November 5, 2008 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm #588538
No, I’m not referring to the massive debt that he piled onto this country, or the terrible economic crises (plural – there were 8 years of them) that he brought about in his stint as CIC. I’m just going to refer to the macro “plan” that our esteemed lame duck brought to fruition:
He sent a man named Osama into permanent hiding.
His nation now has an Obama to worry about instead (though on a certain ballot, the name was indeed printed ‘Osama’ LOL!)
He avenged his father’s honor by bringing down President Hussain.
His nation responded by electing a new President Hussain.
Personally, I prefer the old Hussain Osama because they were at least not in charge of THIS country. Now, they are.
Thanks W. May you rot in piece.November 5, 2008 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm #1115317
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
According to recent Gallup polls, the president’s average approval rating is below 30% — down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, “Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.”
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
The president’s original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, “We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.”
To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman’s low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman’s presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years — and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry’s legal team during the presidential election in 2004.November 5, 2008 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #1115318
Sorry, but describing him as a man with his finger in the wind doesn’t excuse his folly. In fact, it compounds it.November 5, 2008 3:51 pm at 3:51 pm #1115319
im sorry but Pres. Bush was a failer. He made a war in Iraq for nothing. He did not catch bin laden. And he was not conserative enough. He spent (wasted) Trillions of $. Stop defending this loser who GOT US INTO THIS MESS. if not for him, we would not have obama as pres. or even a canadate like mccain who nooone wanted untill obama became a threat. stop speaking shtussim! you people are like sheep. u listen to rush and sean for endless hours an buy into thier egoistic nonscence. SHAME ON YOU.November 5, 2008 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #1115320illini07Member
I don’t know how much of this mess could have been avoided had we elected McCain (the REAL McCain) back in 2004. For shame.November 5, 2008 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #1115321
JOSEPH YOU ARE SO HOPELESSY WRONG on this issue remeber Bush is just a gentile not a saint he uses nivel peh tooNovember 5, 2008 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #1115322Mayan_DvashParticipant
So, is this the “Kool-Aid” talking? Were you all closet Bush haters? I see the liberal talking points of the last 8 years being regurgitated in this page.
squeak and sammyjoe: the economic crisis started after congress went to the Dems. Osama is a Clinton failure. Saddam was attacked for violation of 17 UN resolutions, not for revenge.November 5, 2008 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #1115323
Mayan, you are the one who is parroting talking points. Sorry, but blaming Osama on Clinton is ridiculous. Sure, Clinton might have given up a chance to get him, but it’s not like that was his agenda. W made it his agenda and still couldn’t get him. SO basically you are saying that Clinton could have saved W but didn’t, and therefore it’s his fault. Stupid, especially when you consider that no one thought of Osama then as we do now.
I’m not going to speak patronizingly about your knowledge of the economic crisis, but suffice it to say that your line is just a convenient little blame game that your rabbeim (Rush and Sean, whom I used to listen to, so I know what they say) managed to make up to avoid putting the blame where it belongs. If you want to debate the economic crisis, I’m willing. Make it in another thread though, and make sure to bring your sources.
This thread was intended to show how W’s failure brought to this country the potential for the calamities that he “worked so hard” to get rid of for other countries. Thanks, Dubbyah. At least YOU profited from all this.
Please check the hechsher on your koolaid.November 5, 2008 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #1115324
Mayan is correct- stop gloating about the election and go back to your socialist president-elect…who hasnt shown us his birth-certificate yet which I want to see before January….
barak Osama- wasnt bush’s fault that he was elected. It is the serious illness of stupidity of America! Refuah Shelaima to America.
WE HAVE NOT HAD A TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICA SINCE 9/11! Could you have thought that possible on 9/12/2001? He has prevented it from happening!!!!November 5, 2008 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #1115325Mayan_DvashParticipant
Clinton had osama handed to him by the Sudanese on a platter but didn’t take it. This was AFTER the ’93 bombing and after the USS Cole incident. About the economic situation, where do you put the blame and why? I blame the congress because they’re the ones who compose/author bills that directly affect the economy. The timeline shows that things went downhill after the 06 congress came in to power. A congress made up of a majority of democrats, some pseudo-republicans and a few real republicans.
