No Love for Bush Among Historians

[Rohirrim]

Looks like Bush will get what he deserves.

"Right now there is not a lot of good will among historians. Most see him as a combination of many negative factors," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.

"He is seen as incompetent in terms of how he handled domestic and foreign policy. He is seen as pushing for an agenda to the right of the nation and doing so through executive power that ignored the popular will," he added.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That piece of sh*t should be remembered not only as one of the worst "presidents" in American history, but one of the worst leaders in world history.

[Crushaholic]

It's way too early to tell how history will look upon George W. Bush. The Iraq situation is still going on. For instance, if Obama signs an order to bring the troops home on Jan. 21st, what will be the consequences of that action? What will Al-Quaeda do without the U.S. troops watching them like a hawk? There are too many variables to say that history won't be kind to Bush...

[TailgateNut]

It's way too early to tell how history will look upon George W. Bush. The Iraq situation is still going on. For instance, if Obama signs an order to bring the troops home on Jan. 21st, what will be the consequences of that action? What will Al-Quaeda do without the U.S. troops watching them like a hawk? There are too many variables to say that history won't be kind to Bush...

Too many variables?


He was, and remains a pompous, arrogant, ignorant, ass who couldn't care less about how his actions affected not only our citizens, but the rest of the civilized world.

[Traveler]

Unfairly or not, the economic meltdown will be tied to Bush, thus, further staining his legacy.

[TailgateNut]

Unfairly or not, the economic meltdown will be tied to Bush, thus, further staining his legacy.

How can anything stain a TURD?

[Bronco Yoda]

Everyone knows Historians are gay...

http://www.instantrimshot.com/

[epicSocialism4tw]

That piece of sh*t should be remembered not only as one of the worst "presidents" in American history, but one of the worst leaders in world history.

Thanks for the hyperbole there, dude.

World history is chock full of vile dictators that make Bush look like an angel.

[TailgateNut]

Thanks for the hyperbole there, dude.

World history is chock full of vile dictators that make Bush look like an angel.


Love the fact that you finally realize Bush acted just like a dictator!

[Traveler]

How can anything stain a TURD?

Ouch!:rofl:

[Traveler]

Love the fact that you finally realize Bush acted just like a dictator!

Double Ouch!:wiggle:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Love the fact that you finally realize Bush acted just like a dictator!

YEAH!!! JUST LIKE ONE!!!^5

[The Lone Bolt]

Link to the full article?

[Paladin]

What if the Iraqis said "get out now"? The UN would not re-enact support for Mr. Bush's War. In other words, if there were an agreement that the US and the allies - including Haliburton and Blackwatch - for, say, 24 months to get out entirely, then I think the world would be okay with that. Bush would look more like a turd over Iraq for his lack of imagination in international discussions, and his "legacy" would continue to be described in......unflatering......terms. Al Qaeda is going to do whatever, but if the US gets them on the run in Afghanistan, they will have some other issues to deal with. Today, Obama was quite clear in his discussions about Iran, and I think he will be much more Centralist and pragmatic than the partisans here have thought or believe him to be.

Loss of oil has been mentioned as a consequence of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. I don't think anyone is so naive as to not consider the possibilities on that front, but the savings in lives and treasure might be offsetting considerations not to mention moral correctness.

The Bush/Cheaney administration screwed this country badly, and I look forward to the long, possibly painful, process to undo what they have done to us. I hold no sympathy for those bums as history judges them as evil, incompetent dogs........

[gyldenlove]

Realisticly you can't win in Iraq. Iraqis hate each other and will never live in peace. The Kurds want their own country, the Shiites and Sunnis are enemys and will always be. We have already seen this situation in Bosnia with population segments who just can not live together.

This is the basis of most if not all the wars, revelutions, civil uprisings and civil wars going in Africa. When you have borders drawn up for arbitrary reasons you end up creating a country shared between different groups who have no history of cooperating or living peacefully together, so it always ends up being a situation of the strongest takes all.

You can give up in Iraq and just leave, and hope that another strong man comes in and can subdue all the unrest that is sure to follow with an iron fist, or you can divide it into regions so the different populations doesn't have to deal with each other.

Afghanistan is already lost, right now the only people who can realisticly lead the country are the very people they went in and attacked 6 years ago. The opium production in Afghanistan is through the roof, religious fanatism is at the same level as when the Taleban were in charge, civil rights are virtually non existant unless you have an AK-47.

