GWB turns out was a pretty good President

[healthmyths]

AIG pays us back. The forst 50% of tarp saved the economy
His leadership post 9-11 prevented a more serious economic collapse than we had
Saddam, gone
UBL, gone (thanks to water boarding in 2006 as well as Navy seals/CIA)
His tax rate will be in place for 99% of us
Sarbanes Oxley, huge success
His medicare plan was under funded, but also a huge success
was within 163 billion of a balanced budget, 2007
Numerous bi partisan legislation events such as No Child left behind, removing Saddam, Etc...
Budgets through 2008 (BHO signed the 09 budget 3/2009, called the Omnibus bill

Now how is BHO doing?
no jobs
huge debt
Obama care in which some of his own now want out of some

It is not even close people

Bush trashed the economy.

Let's look at jobs created during a Presidential term! Look at all these Presidents and see when it went down!

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush's first term had 0.00% jobs growth and yes, Obama's record is worse, but who caused it? Bush fought two wars on hock and still couldn't create jobs. I've posted the results of the stock markets during his Presidency. Only Hoover beats him and Hoover wasn't a bad guy. He had an idiot for Secretary of the Treasury named Mellon, but look what Hoover did during the Mississippi flood. That takes heart! They didn't know how to run an economy back then, but we know how to do it now, but the Republicans like to do it in reverse. If you think the majority of Americans don't see this, you are sadly mistaken.

You screwed up the economy and you worked hard to keep it screwed up. Bush had six years of Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, but Obama gets needing 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. The Republicans filibustered bills they totally voted for, just to shut the government down. That political party needs to join the Whigs and just be a part of American history.

Now, before I sound too radical, I was a Republican. I like money and have always liked the opportunity to make it, but I don't steal it from other people. I never was that greedy, needy or call it what you want. Honor means something to me.

YOU ARE A LIAR!!! Proof? Because YOU like all the other idiot Bush bashers completely totally IGNORE THESE FACTS!
If you want to prove YOU ARE NOT a LIAR REFUTE THESE FACTS OK???

NO president has EVER faced events of their magnitude in the same 8 year period.

A) Didn't the marvelous dot.com ( that Clinton phony surplus bubble)* bust occur? YES! What did it cost?
1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who would have paid $66 billion from 2002 and have $5 trillion in loss write offs!!!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!


B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) $2 trillion in losses meant $24 billion a year in reduced TAX payments from 2003 and beyond GONE! Airlines didn't fly 3 days, Wall st closed 10 days! 3,000 deaths!
2 145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!


and regarding hurricanes... THE WORST SEASONS not hurricanes like Sandy SEASONS!!!
C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
1) $1 trillion in losses meaning $12 billion a year in reduced tax revenues!
2) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita
3) 5,000 lives lost!

YET how many people seemingly forget those 3 events costing over $8 trillion which is being written off against taxes today.

850,000 jobs lost due to dot.com/911 and hurricanes.

DOES ANYONE WANT to say those events didn't COST MONEY put out by the government?

DOES ANYONE want to say the $8 trillion in tax write offs didn't cost revenue?

What about 850,000 jobs and the unemployment benefits for 99 weeks at $300/week is $25.2 Billion...
ALL paid out and NOT coming in...

SO where are all you people that lived like I did through the above which included the anthrax attack and that caused a lot of anxiety and lost jobs and money!

YOU big ass LIAR PROVE THESE EVENTS DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! PROVE THEY HAD NO AFFECT ON TAX REVENUES! PROOF THEY HAD NO AFFECT ON GDP!!!

 

[healthmyths]

NO ONE has YET honestly REFUTED THE above FACTS!!!

Would some one PROVE THERE isn't nearly $100 billion a year in tax revenue not collected because of the $8 trillion in losses our country sustained due to dot.com bust/911 and hurricanes???
Would someone prove nearly 850,000 jobs were NOT lost due to the above???

Would some one show where any other President had to face these events AND have the MSM so vehemently, aggressive, bash Bush??
Please refute this statement:
Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters.org

WHERE are these people doing their job today with Obama... i.e. "bash the president"!!???

