411mania.com: Politics - In Defense of George W. Bush's Presidency

In Defense of George W. Bush's Presidency
Posted by Mark Radulich on 01.26.2009

He's not great but I can't listen to anymore faux arguments that he's the worst.

I am no groveling Bush apologist. I believe he has some serious faults and that he made many poor decisions as president. If that were the extent of the overall structure of any discussion regarding his presidency I wouldn't be writing this. However, I don't do very well with erratic, shrieking hyperbole based solely on what appears to be a combination of lack of historical perspective, a blend of post traumatic stress disorder and avoidant personality disorder, and overall dementia. In other words, when the criticisms of George W Bush go from reasoned and researched to full goose bozo and feel the need to step in and offer a rational defense of the man and his legacy to date. Again. I'm not saying the man did nothing wrong in eight years, far from it, but lets try to evaluate him based on facts and context and not raw, adolescent emotion.

According to an article about criticisms of President Bush on Wikipedia, "Former President Jimmy Carter has called Bush's presidency "the worst in history",[although he later said that comment was "careless or misinterpreted," and that he "wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history, but just with President Nixon's." According to an August 2008 poll, 41% of Americans consider Bush to be the worst President of all time, though 50% of Americans disagreed."

First of all, I suppose Jimmy Carter would be an expert on bad presidencies seeing as his was full of screw-ups and as such he was voted out of office after only one term as opposed to Bush's two terms. Now onto the assertion that to me is the most egregious, that Bush's presidency was the worst of all time. What exactly is this assertion based on? The state of the economy? The Iraq War? Laws he signed that Congress wrote while he happened to be in the White House? Every time someone says with red cheeks and sweat dripping off their furrowed brow that he was the worst president ever I never seem to get evidence supporting this argument.

Despite his own fair share of screw-ups and the current correction/recession the economy is experiencing, which are of course not good things, I don't recall him blindly ignoring signs that the country may split and go to civil war. No, that honor goes to one James Buchanan. According to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville's McConnell Center, his inability to avert the Civil War has subsequently been assessed as the worst single failure by any President of the United States. Buchanan has been consistently ranked by scholars, as opposed to spoiled, traumatized brats spewing nothingness from eternal well of stupidity, as one of the worst presidents in US history.

Protests of the Iraq War led by those peace and love liberals were definitely hostile and violent (at times) but states weren't willing to secede from the union over it. I think the only even moderate attempt at secession was a bunch of really angry Christian right folks who tried to motivate South Carolina to secede over the gay marriage issue. That's not exactly equivalent to seceding over the right to have slaves in territories or states (contrary to modern opinion).

Now some also say that if he's not exactly the worst, he's at least the most hated president and that makes him the worst. Bush was not liked by staff at the New York Times that's true but that's not even close to a majority of the country. According to a poll put out by the Wall Street Journal, while his approval rating were pretty low, they were also comparable to others in modern times such as Truman, Nixon and Carter. In addition, with some exceptions, notably Reagan and Clinton, most of the modern presidents were not popular on their way out, and even Kennedy was on a downward slide at about the time he was shot. Besides, public opinion polls both longitudinal and published throughout a presidency in daily newspapers are poor instruments for measuring a presidency because God only knows just how illiterate or emotional those being polled are. Remember, we are the same people who no more about American Idol contestants than we do about our own Congressmen. And in point of fact, most presidents were hated in their own time only to have history remember them fondly as their decisions began to pay dividends in later years.

So let's talk about some of the specific criticisms of his policies, namely that he shredded the constitution. According to various sources, "After 9/11, Bush continually signed legislation interpreted by his enemies as limiting the civil liberties of United States citizens. The two most prominent pieces of legislation are the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which remove certain privacy rights and the right of habeas corpus." Essentially what Bush and Rumsfeld wanted was to detain suspects, suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Now I know that some scared silly child of a human being thinks that the evil government led by George W. Bush will use this as a means to come into their room in the dark of night, knock the pot out their hands and drag them off to a dungeon in Cuba. In reality, terrorism investigations are long and complex. This act was a means to let the government do its job in determining who the terrorists are and keeping them, permanently, from being active against the Western world. This is also known as erring on the side of caution as opposed to what liberal's want, which apparently is anarchy.