Pakistan is rapidly decaying into a hostile country with large segments of the population already on the side of the Taleban militia and the central government having taken a sharp turn away from Western influence.

This is not ALL Bushes fault, but the world was a hell of a lot more peaceful before he adandoned the cause in Afghanistan to allocate resources to an unwinnable campaign in Iraq. By now his war in Iraq have cost more American lives than the World Trade Center, Embassy bombs and USS Cole attacks combined. It has also cost upto 1 trillion dollars (money that probably would have been nice to have right about now, if you are the American government).

Bad decisions have been many and it is going to take a while to clean it all up, and even longer to pay the bill. The costs of the Iraq war, the loss of goodwill, the 8 years of awful policies on energy, taxes, environment and finance.

[Bronco Bob]

It's way too early to tell how history will look upon George W. Bush. The Iraq situation is still going on. For instance, if Obama signs an order to bring the troops home on Jan. 21st, what will be the consequences of that action? What will Al-Quaeda do without the U.S. troops watching them like a hawk? There are too many variables to say that history won't be kind to Bush...

As long as the US keeps paying off the warlords in Iraq, al-Queda shouldn't be
a problem. In that case whether US troops are in Iraq or not is irrelevant.

(You don't actually buy into it that the Surge was the reason the level
of violence dropped, do you?)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's way too early to tell how history will look upon George W. Bush. The Iraq situation is still going on.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Bush will be remembered as a war criminal who invaded a sovereign nation on false pretenses and waged an illegal war that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and bankrupted the U.S. treasury.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Comassionate Conservatism" Means Screwing the Poor, As Always: "In the first of an expected avalanche of post-election regulations, the Bush administration on Friday narrowed the scope of services that can be provided to poor people under Medicaid’s outpatient hospital benefit." Of course, this will only drive more Medicaid recipients to emergency rooms, which will drive the cost of Medicaid care up, not down. But no one ever underestimated the Bush Administration's stupidity and mean-spiritedness. 11/9 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/washington/08regs.html?th&emc=th)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

McClatchy: Bush officials moving fast to cut environmental protections (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html)

[spdirty]

Christ his 2nd term isnt even finished yet. And historians have their own opinions and agendas. We will have to wait at least 20 years to understand the full scope of his presidency, whether it be a positive or negative one. As Ronald Reagan said, history will always judge us fairly. Lincoln was vilified and extremely unpopular while he was in office, as was Truman. We will have to wait and see how history will judge Mr. Bush before jumping to conclusions. Only example I can think of off the top of my head where the opposite would be true would be Ike. He was extremely popular while in office, but now the only memorable thing we can look back on in regard to his terms was 1 line during his fairwell address. He did start the interstates, which is has a huge on our lives today. Other than that, he barely gets a mention in terms of importance to this country. In fact all we do remember about Ike was that he was extremely popular.

[W*GS]

Thanks for making my point for me.

Bush will be remembered as a war criminal who invaded a sovereign nation on false pretenses and waged an illegal war that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and bankrupted the U.S. treasury.

Is LBJ remembered in those terms?

Why not?

[Bronco Bob]

Christ his 2nd term isnt even finished yet. And historians have their own opinions and agendas. We will have to wait at least 20 years to understand the full scope of his presidency, whether it be a positive or negative one. As Ronald Reagan said, history will always judge us fairly. Lincoln was vilified and extremely unpopular while he was in office, as was Truman. We will have to wait and see how history will judge Mr. Bush before jumping to conclusions. Only example I can think of off the top of my head where the opposite would be true would be Ike. He was extremely popular while in office, but now the only memorable thing we can look back on in regard to his terms was 1 line during his fairwell address. He did start the interstates, which is has a huge on our lives today. Other than that, he barely gets a mention in terms of importance to this country. In fact all we do remember about Ike was that he was extremely popular.

Well, history has done nothing to change the legacy of Herbert Hoover.
He was considered a bad president at the time, people associated him
with the bad times, shanty towns were called Hoovervilles and rabbits
were called Hoover hogs. And to this day Hoover is considered to have
been a weak and ineffective president. While in his time Franklin Roosevelt
was considered a hero, beloved by the nation, and to this day most
historians regard FDR as one of our greatest presidents ever.

[Bronco Bob]

Is LBJ remembered in those terms?

Why not?

Johnson has the civil rights thing going for him. Bush's problem is
that not only was his foreign policy a disaster, but his domestic
policy was a disaster. What-ever you can say about how screwed
up the Vietnam war was under Johnson, the people back at home
were living a pretty good life.