I don’t need any talkshow host telling me how to think. (How’s you NPR and Air America doing?) My brain is in active mode, not passive.
I don’t drink koolaid, too much sugar. 🙂November 5, 2008 6:51 pm at 6:51 pm #1115326
The economic crisis, essentially the failure of the mortgage market, is a DIRECT result of the Clinton policies forcing banks to provide mortgages to unqualified minorities who clearly were likely to default. The rest is a deck of cards that tumbled down.
Clinton allowed multiple terrorist attacks on America (World Trade Center I, Embassy bombings, USS Cole) go UNRESPONDED to, except for a single bomb on a drug factory to distract from his Monica situation. This gave the terrorists the go-ahead to keep attacking America, leading up to 9/11, a mere 7 months after Clinton left office.
President Bush, like someone pointed out above, has prevented a second terrorist attack on the U.S. after 9/11. That is a major achievement. Anyone who does not suffer from insomnia will recall that after 9/11, all the terrorism experts said it was only a matter of time before the terrorists strike again. They said they would strike harder than 9/11, and they would strike soon. None of that occurred.
Thank You Mr. President!November 5, 2008 7:27 pm at 7:27 pm #1115327
It’s not the sugar that kills you…..November 5, 2008 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm #1115328
Nah, Joseph. If you are giving Bush credit for preventing the second attack, then let me add my spin to your spin: Clinton prevented the first terrorist attack, and Bush failed to do so. Bush did prevent a second terrorist attack, though.
Why do all the Bush lovers feel the need to bash Clinton? I am not a Clinton lover, but I can knock Bush without brining anyone else up, and I can defend Reagan without comparing him to, say, Carter. BUSH IS STILL BAD EVEN IF CLINTON IS TOO!
It’s also amazing how since there is no unified agreement yet amongst economists as to what caused the financial crises, everyone chooses to follow the economist/pundit whose sayings fit his/her political agenda. I wouldn’t take any financial advice from you, Joseph – why would you give me your opinion on the cause of the crisis? If you knew a little bit more, you wouldn’t talk so.November 5, 2008 8:32 pm at 8:32 pm #1115329Give Me a BreakMember
Bush should go down in the annals of history as a president who did everything wrong – right.November 5, 2008 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #1115330
Clinton had THREE terrorist attacks on his direct watch. I mentioned them above. 9/11 was his fourth. The terrorists were planning 9/11 for YEARS. They planned it under Clinton’s watch, and implemented shortly after he left office, prior to any successor being in office long enough to reverse the lack of security and intelligence Clinton left us with after YEARS of neglect.
What exactly did Slick Willie do after the WTC bombing in ’93? Prosecute a couple of low-level terrorists, and ignore the leadership in Al Queda.
What exactly did Slick Willie do after the Embassy Bombings in ’98? Bomb a drug factory in Afghanistan in midst of his Monica “crisis.”
What exactly did Slick Willie do after the USS Cole bombing in ’00? NOTHING. He gave the terrorists the get-go for further attacks, meaning 9/11, giving them the idea that the U.S. was a weakling and let terrorists get away with bloody murder against Americans.
After President Bush ably and heroically led the nation through 9/11, he prevented a SINGLE terrorist attack from reoccurring in the U.S.
Aside from being the best friend Jews possibly ever had in the Oval Office, history will record President Bush as one of America’s great Presidents. He earned his place on Mount Rushmore. If you doubt this, read the what the author I quoted above said about President Truman and his dismal “approval ratings” when he left office.November 5, 2008 9:09 pm at 9:09 pm #1115332
Why do you say clinton stopped the first attack? Where is your proof for that?? He destroyed the military and didnt take care of osama when he had the chance to do so.
Since Clinton was the cause of Bush’s issues then Bush is not to blame!!! CLINTON caused many of the issues we are facing but the liberals want to blame Bush because he is an easy scapegoat for those who do not think! Just because it happened during their term does not mean it is their fault (at least in this case when you can see the precursors to the events…sometimes it may be). Clinton allowed the subprime mortgages and PROMOTED that everyone should own a house without a down payment or any proof that they can afford one. He LIKED what fannie and freddie were doing.November 5, 2008 9:27 pm at 9:27 pm #1115333
What is the proof that Bush stopped any future attacks? Because they didn’t happen. Therefore, that proves that Clinton (and all the prior presidents as well) managed to prevent the first attack.