But going with the asinine conclusion that there's something wrong with imprisoning terrorism suspects and/or traitors to the United States, George W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld are not the first people to do this in history. President's Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Bill Clinton, and the 1942 Supreme Court all suspended habeas corpus for one reason or another. It appears that the Constitution is still intact despite these transgressions so if we're going to call Bush the worst president in history because of the habeas corpus issue, then we have to include Abe Lincoln and serial rapist Bill "America's Fist Black President" Clinton.

George W Bush was not a great president by any means. By most accounts, while not stupid, he was considered to be non-inquisitive thus rendering him incapable of making the most informed decisions and subsequently he made errors in judgment. In addition, his people tended to keep the truth about certain issues, like Iraq, from him and report instead that the situation on the ground was going well, when it obviously wasn't. I don't know why they protected him the way they did but that's the truth behind his presidency. George W Bush was a cheerleader campaigning endless for his party, much like Barack Obama, not a policy wonk like Newt Gingrich. Unfortunately, that makes for what appears to be muddled leadership but certainly not the worst in history.

As far as his alleged most egregious mistake, the Iraq War, one can hardly know the long term affects of the war while it's still going on. History will either laud or condemn Bush for prosecuting this war but insisting that at present doing so makes him the worst can only be supported by emotion as there are no facts to back that up, therefore it shouldn't be considered relevant to the discussion.

Any serious debate about historical figures should be laden with context and facts, not prejudice and irrationality and that's why I believe George W Bush needs a defense against the erroneous notion that he's the worst president in modern history.

Post Comment (42) | Email Mark Radulich | View Mark Radulich's 411 Profile

Send To Friend |

Stumble It! |

Digg It! |

Please add your comment below.

If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.

Name :

Comment :

Remaining Characters :

2800

Comments (42)

My friend, you miss the point. Bush will go down as the the worst in history. His policies failed; he's 'war' on terror is still going, despite the fact, we can't find a man leaving in hole; have lost so many lives over there; spent so much money, that it sped up our economic decline. Anyway you look at it, Bush was a klutz.

Posted By: Chris Davidson (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 12:41 AM

And you prove his point - you offered no facts.

The war in Iraq is bad, yes, but we're not even approaching Vietnam like issues with it yet. Bush should be faulted for not asking questions and for not having more concrete evidence before dedicating American lives to the war in Iraq.

The man screwed up multiple times in multiple ways. The worst president ever? No, not at all. The worst of the past 60 years? Maybe, depending on what you think of Truman and Carter. The worst of the past century? Depends what you think of Hoover and Coolidge too.

But hey, the common American knows no history of his own country. He only knows what the media tells his heart to bleed over.

Posted By: Sammy (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 01:00 AM

Sammy are you suggesting that Hoover's inactivity somehow compares to Bush's dogged, determined incompetence. Yes; history hasn't been kind to Hoover, Truman, Coolidge, Polk, et. al. but to say that Bush doesn't at the very least rank highly among them is nuts. It's going to take years to clot our hemorrhaging economy, untangle us from foreign quagmires, and restore civil and privacy rights to the public among other things that need doing. Really with the scope of America's economy and global influence being so much larger the shitstorm that Obama has walked into is much larger than anything FDR ever faced.

Posted By: Jared (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 01:17 AM

Anyone who would call Bush "worst" is quite ignorant of history.

Harding
Buchanan
Pierce
A. Johnson
W. Harrison

Heck, you could throw in Taylor, Tyler, Garfield, Hoover, and Carter for good measure.

Posted By: JoeL (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 01:31 AM

Sammy: true, Iraq/Afghanistan isn't up there with Vietnam... yet. Give it time.

Posted By: woody (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 03:42 AM

Guest1063, I agree about Saddam. However, keep in mind that it was the CIA with Congress's approval that put him in power in the first place -- to fight a war with Iran -- which he lost.

