The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency

[HAL 9000 96]

Every time, I want to beat Bush up for the things I disliked about his 8 years in office...

I consider the alternatives we were presented with.

Yeah I know. No war in Iraq, better domestic economics...

MAybe you were asleep at the time but both of these guys either votes or spoke in lock-step with Bush about the need to deal with WMD's.

This is what is so sad about the Left-wing, in America. They actually believe the history revisionist.

The economy is a little more complicated to encapsulate blame in a two minute video but here.....

Lets listen to the very Mouth you guys are defending.... listen to HIS words as he Blames Bush for doing NOthing about Sadam.

Spin it all you like boys but your words ring hollow to any fair minded person.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Interesting definition of the revisionist concept. Usually, that applies to historical analysis of the past using values from the present but with an understanding of circumstance before condemnation of said events. Which means that revisionism has little to do with any branch of political ideology unless its applied much in the same bias you treat what little actual and contextual information you've allowed to reach your prefrontal cortex.

And Happy New Year. Hopefully 2009 will come with improved critical thinking skills for you.

[Danno 1,228]

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Welll... I am HAL 9000... I can email you the entire compendium of texts if you wish directly from my offsite server.

The expiated versions no less.

Thanks HAL...but that won't be necessary because I've given up on reading about history. Every bit of it is #######. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that I will learn more by not reading anything at all. And don't bother to check with mawilson. I already know that he feels the same way that I do...if one book is #######, then they're all #######. .But, thanks anyway for the offer.

Let me guess;

You teach at a collage somewhere???

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Welll... I am HAL 9000... I can email you the entire compendium of texts if you wish directly from my offsite server.

The expiated versions no less.

Thanks HAL...but that won't be necessary because I've given up on reading about history. Every bit of it is #######. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that I will learn more by not reading anything at all. And don't bother to check with mawilson. I already know that he feels the same way that I do...if one book is #######, then they're all #######. .But, thanks anyway for the offer.

You can always take YouTube clips as that which can tell you what you want to hear.

[HAL 9000 96]

Let me guess;

You teach at a collage somewhere???

Ummm...

A collage:

[Tahoma 2,292]

Every time, I want to beat Bush up for the things I disliked about his 8 years in office...

I consider the alternatives we were presented with.

Yeah I know. No war in Iraq, better domestic economics...

MAybe you were asleep at the time but both of these guys either votes or spoke in lock-step with Bush about the need to deal with WMD's.

This is what is so sad about the Left-wing, in America. They actually believe the history revisionist.

The economy is a little more complicated to encapsulate blame in a two minute video but here.....

Lets listen to the very Mouth you guys are defending.... listen to HIS words as he Blames Bush for doing NOthing about Sadam.

Spin it all you like boys but your words ring hollow to any fair minded person.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Danno...wake up...I promise that I will make this very simple for you...

> You are entitled to your own opinion...but not to your own facts.

> History is about "what happened". Revisionist history is the attempt to change the facts.

> Highly edited / out-of-context / chronologically-challenged videos are an insult to any critical thinker.

> Before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq, the weapons inspectors never found any type of WMD in Iraq.

> The Bush administration knew that the weapons inspectors did not find even a trace of WMD.

> The Bush administration abandoned diplomacy by continuing to set the inspections bar higher and higher.

> The Bush administration cooked the intelligence about Iraq in order to go to war.

> Democrats, Republicans, the American people, and the world were fed the same lies.

> People on both sides of the aisle were duped by the lies.

> The Bush Administration continued to publicly assert "proof" long after it had been thoroughly discredited.

> There was no yellow cake uranium.

> There were no reactor tubes.

> There was no terrorist connection.

> There were no nuclear, biological, nor chemical weapons.

> There was no sign of any capability to manufacture nuclear, biological, nor chemical weapons.

> Currently, President Bush has changed his story on whether he would have attacked Iraq if he had "known" then that they did not have WMD's.

Danno...I truly believe that you believe in what you are saying. However, you simply must expand your reading list. If your only source of information is right-wing revisionist propaganda, that is all you will ever know. Don't you think it is possible that there could be any more to a story than what you see on Fox News...or hear from Rush Limbaugh? I pay attention to these sources too, but I also pay attention to voices from across the political spectrum. It helps to put issues into perspective and to give them some context. It is intellectually dishonest to latch onto an ideology, and then go out and look for "facts" which appear to support that ideology. Fair-minded people listen to all sides of the story.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Every time, I want to beat Bush up for the things I disliked about his 8 years in office...

I consider the alternatives we were presented with.

Yeah I know. No war in Iraq, better domestic economics...

MAybe you were asleep at the time but both of these guys either votes or spoke in lock-step with Bush about the need to deal with WMD's.

This is what is so sad about the Left-wing, in America. They actually believe the history revisionist.

The economy is a little more complicated to encapsulate blame in a two minute video but here.....

Lets listen to the very Mouth you guys are defending.... listen to HIS words as he Blames Bush for doing NOthing about Sadam.