 

[thanatos144]

We can always wring our hands and say there was nothing Bush could have done

What we cannot do is claim that Bush kept us safe......because he didn't

You will also realize that Bush kept us safer then Obama has

He has....Just ask the families of the people dead from fast and furious and Benghazi.

Or you could talk to the families of the 3000 killed on 9-11
or the families of 5000 American dead in Iraq
or the tens of thousands who were injured or crippled from Bush's ill-advised war

Then I guess your boy Clinton should have done his job instead of leaving it for Bush to clean up.....Just like all progressives you never finish what you start.

 

[SFC Ollie]

We as a country will benefit from Obamacare well beyond that

We can't afford Obamacare................

We have reached the point where we can't afford to not have national healthcare

Maybe, but Obamacare isn't it......... How many part time jobs are out there already because of Obamacare? Just for a start......

 

[Harry Dresden]

We as a country will benefit from Obamacare well beyond that

We can't afford Obamacare................

We have reached the point where we can't afford to not have national healthcare

i agree with Ollie RW......right now there are too many people out of work to pay for this....i think it would be great if you get sick you go see someone instead of just getting worse because you cant....but until this Economy gets back into shape and unemployment gets down to 3-5 percent, Obama should have just targeted those who right now NEED healthcare.....those 20-30 million out there.....it would have cost much less and is attainable......the people who have Ins dont need it.....concentrate for now on those who do need it....i think Obama would have come out of this with more people backing him if he would have targeted those without right now.....thats my take anyway.......

 

[MikeK]

Another funny jr. post praising President Bush.

President Bushes legacy will be two fold. First, Iraq. Including but not limited to invading a country that was not planning on attacking us, (nor could have if they wanted to), did not represent a serious or immediate threat to us, did not have the WMD President Bush and hius people claimed, and getting thousands of US soldiers killed. His invasion and occupation is also responsible for an unknown number of innocent Iraqi civilians. Second he presided over the worst economic meltdown since 1929.

President Obama's is still being written.

He will also be known as the only president to openly engage in TORTURE

You think we've been Lilly white in that category? How far back are you counting?

We've heard about isolated incidents of torture performed by our troops in the midst of ongoing engagements dating back to the Civil War. While such events are the predictable consequence of the organized insanity which is armed combat they are not authorized and systematically conducted by the highest levels of the civilian government as was the activities carried out at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

While there might be some moral justification for the use of torture when the subject of the torture is known to be guilty of or complicit in some grievous offense and refuses to reveal critical preventive information. But the problem with our torture activities has been the fact that many or most of the subjects have been found to be totally innocent of any conduct which might vindicate our actions.

That is the inexcusable moral indictment we face. That is what the Bush government did in the name of the American People.

 

[BlindBoo]

Had Gore been President on 9-11-01 I have little doubt that we would have UN troops patrolling our cities to keep us safe........

Gore likely wouldn't have ignored al Queda for the first 9 months. Twin Towers might still be standing.

The UN has no troops.

i doubt that.....you guys act like the people who actually combat this type of stuff would stop looking out for this just because there was a Presidential change.....

I feel that way because Gore had a much better understanding about the threat al Queda posed than the new incoming President. The USS Cole was still on my mind and of many Americans in Jan 01. I had hope Clinton would do something before he left office. But then again action against al Queda in Afghanistan might have cause them to attack us sooner, hence the use of the word "might'

The problem was the new administration didn't listen to the guy whose job it was.

 

[BlindBoo]

Obtuse too? Where did I say let them decide. You do know what the word "afterwards" means, right?

I hightlighted what was "posed" to you TWICE.

Mustang huh?...more like Jackass.

Perhaps we should get those kids' opinions on every matter of national importance. Actually, we could have kids conduct the tours of the Bush library and explain ALL of his decisions to everyone who stops by.

John Q. Citizen: Kids, why did President Bush invade Iraq?

Kids: Because.

John Q. Citizen: Because why?

Kids: Just because!