Does Dubbya deserve props for removing him? Yes. Did Dubbya galvanize the country after 9/11? Yes. But looking back after eight years, those are the only two good things I remember about the 43rd POTUS.

Everything else is bad, bad, bad.

So, the question is: is he the worst POTUS ever? I don't know about that, but I would wager good money history won't be kind.

Posted By: Paul in Canada (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 04:59 AM

Iraq: what we did in Iraq, is topple a dictator, yes. But, we also allowed for the almost certainty of a Pro-Iranian government (if not an outright Shiite Islamic State) to be installed by the shia, fairly quickly IMO, as we draw down. The core is already in place. They are just waiting for us to leave. That's one of the main reasons Bush I didn't want to take out Saddam during the first Gulf War. The Sunni are screwed as we leave. That's a given. We know it. They know it. And the Kurds are simply hoping the semi-autonomous military they have created up there, is strong enough to fend off any potential aggression from the Turks or from the South.

And that is the dilemma Bush has left us. We can't stay forever. But we don't want the Shia to install a Pro-Iranian Regime either or move to create another Islamic, Fundamentalist State.

So what to do? The only thing we CAN do is what Obama has proposed. Draw down responsibly, use what political and diplomatic muscle we still have left to encourage power sharing from the Shia for the Sunni and the Kurds, and hope for the best.

Regardless, the possibility exists, at some point in the future, once we're gone, we might have to go back. Because whatever happens, its our fault.

Thanks GW.

Posted By: Scott Williams (Registered) on January 26, 2009 at 06:48 AM

There's no earthly way that Jimmy Carter was worse than Bush. Carter at least worked tirelessly to fix some of the middle eastern foreign policy issues, it wasn't until he was a lame duck that he realized it was a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Buchanan and Pierce, again, we're talking governing a much less important nation than Bush did - and they didn't govern it from a trillion dollar economic surplus into the worst recession in 70 years.

Posted By: Jared (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 06:57 AM

And also on Wikipedia is a page that has results of surveys from notable historians, ranking the Presidents, and in the last survey, Bush II was in the bottom ten.

EXPERTS RANKED HIM IN THE BOTTOM TEN.

There ya go.

Posted By: Jed (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 07:41 AM

Ok Jared by you throwing in Polk as one of the presidents "history hasn't been kind to" shows your ignorance of history. He is continually ranked in the top 15 presidents and is considered by many to be the best single term president.
Time will tell how Bush will be ranked. Will he rank in the top 10? I highly doubt it, but he is far from the worse.

Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 08:21 AM

Guest 1063 - The removal of a dictator is indeed an admirable goal. But at the cost of the lives of 4000 American men and women? I think even the most hardcore conservative would hesitate a little.

Servicemen and women deserve to be told the truth about what they are being led into, not being lied to about their objectives. The Iraq War was NEVER about ousting Saddam. It was about (publicly) finding WMDs that didn't exist, and (secretly) who knows? Oil, a power base in the Middle East, no one will know. It sure as hell can't be about terrorism and making Americans safer when Al-Qaeda never set foot within Iraqi borders before the US invasion.

Point being, the toppling of Saddam was a good result. But it shrinks a little when you consider that 4000 Americans were lost, and that they were lied to about what they were giving their lives for.

Posted By: Finn (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 08:37 AM

While it's hard to assess Bush 43 without at least a generation of historical context, there is little doubt in my mind that his presidency will not be regarded favorably when all is said and done.

1. He squandered the post 9/11 goodwill by invading Iraq, based on intelligence that seemed credible at the time, was clearly manipulated by others below him. Perhaps if he had spent the time and and resources along the Afgani/Pakistani border that he did in Iraq, Bin Ladin would be nothing more than a memory. As it stands, the man who was largely responsible for killing three thousand of AMericans on our own soil is still free and taunting us.

2. Bush was not the only one who screwed up New Orleans, but his failure to recognize just how severe the crisis was until someone showed it to him on DVD a few days later epitomizes his tunnel vision.