Oh, and also South Vietnam was an ally of the US under SEATO,
so technically you can't say the US invaded a foreign country.
Under the terms of the treaty we were rushing to the defense
of an ally against a foreign invader. Where-as in Iraq the titular
government never invited us in, we came in uninvited and
proceded to dismantle the standing government.

[spdirty]

Well, history has done nothing to change the legacy of Herbert Hoover.
He was considered a bad president at the time, people associated him
with the bad times, shanty towns were called Hoovervilles and rabbits
were called Hoover hogs. And to this day Hoover is considered to have
been a weak and ineffective president. While in his time Franklin Roosevelt
was considered a hero, beloved by the nation, and to this day most
historians regard FDR as one of our greatest presidents ever.

Depends...what if we start getting attacked? I dont think anything can save his legacy on the domestic front, but his foreign policy legacy will have to take a good amount of time before we know.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Christ his 2nd term isnt even finished yet. And historians have their own opinions and agendas.

You're right - Dim Son still has 72 days left in which to wreak havoc.

Maybe he'll send American troops to someplace like Somalia like his daddy did.

[Northman]

That piece of sh*t should be remembered not only as one of the worst "presidents" in American history, but one of the worst leaders in world history.


But, if you ask the conservative folk they will tell you that the democratic majority in congress was to blame as well. Ha!

[W*GS]

That piece of sh*t should be remembered not only as one of the worst "presidents" in American history, but one of the worst leaders in world history.

This is one of the most asinine things you've ever written.

[Spider]

Bush Jr biggest failure will be not getting OBL .........

[Bronco Bob]

Is LBJ remembered in those terms?

Why not?

It occurs to me that if not for LBJ, Barack Obama might not be president
today. Depending on your political leanings this is either a good thing
or a bad thing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Johnson has the civil rights thing going for him. Bush's problem is
that not only was his foreign policy a disaster, but his domestic
policy was a disaster. What-ever you can say about how screwed
up the Vietnam war was under Johnson, the people back at home
were living a pretty good life.

Oh, and also South Vietnam was an ally of the US under SEATO,
so technically you can't say the US invaded a foreign country.
Under the terms of the treaty we were rushing to the defense
of an ally against a foreign invader. Where-as in Iraq the titular
government never invited us in, we came in uninvited and
proceded to dismantle the standing government.

I thought this was a thread about how historians will remember Bush?

Oh wait - W*GS is here. ;)

[W*GS]

Johnson has the civil rights thing going for him. Bush's problem is that not only was his foreign policy a disaster, but his domestic policy was a disaster. What-ever you can say about how screwed up the Vietnam war was under Johnson, the people back at home were living a pretty good life.

Oh, and also South Vietnam was an ally of the US under SEATO, so technically you can't say the US invaded a foreign country. Under the terms of the treaty we were rushing to the defense of an ally against a foreign invader. Where-as in Iraq the titular government never invited us in, we came in uninvited and proceded to dismantle the standing government.

Of course there are differences between Bush and LBJ. However, LABF's comment:

Bush will be remembered as a war criminal who invaded a sovereign nation on false pretenses and waged an illegal war that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and bankrupted the U.S. treasury.

applies pretty closely to LBJ too.

I'm just illustrating how LABF's rhetorical excess just makes him look silly. Not that he needs my help to point that out, really.

[W*GS]

I thought this was a thread about how historians will remember Bush?

Oh wait - W*GS is here. ;)

The possibility that one may examine how historians will treat Bush by looking at how historians have treated other Presidents is a concept you cannot comprehend.

[spdirty]

Bush Jr biggest failure will be not getting OBL .........

yet...:wiggle:

[Bronco Bob]

Of course there are differences between Bush and LBJ. However, LABF's comment:



applies pretty closely to LBJ too.

I'm just illustrating how LABF's rhetorical excess just makes him look silly. Not that he needs my help to point that out, really.

Except Johnson never invaded a sovereign nation. That was one of the
critics complaints about the Vietnam war, that the US never took the
war to Hanoi, there was never a massive US ground force sent into
North Vietnam to take the country. Instead the US was basically fighting
a defensive war in the south from invaders from the north.

As to the legality, there was the SEATO treaty which called for the
mutual defense, if South Vietnam was attacked the US was obligated
to come to their aid. I guess in theory if the US was attacked,
South Vietnam was supposed to send troops to help us out.