President GWB AND congress with the will of the people invaded Iraq to enforce UN resolutions as follows
On 1-27-2003 Hans Blix told the world that Saddam had 1000s of munitions un accounted for and was still not cooperating
Read it, this IS THE event that GWB decided to go on what congress had given him the authority to do, 10-2002 with 29 dems in the senate voting yea
READ IT

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION

Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

Update 27 January 2003

Saddam was guilty of ignoring

resolution 687 (1991), adopted unanimously as a part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, had five major elements. The three first related to disarmament. They called for :
declarations by Iraq of its programmes of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles;
verification of the declarations through UNSCOM and the IAEA;
supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of proscribed programmes and items.
After the completion of the disarmament :

Read it, there is more

The Bush led Invasion and Occupation of Iraq did not have the backing of the UN. That is to say there was no UN authorization for the use of force to remove the lawful Government of Iraq. Truth be known President Bush renigged on our committment to the UN when we signed on to SCR 1441.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Not that I'm condoning the Iraq conflict but we shouldn't be in the UN to begin with...

 

[SFC Ollie]

He will also be known as the only president to openly engage in TORTURE

You think we've been Lilly white in that category? How far back are you counting?

We've heard about isolated incidents of torture performed by our troops in the midst of ongoing engagements dating back to the Civil War. While such events are the predictable consequence of the organized insanity which is armed combat they are not authorized and systematically conducted by the highest levels of the civilian government as was the activities carried out at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

While there might be some moral justification for the use of torture when the subject of the torture is known to be guilty of or complicit in some grievous offense and refuses to reveal critical preventive information. But the problem with our torture activities has been the fact that many or most of the subjects have been found to be totally innocent of any conduct which might vindicate our actions.

That is the inexcusable moral indictment we face. That is what the Bush government did in the name of the American People.

Oh yes and how many of the innocents that were released from Gitmo were recaptured on a battlefield? Get real.......... BTW you do know that we train with water boarding, don't you?

 

[MikeK]

You think we've been Lilly white in that category? How far back are you counting?

We've heard about isolated incidents of torture performed by our troops in the midst of ongoing engagements dating back to the Civil War. While such events are the predictable consequence of the organized insanity which is armed combat they are not authorized and systematically conducted by the highest levels of the civilian government as was the activities carried out at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

While there might be some moral justification for the use of torture when the subject of the torture is known to be guilty of or complicit in some grievous offense and refuses to reveal critical preventive information. But the problem with our torture activities has been the fact that many or most of the subjects have been found to be totally innocent of any conduct which might vindicate our actions.

That is the inexcusable moral indictment we face. That is what the Bush government did in the name of the American People.

Oh yes and how many of the innocents that were released from Gitmo were recaptured on a battlefield? Get real.......... BTW you do know that we train with water boarding, don't you?

First, those who returned to the battlefield might not be returning but were provoked into taking up arms against us by the treatment they received from us. The notion they were fighters to begin with is purely presumptive. And even if they were fighters to begin with, can you blame them? We invaded their country. What would you do in their place? That is no reason to torture them. The purpose of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was to locate and deal with Al Qaeda operatives, mainly those who participated in the 9/11 plot. But things got out of hand and our troops were "arresting" any Iraqi who didn't look right to them.

And you may rest assured that the kind of waterboard familiarization training our intelligence operatives receive is in no way comparable to the psychological trauma that procedure imparts to a real interrogation subject. And the kind of torture the Iraqi prisoners were subjected to was not limited to waterboarding -- as the photographic evidence and eye-witness testimony clearly attests.

Does it matter to you that these things were done in our names -- yours and mine?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Doesn't bother me a bit..... I'd be glad to help.....

 

[Cammmpbell]

AIG pays us back. The forst 50% of tarp saved the economy
His leadership post 9-11 prevented a more serious economic collapse than we had
Saddam, gone
UBL, gone (thanks to water boarding in 2006 as well as Navy seals/CIA)
His tax rate will be in place for 99% of us
Sarbanes Oxley, huge success
His medicare plan was under funded, but also a huge success
was within 163 billion of a balanced budget, 2007
Numerous bi partisan legislation events such as No Child left behind, removing Saddam, Etc...
Budgets through 2008 (BHO signed the 09 budget 3/2009, called the Omnibus bill

Now how is BHO doing?
no jobs
huge debt
Obama care in which some of his own now want out of some

It is not even close people

LMAO!!

