The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

lol....stay away from de Tocqueville...he was (gasp) French.

[Tahoma 2,292]

the global economic mess falls squarely in his lap, fair or not.

Why? Seems pretty stupid to hold him responsible for the global financial crisis.

He didn't create the subprime mortgage crisis; if anything, he tried to stop it.

Huh? The Bush administration tried to prevent the subprime mortgage crisis? Did you really think that no one would check out your link? Maybe you could enlighten me about how switching oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from one underfunded department to another underfunded department would have had any bearing on the the credit swaps that brought down Wall Street (and others). By the way, the Bush Administration also gutted the regulatory budget of the SEC. The proposed bill in the article was a simple political maneuver designed to take the heat off of the Bush Administration for their lack of oversight over FM's and FM's accounting procedures.

[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.

lol....stay away from de Tocqueville...he was (gasp) French.

Thanks for the warning. The only thing worse than a historian is a French historian. I'm sure he's full of ####### too, just like all of the other ones. Reading that ####### would have ruined my appetite for these delicious freedom fries I'm eating.

[mox 298]

the global economic mess falls squarely in his lap, fair or not.

Why? Seems pretty stupid to hold him responsible for the global financial crisis.

He didn't create the subprime mortgage crisis; if anything, he tried to stop it.

Huh? The Bush administration tried to prevent the subprime mortgage crisis? Did you really think that no one would check out your link? Maybe you could enlighten me about how switching oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from one underfunded department to another underfunded department would have had any bearing on the the credit swaps that brought down Wall Street (and others). By the way, the Bush Administration also gutted the regulatory budget of the SEC. The proposed bill in the article was a simple political maneuver designed to take the heat off of the Bush Administration for their lack of oversight over FM's and FM's accounting procedures.

Not to mention that a single link to a single story from 5 years ago shows no major shift in policy, no over-arching shift in philosophy from less regulation to more regulation.

And then there's this, from the article:

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

So even if this article was the holy grail of defending the administration, it still fails because the new agency had the responsibility to "exercise authority over any new lines of business," and manage risk. In the end, it did neither.

[DeadPoolX 9]

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

Obviously I can't say "all" historians are like that. I haven't read every single book in the world. However, from what I have read, it's become quite clear that many historians print what is expected of them in order to garner sales. Perhaps those involved in pure research aren't like that, but those who write textbooks and books designed for shelves at Barnes & Noble certainly do. Money trumps any part of historical accuracy.

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.

Impressive is your sarcasm, young padawan.

[ScratchIt 12]

Am I mistaken or didn't the Reps blame Clinton for all of George II's woes? Why then is it not expected to blame Bush for what is to come. Many Reps don't even wait for Obama to take office before shifting the blame for current world & socio-economic problems on him. Charles, you want something positive about Bush, OK, I don't think he kicked his dog. Other than that I really don't give him much credit for anything positive. His "Aw-Sh!ts" vastly outweigh any "Atta-boys" he might have earned.

[Ban Hammer 13,275]

Am I mistaken or didn't the Reps blame Clinton for all of George II's woes? Why then is it not expected to blame Bush for what is to come. Many Reps don't even wait for Obama to take office before shifting the blame for current world & socio-economic problems on him. Charles, you want something positive about Bush, OK, I don't think he kicked his dog. Other than that I really don't give him much credit for anything positive. His "Aw-Sh!ts" vastly outweigh any "Atta-boys" he might have earned.

gwb has a dog?

[symbiosis 0]

Yes, Bush is teh suXor. Get over it already.

They won't. Not anytime soon, anyway.

When Obama does something good, they'll say: "Obama's the greatest! Look at him clean up after Bush!"

When Obama does something bad, they'll also say: "Obama's not to blame. He's had a hell of a time dealing with the mess Bush left him."

Amazing, isn't it? If one wanted to talk about psychological issues, the messianic ideals given Obama would definitely qualify.

Yeah, like Bush spent several years blaming Clinton. Laughable, it was.

[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.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

[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...

HAL...how much do you pay these guys to pitch those slow floaters right over the plate?

Dear pangga,

HAL 9000 believes that is a question synonymous with the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

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.

lol....stay away from de Tocqueville...he was (gasp) French.

Thanks for the warning. The only thing worse than a historian is a French historian. I'm sure he's full of ####### too, just like all of the other ones. Reading that ####### would have ruined my appetite for these delicious freedom fries I'm eating.

Mayo is going on my fries today. Does that make me hate America?

[HAL 9000 96]

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

Obviously I can't say "all" historians are like that. I haven't read every single book in the world. However, from what I have read, it's become quite clear that many historians print what is expected of them in order to garner sales. Perhaps those involved in pure research aren't like that, but those who write textbooks and books designed for shelves at Barnes & Noble certainly do. Money trumps any part of historical accuracy.

Indeed brother DPX.

Prentice Hall, Thomson, etc... sell like a business. And curricula are designed to mold 'good citizens' if you know what I mean. Maybe that's where the ####### is.

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.

Complete and unabridged brother Steven. With footnotes. * COMPUTERIZED LOL *

[Danno 1,228]

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 1,228]

It's clear, Democrats wanted war.

These clips of their own words are endless.

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">

[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.