3. His expansion of executive power in the form of "signing statements" in which he would essentially argue that he could interpret congressional laws anyway he wants, is blatantly unconstitutional.

4. The administration created an environment in which torture was at the very least condoned, which cost us much of the moral high ground around the world.

5. He helped contribute to the explosion of the deficit by pushing the $700 billion financial industry bailout with absolutely zero checks on where the money was going.

Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 08:57 AM

tl;dr version:

Bush wasn't bad, it's just the evil, spoiled, stuck up EVIL LIBRUL MEDIA AND EDUCATION ELITE that make him look that way.

Posted By: HeartBurnKid (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 10:50 AM

If we are going to use deficit spending as one of the prerequisites for worst pres ever than our current prez will be there in weeks not eight years. Bush did go into Iraq with a list of reason ONE of which was WMD's. Of all the things on the list that was the only one not confirmed. As far as Katrina is concerned no gov. of LA used money to fix the levies other than a Rep gov. in the early 80's. once again partly his fault but not entirely his blame. The economy started just after the Dems took over and Bush wanted to be seen as a uniter so he started spending way to much money that shouldn't have been spent. The housing crises started by Freddi and Fannie telling banks to give loans to any body and that they would buy the loans from them, when congressmen tried to stop it they were called racists. None of these problems are entirely his fault but his inabilty to stand up for his conservative beliefes are.

Posted By: m. Dredd 13 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I'm a red-blooded (America get with the world and assign blue and red the correct way) Liberal, yet I will always admire one thing about Bush 43, he got a dictator out of power. Say what you want about Iraq, even if they didn't find WMDs or if they weren't involved with 9/11, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator that killed thousands of innocent people and deserved to be brought to justice over the crimes he committed.

Posted By: Guest#1063 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 01:35 AM

-------------

This is a classic example of the bullshit opinions that prop up illegitimate wars. Was Saddam a horrendous dictator, responsible for mass murder? Of course he was. But how did he end up in that position? The CIA, with the willing support of George Bush Senior and his administration, installed Saddam, funded him, and armed him. America has installed a thousand and one bloodthirsty puppet dictators over the globe since World War 2, often overthrowing democratic, progressive governments in the process. To pretend that the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have anything to do with "morality", and "freedom", and removing dictators is IGNORANCE to the extreme. Its like when Tony Blair justified the invasion of Afghanistan as a "moral bombing".

Unfortunately, people will never realise this because the vast majority of us are pathetic beings with the same capacity for independent, critical thought as a single-cell ameoba.

Here's the bitter truth that nobody likes to hear - PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE FREE. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE INFORMED.

Posted By: Guest#1459 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM

"His policies failed..." Despite the wishes of many liberals, we have WON in Iraq. Granted the war was much longer and drawn out then it could have been, but right now we are turning over power to the Iraqi's who are free from the murder and inhumand treatment of a dictator and his sons.

---------------------------------------

Really we have "Won" in Iraq?

First off the REASON(s) why we went into Iraq were

1 - WMD that they supposedly had that to this day nobody has found

2 - They were somehow linked to Al Queda

Those were the reasons given for us going into war in Iraq. Both of those reasons have since proven to be false.

There are still U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians being killed there to this day.

We destroyed our name in the world by how we handled this War, and how wrong our reasons were for being there.

So if this is your idea of "winning" then I guess we won....I dont see how any reasonable person could see it that way...we averted disaster by the country not becoming TOTALLY destabilized. It is not the pillar of democracy we were told it would end up being and its taken 5 years to get to this point. And our crowning achievement so far has been to take Saddam out which most people hang their hat on DESPITE the fact that was not our reason for going in, it was just a side fact to make this look like at least we did SOMETHING worth wild over there.

While all this is going on Afghanistan has turned into the forgotten war, and we still havent captured or even know where bin laden is.