So your basic premise of Johnson and Vietnam vs Bush 2 and Iraq
is incorrect. The more appropriate comparison would be to compare
Johnson and Vietnam vs Bush 1 and Kuwait, or Truman and South Korea.
Ally is attacked, US come to their aid

[W*GS]

Regarding LABF's statement, and comparing Bush vs. LBJ...

The sovereign nation part is different, true.

The "false pretenses" part is comparable (mythical WMDs and the Gulf of Tonkin incident), the "illegal war" part is comparable, "caused hundreds of thousands of deaths" is definitely comparable, and "bankrupted the U.S. treasury" is also comparable.

Overall, LBJ and Vietnam is more similar to Bush and Iraq than not.

Yet is LBJ considered a "war criminal" like LABF thinks Bush should be? Why not?

[Spider]

Regarding LABF's statement, and comparing Bush vs. LBJ...

The sovereign nation part is different, true.

The "false pretenses" part is comparable (mythical WMDs and the Gulf of Tonkin incident), the "illegal war" part is comparable, "caused hundreds of thousands of deaths" is definitely comparable, and "bankrupted the U.S. treasury" is also comparable.

Overall, LBJ and Vietnam is more similar to Bush and Iraq than not.

Yet is LBJ considered a "war criminal" like LABF thinks Bush should be? Why not?
so whats your point ?
LBJ isnt even part of our generation ......very few of us remember LBJ .....so what was your entire point bringing him up in the first place ? Do you feel your boy Bush has been dissed unfairly ?

[Chupacabra]

so whats your point ?
LBJ isnt even part of our generation ......very few of us remember LBJ .....so what was your entire point bringing him up in the first place ? Do you feel your boy Bush has been dissed unfairly ?

Because the thread refers to historians' interpretation of Bush. LBJ is graded by historians, because he is a part of history, as Bush will be. Spider, through your incoherent posts you usually include some common sense...what gives on this one?

[Spider]

Because the thread refers to historians' interpretation of Bush. LBJ is graded by historians, because he is a part of history, as Bush will be. Spider, through your incoherent posts you usually include some common sense...what gives on this one?

......... the thread refers to historians' interpretation of Bush. Sorry I should have known that LBJ was tied to bush .......... W*GS was free to start a thread .historians rate LBJ worse or as the same as Bush , that way you bedwetters could circle jerk over that .......

[W*GS]

I brought up LBJ because it's been 40 years since he was President and thus we've had time to have some perspective. He also engaged in a very unpopular war on false pretenses that had tremendous costs, financial and in human terms.

Yet I don't hear many folks so ready to call LBJ a war criminal. Why not?

[Spider]

I brought up LBJ because it's been 40 years since he was President and thus we've had time to have some perspective. He also engaged in a very unpopular war on false pretenses that had tremendous costs, financial and in human terms.

Yet I don't hear many folks so ready to call LBJ a war criminal. Why not?

Damn if I know or care......... ask the historians ........Still dont see what LBJ has to do with Historians judging Bush .........

[W*GS]

I've already explained the reasoning behind my remarks. Spider, ponder them a bit.

[Spider]

I've already explained the reasoning behind my remarks. Spider, ponder them a bit.

I have , maybe it is you that needs to do some pondering ........ Let Bush stand for his own deeds ........ LBJ didnt talk him into doing anything

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

......... the thread refers to historians' interpretation of Bush. Sorry I should have known that LBJ was tied to bush .......... W*GS was free to start a thread .historians rate LBJ worse or as the same as Bush , that way you bedwetters could circle jerk over that .......

Yep.

As long as W*GS still draws breath, he will do his utmost to deflect attention from any criticism of Bush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

BTW, anyone who has heard me talk about LBJ knows that I hold him in only slightly higher esteem than Bush.

[W*GS]

Obviously the concept of how historians interpret the record of presidents isn't relevant to the topic of how historians interpret Bush's presidency.

My bad.

[Spider]

Obviously the concept of how historians interpret the record of presidents isn't relevant to the topic of how historians interpret Bush's presidency.

My bad.

um no not really , they can draw comparisons , but in the end , Bush must be judged on his own actions .......

[Odysseus]

McClatchy: Bush officials moving fast to cut environmental protections (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html)

Why is anyone defending Bush?

[cutthemdown]

It takes a decade or so for historians to really know how things worked out.

No doubt Bush isn't going to be considered a good President but Iraq could still turn out good down the road and make him look better.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No doubt Bush isn't going to be considered a good President...

That's the understatement of the century. :laugh:

but Iraq could still turn out good down the road and make him look better.

