.

Well, Jackson orchestrated a genocide, Van Buren carried a genocide out, and Reagan was complicit in a genocide so I'd argue that there were three Presidents worse than Bush.

So how many dead Iraqis are needed to match the other three?

Discuss.Sure, i have a very, very special apology just for him.
It'll just be the two of us, alone, sharing a very special moment.

He got everything he deserved.
And less.

So how many dead Iraqis are needed to match the other three?

Unless Bush was targeting Iraqis for the express purpose of exterminating Iraqis, the situations are simply incomparable. A valid comparison would be civilian deaths in imperialistic wars, and Bush is beaten there by most every Cold War president.

Also, Alan Greenspan, who has more brains than all of NSG combined, said he never saw this bust happening.

I'd say it might be worth your while searching the archives of NS. Not just because we've had some truly brilliant posters in our history, but because some of us were 'seeing this bust coming' before the 2004 elections.

Apparently, Alan Greenspan isn't quite the messianic intellect you seem to believe.

I'd say it might be worth your while searching the archives of NS. Not just because we've had some truly brilliant posters in our history, but because some of us were 'seeing this bust coming' before the 2004 elections.

Apparently, Alan Greenspan isn't quite the messianic intellect you seem to believe.
greenspan must have meant the specific bust that has happened. "bust" has been predicted for at least the last 20 years. the surprise is that it took so long to happen.

greenspan must have meant the specific bust that has happened. "bust" has been predicted for at least the last 20 years. the surprise is that it took so long to happen.

It's a boom/bust cycle - you have to hope Greenspan had some idea that the boom HAD to be followed by some kind of bust. But various NSG'ers have been talking about problems in our inflated currency, the prolonged housing bubble, predatory lending... even the effects of the pressure applies to fuel markets, etc. If Greenspan and his hiredguns, can't even reach the same conclusions as the motley assembly of NSG (or CAN - but apparently, only after it happens) it doesn't speak well for him.

It's a boom/bust cycle - you have to hope Greenspan had some idea that the boom HAD to be followed by some kind of bust. But various NSG'ers have been talking about problems in our inflated currency, the prolonged housing bubble, predatory lending... even the effects of the pressure applies to fuel markets, etc. If Greenspan and his hiredguns, can't even reach the same conclusions as the motley assembly of NSG (or CAN - but apparently, only after it happens) it doesn't speak well for him.
sure doesnt.

i was alarmed when greenspan said that it had never occurred to him that if we made it legal for bankers to engage in unwise business practices that they would do things that they knew were good for themselves but bad for the long term stability of their banks and their country.

as if bankers are better people than the rest of us.

sure doesnt.

i was alarmed when greenspan said that it had never occurred to him that if we made it legal for bankers to engage in unwise business practices that they would do things that they knew were good for themselves but bad for the long term stability of their banks and their country.

as if bankers are better people than the rest of us.

You have to wonder what kind of bubble he grew up in that he'd apparently never even encountered the maxim about 'absolute power' and what it does.

There might be a Soviet reversal in there somewhere, but I'm damned if I can find it.

Apologise? To Bush?

You Merkins have chosen some really bad presidents before...Regan was a laughing stock, just to name one...but Bush? Bush made the rest of the world start wondering if the US was really ready for democracy. We actually got together in a living room, drinking absinthe and smoking Cuban cigars, and discussed whether or not Merkins were actually mature enough to choose their own leadership. We posited various solutions, such as taking over and installing an interim government while setting up programs that would educate US citizens on the importance of being politically active in a democracy...we considered just bombing you back to the middle ages and splitting up the radioactive remnants amongst us. Some argued that you could never really create a system that works if you didn't have ownership of it...but we gave those ones wedgies and denied them the baked brie.

So don't apologise to Bush...sweep him under the rug. You were THIS close to becoming a Protectorate of Qatar.

Apologise? To Bush?

You Merkins have chosen some really bad presidents before...Regan was a laughing stock, just to name one...but Bush? Bush made the rest of the world start wondering if the US was really ready for democracy. We actually got together in a living room, drinking absinthe and smoking Cuban cigars, and discussed whether or not Merkins were actually mature enough to choose their own leadership. We posited various solutions, such as taking over and installing an interim government while setting up programs that would educate US citizens on the importance of being politically active in a democracy...we considered just bombing you back to the middle ages and splitting up the radioactive remnants amongst us. Some argued that you could never really create a system that works if you didn't have ownership of it...but we gave those ones wedgies and denied them the baked brie.

So don't apologise to Bush...sweep him under the rug. You were THIS close to becoming a Protectorate of Qatar.
lol

we'd love to pretend that bush never happened but everywhere the new administration walks, they step on shit he left behind. they would like to just scrape it off the bottom of their shoes but there is so damned much that they are probably going to have to bring in the courts to do some industrial strength cleaning up.