Add to this the domestic policies he had that were an utter failure

No Child Left behind - ask any teacher if they like this and think its benefiting their students

The Bailout - Nuff said on that, they cant even keep track of the money

Patriotic Act - under the guise of keeping us safe, some of our constitutional liberties were taken away. This falls on Congress too as many of them didnt bother to read it before voting on it

Those are 3 domestic issues top of the head....add to that how divided this country has become in the last 8 years. Liberal, Conservative...its all nonsense and power grabs by people who refuse to debate in facts and only deal in ideology, and who's ideas cant never be wrong.

I would say he is by far in the bottom 5 or 10 of presidents of all time

Posted By: Guest#6385 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I think Bush never defended himself like he should have or needed to.

Posted By: keith (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 01:18 PM

"I'm not saying the man did nothing wrong in eight years, far from it, but lets try to evaluate him based on facts and context and not raw, adolescent emotion."

"Buchanan has been consistently ranked by scholars, as opposed to spoiled, traumatized brats spewing nothingness from eternal well of stupidity, as one of the worst presidents in US history."

Since you can't even adhere to your own rules, I won't waste many keystrokes. You sir, are a moron.

Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 01:44 PM

Bush reminds me of the old drunk right winger that thinks he can do better than the president... except he actually became the president. He wasn't evil, just not competent to be the leader of a country.

Posted By: kevnb (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 02:44 PM

read Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. defends Bush, and makes u feel bad for the guy. good piece

Posted By: K.O.W. (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 02:54 PM

I hope this is a try-out for a new writer and not someone already on staff.

I found your subject matter interesting as well as your defense of G-Dub. However, the following lines kill your argument:

" In other words, when the criticisms of George W Bush go from reasoned and researched to full goose bozo and feel the need to step in and offer a rational defense of the man and his legacy to date. Again. I'm not saying the man did nothing wrong in eight years, far from it, but lets try to evaluate him based on facts and context and not raw, adolescent emotion."

He has immediately dismissed the thought of a reasonable argument that Bush is the worst President ever, implying that anyone that disagrees is speaking from "raw, adolescent emotion".

"Now some also say that if he's not exactly the worst, he's at least the most hated president and that makes him the worst. Bush was not liked by staff at the New York Times that's true but that's not even close to a majority of the country." What does the New York Times have to do with the assertion that he is not the most hated? As well, I think a 21% approval rating says that "the majority" of the country disliked this guy as President.

"Essentially what Bush and Rumsfeld wanted was to detain suspects, suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Now I know that some scared silly child of a human being thinks that the evil government led by George W. Bush will use this as a means to come into their room in the dark of night, knock the pot out their hands and drag them off to a dungeon in Cuba. In reality, terrorism investigations are long and complex. This act was a means to let the government do its job in determining who the terrorists are and keeping them, permanently, from being active against the Western world."

So... anyone that thinks that suspending Constitutional rights is a bad idea is a "scared child"? Really? I always thought the Constitution was there to list what can or CAN'T be done. Even if you think it is in the "best interests" of the country to go one direction, you can't do so if the Constitution says otherwise.

"This is also known as erring on the side of caution as opposed to what liberal's want, which apparently is anarchy."

I think this line kills this writer as a good columnist. The very solid and reasonable arguments that ARE given in this article are annihilated with foolish statements such as this.

I like the thought of defending Bush with rational discourse. Why am I getting insults instead?

Posted By: JAM Renaissance (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 02:57 PM

You argue that the majority of America doesn't find Bush to be a bad president, ignoring the polls because the people who take them might be uninformed.

I... well at least you're name means one more link I dont need to click.

Your logic is everything that is wrong with politics in America from the left and right.

You argue that obama is a party hack for speaking out against Rush as if Mr. Limbaugh is the beacon of truth.

You argue the Iraq war cant be criticized 'cuz it aint finished yet' ignoring years of mistakes already well documented.

You completely and conveniently ignore Katrina.

You argue that the patriot act will only affect terrorists for all times and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to be able to hold people without given reason indefinitely. I'll go ahead and let that one drip with ignorance since it no doubt has no historical precedent to the contrary.