Spin it all you like boys but your words ring hollow to any fair minded person.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Interesting definition of the revisionist concept. Usually, that applies to historical analysis of the past using values from the present but with an understanding of circumstance before condemnation of said events. Which means that revisionism has little to do with any branch of political ideology unless its applied much in the same bias you treat what little actual and contextual information you've allowed to reach your prefrontal cortex.

And Happy New Year. Hopefully 2009 will come with improved critical thinking skills for you.

HAL...great analysis of his "argument", "facts" and "fair-mindedness". I suggested to him that he expand his reading list too. Maybe he would like you to email him some good books from your HAL 9000 archives. Just think...his choice of books would be limitless!

[Tahoma 2,292]

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Welll... I am HAL 9000... I can email you the entire compendium of texts if you wish directly from my offsite server.

The expiated versions no less.

Thanks HAL...but that won't be necessary because I've given up on reading about history. Every bit of it is #######. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that I will learn more by not reading anything at all. And don't bother to check with mawilson. I already know that he feels the same way that I do...if one book is #######, then they're all #######. .But, thanks anyway for the offer.

Let me guess;

You teach at a collage somewhere???

Sorry. Wrong.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Welll... I am HAL 9000... I can email you the entire compendium of texts if you wish directly from my offsite server.

The expiated versions no less.

Thanks HAL...but that won't be necessary because I've given up on reading about history. Every bit of it is #######. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that I will learn more by not reading anything at all. And don't bother to check with mawilson. I already know that he feels the same way that I do...if one book is #######, then they're all #######. .But, thanks anyway for the offer.

You can always take YouTube clips as that which can tell you what you want to hear.

That's right...an ideologue in search of "facts". Thanks for the chuckle.

[Danno 1,228]

My friend, the words of the Democrats are clear enough evidence ... what more could I add?

"We All" took this country to war. (with very few exceptions).

Of course Bush as the President is where the Blame or credit mainly rests.

As for your assumption about my reading or listening habits...

I wake up to NPR every morning. (not an easy task, I promise you)

I rarely get to listen to Rush

I never get to listen to fox.

My book list seldom relates to contemporary politics.

Right now I am reading; THE WHISPERS: Private life in Stalins Russia.

Debate my points.

Your assumptions of me are probably not much better than mine would be of you.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Danno

[Danno 1,228]

Let me guess;

You teach at a collage somewhere???

Ummm...

A collage:

One Hundred points for Hal 9000

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But bush is to blame. He holds the job with the ultimate responsibility and while he can't control nature or the fates, he can surely control how the country bounces back from them.

So again. Will he leave the country in as good or better a position than he found it?

Survey says no.

[Tahoma 2,292]

My friend, the words of the Democrats are clear enough evidence ... what more could I add?

"We All" took this country to war. (with very few exceptions).

Of course Bush as the President is where the Blame or credit mainly rests.

As for your assumption about my reading or listening habits...

I wake up to NPR every morning. (not an easy task, I promise you)

I rarely get to listen to Rush

I never get to listen to fox.

My book list seldom relates to contemporary politics.

Right now I am reading; THE WHISPERS: Private life in Stalins Russia.

Debate my points.

Your assumptions of me are probably not much better than mine would be of you.

Danno...

Debate your points? What points? What evidence? All you have done is post an unintelligible YouTube video. You didn't even bother to address any of my points. I welcome a discussion about the invasion of Iraq, but you will have to help me out here.

And I see that you are on a first-name basis with Mr. Limbaugh. No surprise there.

On a side note...the book you are reading sounds interesting. My roots on my father's side are Germans from Russia. Most of them migrated to North Dakota before Stalin...but many of them remained and were subjected to starvation, oppression, collectivism, gulags, and death. The entire saga of the Germans from Russia makes for fascinating reading. Enjoy your book...and Happy New Year...the debate continues...

[HAL 9000 96]

Morning NPR comes in the Liberal flavor of considering all points of view when presenting the news. I wonder why the national show is called 'All Things Considered.' As in, more than one dogma presented FOX News-style.

Their local news and bits are outstanding too.

[Danno 1,228]

Not sure about your NPR programing, but I can assure you, mine (at least in the morning) is far from "all things considered".

It's more like an intellectualized cheer leading segment for Obama.

The other constant topic is "black related issue".

My wife begs me to "shut it off" every morning (no kidding) but... since I am THE MAN of the house

I leave it on and take it "like a man".

Edited January 1, 2009 by Danno

[HAL 9000 96]

Not sure about your NPR programing, but I can assure you, mine (at least in the morning) is far from "all things considered".

It's more like an intellectualized cheer leading segment for Obama.

The other constant topic is "black related issue".

My wife begs me to "shut it off" every morning (no kidding) but... since I am THE MAN of the house

I leave it on and take it "like a man".

What's your local station site? City, State is fine. NPR at more than 3 very different geographical locations I've lived at had the same morning program: Local and State news, and All Things Considered.

Perhaps you should read a book on tolerating other ideas, or a self-help Chicken Soup for the Mind type of deal so you can better internalize the information ('context') those evil liberals are telling you over and over and subliminally that is making you suffer so much.