Saddam Hussein never did anything to the United States. The only reason Bush invaded Iraq and lost 4500 young Americans was because in 1993 Hussein tried to assassinated old man Bush. You know how that Texas Justice is.

If Bush was a good president I'd hate like hell to see a bad one. He assumed a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears and the total debt on a path to be completely paid off by 2012.....cut taxes twice for his rich oil buddies, started two wars and doubled the national debt.

Bill Clinton took two terms to clean up after Reagan and Bush41 and Obama assumed a much bigger mess.....if could possibly be ten years before anybody can straighten out this revolting development....if it ever is.

At least folks don't trust the Republican party any longer.....they proved that on November 6.

 

[TwistedSuze13]

Far as I can tell, no one's mentioned the passing of the Patriot Act while Bush 43 was in office.
The vast majority of the stinking thing is UNconstitutional.

And I don't have a source, but this wouldn't surprise me - I heard that the Patriot Act, over 300 pages, was sent to members of Congress via email PDF only 15 minutes before they were to vote on it.
If true.....Shame - Shame - Shame.

*
And don't get me started on those DAMNED lightbulbs ( I call "pigtail bulbs") that have to be specially disposed of because the F*cking things have Mercury in them.
How is that environment friendly !?.... you sad, green Twats .

Thanks a lot for that one, Bushie.....

 

[Cammmpbell]

Far as I can tell, no one's mentioned the passing of the Patriot Act while Bush 43 was in office.
The vast majority of the stinking thing is UNconstitutional.

And I don't have a source, but this wouldn't surprise me - I heard that the Patriot Act, over 300 pages, was sent to members of Congress via email PDF only 15 minutes before they were to vote on it.
If true.....Shame - Shame - Shame.

*
And don't get me started on those DAMNED lightbulbs ( I call "pigtail bulbs") that have to be specially disposed of because the F*cking things have Mercury in them.
How is that environment friendly !?.... you sad, green Twats .

Thanks a lot for that one, Bushie.....

Anybody who fails to see the value of a light bulb which gives 60 watts of light for an actual consumption of 13 watts really needs to slow down and take a better look.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Gore likely wouldn't have ignored al Queda for the first 9 months. Twin Towers might still be standing.

The UN has no troops.

i doubt that.....you guys act like the people who actually combat this type of stuff would stop looking out for this just because there was a Presidential change.....

I feel that way because Gore had a much better understanding about the threat al Queda posed than the new incoming President. The USS Cole was still on my mind and of many Americans in Jan 01. I had hope Clinton would do something before he left office. But then again action against al Queda in Afghanistan might have cause them to attack us sooner, hence the use of the word "might'

The problem was the new administration didn't listen to the guy whose job it was.

that does not mean that the agents on the ground decided they are not going to do their jobs just because Gore lost.....they were the same guys doing this stuff when Clinton was in.....nothing changed to them.....it was only what 6 months into his term......nothing changed for those guys they were still doing what they always have been doing.....sometimes the bad guys win.....

 

[BallsBrunswick]

It's interesting how fast the fanatical elements of the right wing are trying to rehabilitate Bush's image.

 

[rightwinger]

It's interesting how fast the fanatical elements of the right wing are trying to rehabilitate Bush's image.

History will not be so kind

 

[BallsBrunswick]

It's interesting how fast the fanatical elements of the right wing are trying to rehabilitate Bush's image.

History will not be so kind

Well to most people. There are still people who think the holocaust was an elaborate practical joke as there will still be those who defend W as a good President.

 

[Cammmpbell]

It's interesting how fast the fanatical elements of the right wing are trying to rehabilitate Bush's image.

My goodness.....it would be easier to believe that 2000 year old resurrection horse shit. Bush is an idiot and a toy cowboy.