I don't agree at all that G.W.B was the nation's worst. He always meant well regarding the issues he could be brought to care about. Your "defense" did him no favors.

Many are now slightly dumber having read this article.

Posted By: Guest#2015 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 03:08 PM

I don't think it's a hyperbolic claim to say that Bush is the worst president ever, especially when you look at the current (and long-term) effect of his policies from both a domestic and international level.

If anything, he's certainly the worst in modern American history. It's difficult (and probably worthless) to compare Bush to previous POTUS like Andrew Johnson. Nonetheless, history won't look kindly on GWB.

Posted By: matt (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 04:39 PM

Worst President in History = Jimmy Carter. Just ask an economist.

Posted By: Curry Man (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 07:09 PM

"I'm a red-blooded (America get with the world and assign blue and red the correct way) Liberal"

Just a question, my friend here thinks you're implying that blood is actually blue and that the term "red-blooded..." is wrong.
If you are, you're an idiot. Blood is NEVER blue.

Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 08:00 PM

Article was complete garbage. "Serial rapist Bill Clinton"? Sorry, but just because a guy can get laid, doesn't make him a rapist. An adulterer, sure, but accusing someone of rape is a big deal. And let's blame the liberal media, because there's an argument that's never been made before. But you're right, if only conservatives have there own mediums. Because they only have Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax, the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, Redstate.com, and a bunch of other websites. I mean other than that, they have no media outlets.

Posted By: Guest99 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 08:13 PM

I don't know why everyone is so shocked about George Bush being a bad president, he's just following the family tree, I mean his mother's ancestor, Franklin Pierce was considered one of the worst presidents of all time, perhaps that's where George got his Screw-up Gene from

Posted By: John (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 09:00 PM

I think he is actually referred to the worst President ever because he took the clear #1 country on earth by a huge margin in 2000 and now they are #2 behind China and barely ahead of the European Union with Russia fast on it's heels. From a Global Power perspective, the U.S. went from Super Power, to aged power in decline under his watch, blame his people, blame his toadies, blame Cheney if you like, but America ruled in 2000, and now begs China for money every day in 2009.

No President has ever lead America down the charts in terms of who the most influential Countries are, and it will take an amazing 8 year President to get America back to where it was in 2000.

As for the writer's obvious political bias, how about you list all the good things Bush did? you'll find it's very very very short for the 8 whole years he had.

Posted By: Rpr (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM

"Every time someone says with red cheeks and sweat dripping off their furrowed brow that he was the worst president ever I never seem to get evidence supporting this argument."

You, sir, are either full of shit or you just choose to ignore any evidence provided.

No, I'm not going to provide reasons. You want to pass yourself off as someone that knows so much about politics, at least enough to write this column, it's obvious that you are being willfully ignorant of the long list of Bush's failures and why he is easily the worst president ever (105 out of 107 scholars agree!)

Posted By: Scott B (Registered) on January 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Here's the bitter truth that nobody likes to hear - PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE FREE. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE INFORMED.

Posted By: Guest#1459 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Amen, brother. Our soldiers can't make people want to be free. All they can do is kill the "bad guys" (all of which depends on which side of the line you're standing). Until the IRAQIS and the AFGHANIS decide they want to be free of the petty pigfucking dictators ruining their lives, and preventing them from joining the ranks of the civilized nations again, they should be left to wallow in squalor and degradation, with jumped up despots stomping on their dreams. Fuck 'em. The whole country of Iraq and Afghanistan combined isn't worth the blood of one single American soldier, and until they're on their knees, begging for our help, guaranteeing we WILL be greeted as liberators, they should be left to suffer the consequences of their own folly and iniquity, along with the forced ignorance and stupidity of their leaders and children.

Posted By: Randian Objectivist (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Guest99, let's don't start comparing media outlets. Most of the ones you mentioned, you have to subscribe to...the liberal ones are everywhere. Let's see...
NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, pretty much every major newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch, Comedy Central, Time Warner, Viacom, MTV, MTV2, HBO, Showtime, damn near every source quoted on the above networks and in the above papers...do I have to go on? 80% of the people believe there is a liberal bias. Even the major networks admitted they might have suck Obama off a little during the election. Either everyone's wrong but you, or you're full of shit. I vote for the latter.