"Look better" to whom?

Hardly anyone in the world except the Kool-Aid drinkers in (what's left of) red state America who are still defending him and trying to save face.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why is anyone defending Bush?

The psychology of previous investment, the inability to admit mistakes, and brand loyalty.

Then there those sociopaths who actually condone and approve of Bush's frauds and felonies.

[cutthemdown]

Here's one thing that could happen because of Bush.

Bush greatly expanded the power of the President. Many cried foul and say he just killed the Constitution in doing so. He used executive orders more then any other President.

The precedent is now set for Obama to take advantage of that precedent by using some type of executive orders. Maybe Bush sometime in history will be giving credit for making the President more powerful. Now that could be looked at as good or bad just trying to show how 10 yrs from now people won't be so emotional over Bush and may find some things significant that he did.

He also launched more covert raids into other countries then any other President. No doubt he was bold and heavy handed. If Obama shows a softer side and it works out Bush will be looked at like too heavy handed. If Obama shows a soft hand and it burns him somehow, History may look better upon Bushes heavy hand.

[Paladin]

I doubt it....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is Bush's kindness to Obama really a "get out of jail, free" card?
(http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Bushs_kindness_Is_it_so_he_and_his_aides_wont_be_s ent_to_jail.html)

http://www.etailgifts.com/images/getoutofjailcc.jpg

One of the many surprising developments over the last week has been both the speed and extent of the graciousness that President Bush and his team have shown to President-elect Obama, especially considering how long and how hard-fought the 2008 campaign turned out to be, and the Democratic standard bearer's frequent and unusually harsh criticism of the GOP president out on the trail.

On the morning after Obama's victory, Bush could have easily phoned it in and offered up a bland, pro forma congratulation, but instead he went before the cameras in the Rose Garden with highly laudatory praise, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/05/america/bush.php) saying that American voters had "showed a watching world the vitality of America's democracy and the strides we have made toward a more perfect union."

He didn't stop there. Bush invited Barack and Michelle Obama to the White House ASAP -- the visit that in fact took place yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11obama.html) -- for both a humble tour of where the 44th president and his family will live and a substantive discussion of the issues that have boiled over during Bush's watch, especially the ravaged world economy. The images that these meetings produced of a peaceful and cooperative transition have been reassuring to Americans, and to the world.

It's difficult, however, to get any frame of reference for Bush's handling of the transition: The last real time that the White House changed hands from a president of one party to a president of the other party that hadn't defeated him personally, under normal circumstances, was in 1968; it also happened in 2000 but the Florida recount led to a warped and shortened transition.

Sometimes, according to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the best one. With his approval rating at or even worse than any president since modern polling began (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/11/bushs_approval_rating_at_an_al.html), it's surely possible that Bush is smart enough to see that a gracious transition could be a baby step to restoring his reputation down the road. In that same vein, an early solution to the economic mess under President Obama would mitigate some of the damage to Bush's reputation there.

I believe those factors are present, but we should also not suspend all cynicism in the euphoria of the moment of Obama's election. We should never forget that same president who was so welcoming to Obama is the very same president whose war cabinet authorized torture practices and rendition of terrorism suspects, massively expanded government spying (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/23/new_churchcomm/print.html) in a web that caught untold American citizens, launched (as just reported this week) secret military strikes around the globe, and through the abuse of signing statements (http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html) and other unprecedented tactics treated the Constitution, its separation of powers and international law like pieces of crumpled up waste paper. No hailing of Obama's "awesome" victory erases that stain.

And so one of many, many difficult decisions that Obama and his team will faces during his first 100 days in the Oval Office will be this: Should the new president's Justice Department take a more aggressive pose toward investigating this unprecedented White House power grab and some of the toxic symptoms that flowed from that, from waterboarding to the firing of U.S. attorneys for raw political reasons.

I've been following this back-burner issue much more closely than most. That's because his only comments on the subject came back in April, when I had the opportunity to raise the issue with him when he appeared here in Philadelphia before the editorial board of the Daily News. A summary of his answer is that while he seeks to be a forward-looking president, he would likely want his Attorney General to make at least a preliminary inquiry.
Here's a snip of what Obama said then (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html): So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.

A follow-up story published in Salon in August took the story a step farther (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/04/obama/): Prosecution of any officials, if it were to occur, would probably not occur during Obama's first term. Instead, we may well see a congressionally empowered commission that would seek testimony from witnesses in search of the truth about what occurred. Though some witnesses might be offered immunity in exchange for testimony, the question of whether anybody would be prosecuted would be deferred to a later date -- meaning Obama's second term, if such is forthcoming.