Were you also busy being president over 300 million + people during that time? No? OK then.

Neither was Bush. Not "busy", at any rate.

One could argue that a Communist invasion/attack was rather feared, especially during Castro's little side-show in Cuba, but that's an argument for another thread.

Yet you keep making them here. It seems you "digress" on purpose in order to do such a good job of not really addressing the posts you quote.

One doesn't need to have read Mein Kampf to know that Hitler had a thing against the Jews. Second-hand "experience" in historical matters is generally considered valid. But I digress. Hussein had tortured his citizens, probably some political dissenters, but most likely Kurds; they weren't exactly buddy-buddy, if you know what I mean. I can't exactly see the Iraqis as in-love with Hussein, either.

Here's an example. No actual attempt to defend the comparison to Hitler. You sound like Bush Sr., who made the same comparison, despite being a good friend of Hussein while Iraq was messing around with Iran.

Ah, look, I'm off-topic already.

This seems par for the course.

On-point: Yes, every president gets mud slung at him at some point. But Bush has gotten more than mud slung. What he's gotten is more than your average President gets; not to mention the flak he gets from ex-Presidents (which is generally considered a no-no). Carter doesn't get this crap, and his term wasn't exactly a Golden Age in American history (gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis, stagflation, etc.).

Carter doesn't get his crap? Okay, I've solved this problem. You either don't live in a region that is conservative enough or you don't listen to or watch conservative pundits. When I was in North Dakota, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hearing some completely hyperbolic castigation of anyone who ever even THOUGHT about being a Democrat, no matter how well that president did.

And the media has not been kind to Bush (do the names "Mary Mapes" and "Dan Rather" ring a bell?). His treatment from the media was far worse then what Clinton ever got (keeping in mind the media does far more to influence public opinion than anything else in this country), and in public debates, Bush's treatment has gotten to be downright visceral. So what Bush did doesn't seem all that great to you. Awesome. Does that mean you have to hate the guy as if he personally wronged you? Because that's what the article's talking about. Yes, there's a large tangent that everyone's focusing on concerning his reading habits, but the main point still stands: Bush has gotten a lot of crap in his tenure, some of it deserved, yes, but much of it is sheer hyperbole, at best (says the eternal optimist). At worst, it's a sign of the degredation of public integrity.

Wow. Swing and a miss on a grand scale. You just go ahead and keep your filters on and seeing what you want to see. The rest of us are going to continue viewing reality. Clinton was pilloried as badly as Bush Jr. for an offense with a fraction of the national implication as Bush's. I'm sorry you are such a partisan flack that you can't see it, but there's no way in hell I'll let your inane statements go unchallenged.

I find it hilarious that someone is getting ripped into rather heavily for suggesting that maybe George W. Bush wasn't a complete monster.

That's not what the OP is saying. The OP is arguing that "the media" and everyone else must apologize to Bush. That's bullshit, period. That article was so thoroughly deserving of the ripping apart it got, that even you cannot be bothered to defend it yourself. No one can, not seriously, except the OP - hence the treatment his statements are getting.

Did he deserve all the contempt he received? Who cares? He received it, it's over, he can go back to raising tomatoes on his Texas ranch or whatever ex-Presidents do while they're writing their memoirs. Why focus on the past?

And this, the polar opposite it would seem, is also a nonsensical sentiment. "It's past, forget about it" is a scary little mantra. Do you honestly try to forget the past? Even if the past is just a few months back?

I don't, because I dunno about your hard drive, but mine has plenty of space for basic things like, uh, the last 8 years of US history.

St. Clair--

The OP isn't getting ripped, his uninformed statements are. Difference.

Not sure what to think of that article. I don't agree with the "liberal media" bit; not that I think much of ideology labels like "liberal" and "conservative" anyway, but IIRC even among conservatives there was doubt about things like his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants, or his focus on education, or even his big-government high-spending approach in general. Besides, I think the media's real bias wouldn't be so much towards ideology as towards higher ratings, and it makes sense that it would be profitable to focus on things that make him look dumb. To assume this is about a bias against him personally just sounds like some kind of persecution complex.

That said, I guess it can be refreshing to see popular notions about someone as widely hated as him challenged. Remember, this was the same guy who was re-elected in 2004 after 4 years of him in office, and yet despite that, either ridiculing or hating him seems somewhat popular, almost as though they'd be thought of as "cool" things to do. Of course, how bad the US has messed up after his time in office would have more to do with that kind of unpopularity of him in the first place, but even then, it's worth considering that it isn't solely his fault. There's other members of his administration, there's other members of different levels of government, whether Republican or Democratic, and aside from other people, there's the circumstances of when he happened to be going in, such as the terrorist attack... which, granted, he and/or other members of his administration decided to use to justify the Iraq War; but still, how do we know another leader at the helm wouldn't have done the same?

I don't feel like I owe him any particular aplogy though. o.o