Posted By: Barackalypse (Guest) on January 27, 2009 at 12:12 AM

"80% of the people believe there is a liberal bias."

Source? or do you want to clarify "people" as paranoid republicans?

I can got any republican website and i will hear the same thing - liberal media bias - I go to a democratic website and i hear - there are more conservative stories than liberal and its all made up

so the truth must be someplace in the middle

all this talk about the liberal media does is give idiots like rush limbaugh a chance to spew his nonsense and defend it under the guise that he has to take up the banner against the "liberal media".

It also gives people the opportunity to say bush wasn't given a fair shake by the media when in reality he was one of the worst presidents of the modern era

Posted By: Guest#1306 (Guest) on January 27, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Hey Barackalypse, reality has a liberal bias.

Posted By: matt (Guest) on January 27, 2009 at 05:14 PM

Barackalypse, paranoid much? There are two major problems for the conservative media. One, is that they have no crediibility. Fox News wins the ratings race, but it is also regularly polled as the one people trust the least. Second, conservatives think that just because they view everything as political, they think everybody else does. Sure the people in this comments section probably pay attention pretty closely, but the average person probably couldn't even tell you who Nancy Pelosi is. And this every channel is liberal nonsense is as bad as any tin foil hat conspiracy I've heard. MTV? I'm sure teenagers tune in to the Hills and Bromance for political discussions. Again, the average person just isn't that political. Most media is driven by money and ratings. MSNBC took a hard turn to the left, because it was a ratings success. And this, in part, was due to this failed presidency. People were frustrated and needed a place to vent, and they filled that void.

Posted By: Guest99 (Guest) on January 27, 2009 at 05:26 PM

I'm in the middle on this, as I love playing devil's advocate on a lot of issues but I don't think that President Bush was the worst president ever. Even if he was the most evil man in the world, he could only do so much as the people would let him. Also, on a personal note, he has 2 things which I look upon favorably. A toppling of one of the worst kinds of dictators & the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

Posted By: Uncle Jason (Guest) on January 27, 2009 at 06:13 PM

*******************888
the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

Posted By: Uncle Jason (Guest)
************

Yeah, and he's stopped the Leprechauns from stealing all of our gold too.

And to his credit, I don't hear anything about the killer bees we used to hear so much about in the 80's that were making their way from Mexico. Perhaps that illegal immigrant wall we put up stopped the bees from coming over the border?

Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on January 27, 2009 at 07:30 PM

Here's the bitter truth that nobody likes to hear - PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE FREE. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE INFORMED.

Posted By: Guest#1459 (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Amen, brother. Our soldiers can't make people want to be free. All they can do is kill the "bad guys" (all of which depends on which side of the line you're standing). Until the IRAQIS and the AFGHANIS decide they want to be free of the petty pigfucking dictators ruining their lives, and preventing them from joining the ranks of the civilized nations again, they should be left to wallow in squalor and degradation, with jumped up despots stomping on their dreams. Fuck 'em. The whole country of Iraq and Afghanistan combined isn't worth the blood of one single American soldier, and until they're on their knees, begging for our help, guaranteeing we WILL be greeted as liberators, they should be left to suffer the consequences of their own folly and iniquity, along with the forced ignorance and stupidity of their leaders and children.

Posted By: Randian Objectivist (Guest) on January 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM

--------------

You sir, are a fucking grade-A moron.

Posted By: Guest#1462 (Guest) on January 27, 2009 at 09:48 PM

You sir, are a fucking grade-A moron.

Posted By: Guest#1462 (Guest) on January 27, 2009 at 09:48 PM

Spoken like a gutless liberal nitwit. Have a nice day.

Posted By: Guest#4335 (Guest) on January 28, 2009 at 10:56 PM

STAY CURRENT