That being the case, do you honestly think the Bush, Dick Cheney, and Co. are not seriously worried about this possibility? If you don't believe that, you haven't been paying close attention to the full-story of the Bush administration and its steady reach for executive power. In fact, many of the administration's most audacious moves have been accompanied with memos that seem to serve one primary purpose: To shield White House officials and those who carried out their orders in the field from future prosecution.

This is the best-known example (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256), from 2002, pertaining to the use of torture in interrogating suspects:
Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.

But other controversial and arguably unlawful policies have been justified with official memos or documents. This week, the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washington/10military.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=0a657ff1585ec327&ex=1226552400&oref=slogin) on a hitherto secret 2004 order by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that okayed attacks on al-Qaeda sites around the globe: Bush administration officials have shown a determination to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provides a legal rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.

When you combine all these memos, secret orders and signing statements with the Bush administration's long record of seeking to foil investigators from Congress and elsewhere asking for documents, emails and testimony from former White House officials, and it all adds up to one thing: A president and vice president who have long dreaded what a Democratic president might learn, and what he might do with that information, come Jan. 20, 2009.

With this as a backdrop, comes now the sudden Bush charm offensive. Now, there's a debate to be had about whether justice requires that past criminal acts be pursued, even after an administration has yielded its power, or whether the greater good of a forward-looking nation means that violations of the law should be forgiven, as President Gerald Ford decided in 1974 when he pardoned Richard Nixon. Whatever the right solution is, Bush is smart enough to know that he's complicating Obama's decision by seeking to connect with him as an Oval Office teammate so quickly out of the gate. Is the 43rd president's graciousness really his "get-out-of-jail free card," if not for him then for some of his White House underlings?

The more that it looks like Obama and Bush had worked together to solve the economic crisis, the more jarring it might sound to many Americans to learn that a criminal inquiry is underway -- even though the sad facts of the last eight years would seem to justify exactly such a probe, at the minimum. Politics, like war, is ruled by the art of deception. Don't be deceived by everything you heard coming from the Oval Office yesterday, and in the name of justice, let's hope that Obama and whoever he named as attorney general are not fooled, either.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Bushs_kindness_Is_it_so_he_and_his_aides_wont_be_s ent_to_jail.html

[The Lone Bolt]

Well none of that matters LA. According to Gaffney any day now bush is going to cancel the elections and declare martial law and himself the "President for Life" of the USA.

So you've got nothing to worry about!:D

[Odysseus]

The psychology of previous investment, the inability to admit mistakes, and brand loyalty.

Then there those sociopaths who actually condone and approve of Bush's frauds and felonies.

I heard an interview yesterday with Condi Rice where she offered some pretty compelling "wait and see" kind of arguments in Bush defense. She did point to actual Bush wins but in comparison to Bush tragedies it was hard to measure.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well none of that matters LA. According to Gaffney any day now bush is going to cancel the elections and declare martial law and himself the "President for Life" of the USA.

So you've got nothing to worry about!:D

Way to avoid actually addressing the contents of the article.

(But that's just SOP for you.)

[The Lone Bolt]

Way to avoid actually addressing the contents of the article.

(But that's just SOP for you.)

Well the article is moot, right? After all any day now bush is going to cancel the elections and declare martial law!:D :D

[Rohirrim]

One of the first things I expect to see out of Obama is a clearing of the air in our govenment from the stench of Bush/Cheney. I also want to see a restoration of Constitutional law, whatever that entails. If there are some who need to be prosecuted, so be it. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Without that, we're nothing. I'll be curious to see what Obama truly believes.

[epicSocialism4tw]

One of the first things I expect to see out of Obama is a clearing of the air in our govenment from the stench of Bush/Cheney. I also want to see a restoration of Constitutional law, whatever that entails. If there are some who need to be prosecuted, so be it. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Without that, we're nothing. I'll be curious to see what Obama truly believes.

If Obama focuses on the rebirth of constitutional law, it will mean the death of the secular progressive fundamentalist movement.

That ain't happenin'.

If it does, I'll brand Obama my fave president since Reagan.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If Obama focuses on the rebirth of constitutional law, it will mean the death of the secular progressive fundamentalist movement.

That ain't happenin'.

If it does, I'll brand Obama my fave president since Reagan.

:crazy: :mullet1:

Can you see our solar system from your home planet?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/8-ball-president.jpg