To Joseph: We’re talking about attacks on US soil. US boats and embassies are quite different and have certainly been attacked in the last 8 years!
Blame the previous administration for your problems is an age old tactic. And try to remember how much you are doing that now and for the last 8 years. Because I GUARANTEE you that you will be seeing the Dems use that tactic for the next 4 (or more!) years. And I don’t want to hear you guys whining about it when they do.
‘Nuff said.November 5, 2008 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm #1115334
Really? Please get your facts straight before commenting.
1. For the third time, Clinton had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil (World Trade Center ’93) AND U.S. Military installations. (And for the record, under international law, US. embassies are considered extraterritorial and treated as being part of U.S. territory.)
2. There have been NO fatal attacks against the U.S., its military ships, or embassies resulting in the loss of U.S. citizens “in the last 8 years”, as you put it.
Thank You Mr. Bush!November 5, 2008 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm #1115335GILAMember
i love the way all you ppl talk you think you know wat your saying you dontNovember 5, 2008 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #1115336
joseph you are wrong wrong wrong bush is a loser PROOF: if he did such a great job,then why did everone vote against him in thi election by voteing for obama? NO THANKS MR BUSH! GO BE PRESIDENT OF IRAQNovember 5, 2008 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #1115337
joseph: stop defending him like a fabrente neocomNovember 5, 2008 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm #1115338
Timothy McVeigh too, right? Keep digging.November 5, 2008 10:19 pm at 10:19 pm #1115340
squeak, good attempt at avoidance, but McVeigh was the home-brew variety while the World Trade Center bombing was foreign terrorism under Clinton.November 5, 2008 11:37 pm at 11:37 pm #1115341
By voting for Obama, it doesnt mean that they were voting against Bush. Bush and McCain are two different people (unlike some people’s logons on YW). They disagree on many policies and McCain tried to seperate himself from Bush to show that they are not one and the same. You are so blind and deaf- time for hearing aids and glasses!!
Too bad they dont have brain-aids for when people cannot think for themselves….quite a few here need it…November 6, 2008 2:23 am at 2:23 am #1115342Chuck SchwabParticipant
It will be a very long time before we see such an Ohaiv Yisroel, as W, in the White House again. He will be missed as soon as he retires.
If you thought Carter was bad, tighten your seatbelts with Hussein.November 6, 2008 4:08 am at 4:08 am #1115343bugnotParticipant
we all owe him hacaros hatov and now that osama will be pres maybe we will appreciate him moreNovember 6, 2008 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm #1115344
Do all the Beirut (and Cyprus) embassy bombings under Reagan count?April 19, 2009 2:08 pm at 2:08 pm #1115346aussieboyParticipant
Joseph: There was no attack on American soil until 5 years into Bush’s presidency either (Actually it was the first time America was attacked in a very long time.) It has only been 4 months into Obama’s presidency.April 19, 2009 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #1115347moish01Member
joseph, no one ever said obama was an angel. we still have to wait and see. we just had a little bit of hope with him, that’s all. so far so good, but who knows?April 20, 2009 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #1115349mepalMember
Joseph: aussie must’ve been mixing up Bush Jr. with Bush Sr. Either way, I still dont get 5. Oh well!December 8, 2015 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #1115350
Randomly looking at this thread, still not seeing the connection between terrorism and insomnia.December 9, 2015 2:27 pm at 2:27 pm #1115351HashemisreadingParticipant
I got insomnia from all the terrorism.December 9, 2015 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm #1115352
Anyone who does not suffer from insomnia will recall that after 9/11, all the terrorism experts said it was only a matter of time before the terrorists strike again. They said they would strike harder than 9/11, and they would strike soon. None of that occurred.December 9, 2015 7:54 pm at 7:54 pm #1115353
RY23: Thank W for that fact.
Now with the new guy in office, he nurtured the Islamic State when he didn’t nip it in the bud, when he refused to intervene in Syria and he surrendered Iraq to these terrorists. The end result is that he now brought their activities to California with the biggest terrorist strike on the American homeland since 9/11.December 9, 2015 8:15 pm at 8:15 pm #1115354
I was quoting this post:
I apologize for not making that clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.