George Washington never even spoke his Farewell Address and it remains among the most quoted documents in American history. George W. Bush spoke his farewell address on national television and it was forgotten by the time the networks cut back to Scrubs, CSI, and My Name Is Earl. The Georges' conflicting visions explain why one address is timeless and the other disposable. Twenty-first-century George proclaims that advancing the belief that "freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace" is "the only practical way to protect our citizens." Eighteenth-century George counselled that it is "our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." He asked, "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" Believe one. Believe the other. You can't believe both. You honor your George. I'll honor mine.

George III

Dan,

Hear, hear!

Same in name only I think. They certainly don't make Georges like they used to.

Wait, Scrubs wasn't on last night was it? Did I seriously miss it?

I will honor both, because they served in different times, and faced different challenges.

That was an intelligent and noble response Highlander. You're right.

But there are a lot of Bush haters out there for some reason. I understand being unhappy with Bush as he has been a disappointment to many but it's not clear to me why people are venomous when it comes to the guy.

He was gracious and somewhat noble in his farewell speech last night. But then, he has always been that.

So, while The Messiah was out eating brie with Snophalopagous, Bush was welcoming him and his family and wishing them luck.

I doubt we'll see that kind of class from a President the next four years.

"I doubt we'll see that kind of class from a President the next four years."

If by class you mean upper class fascism that believes the constitution is just a piece of paper, and that this would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, and W was the dictator.

"But there are a lot of Bush haters out there for some reason. "

Actually there are over a thousand reasons, but here are a few for you to take into your dense view of things:
www.scribd.com/doc/185259/Bush-Administration-vs-the-US-Constitution-Scorecard

Did Washington ever say the constitution was just a piece of paper? I doubt it.

Oh, do you mean the Constitution that the President Elect has called a "charter of negative liberties"? The one that on Tuesday, will cause him to commit perjury when he puts his hand on the Bible and swears to preserve, protect and defend it when he doesn’t believe in it and will do everything in his power to circumvent it?

That Constitution?

"Did Washington ever say the constitution was just a piece of paper? I doubt it."

Neither did Bush. Maybe in your mind though.

horse,

Where to begin? Your reverence for the Constitution is admirable, but your concerns for it are misplaced. If you truly valued it as you infer, you would fear Obama more than you hate Bush. It isn't Bush, but Obama who is on record as viewing the Constitution as flawed in that it doesn't give the the government rights to regulate the lives of American citizens. As a so-called Constitutional scholar, he fails to understand that it was written as a guarantee of the rights of the people in the face of government encroachment, not as a list of government rights over the people. The framers understood, as Obama plainly does not, that it was the government that was to be feared, not the people.

In all his eight years of "infamy" no one in George Bush's party thought it would be a good idea to repeal the 22nd ammendment in order to allow unlimited terms for a sitting president. Yet, now that Obama is to be president, we already see a movement among Democrats to do just that.

President-elect Obama has stated his intention to appoint judges who, rather than use the Constitution as it is written in handing down decisions, will read between it's lines and borrow "liberally" from other traditions to advance a political and social agenda.

Your concern for our Constitution is well founded. It is your aim that is off.

What is obvious to those of us paying attention, that the Dems/libs/leftists fail to recognize, is that GW was more of a moderate Democrat than he was a Republican and that ironically their beloved Obama will keep the status quo with regard to Bush policies. They just love to make him the target of their radical deranged hatred even though in eight years he pretty much gave them exactly what they wanted. But, it’s never been said that lefties were overly bright.

Well, they should be happy now as they now have the radical leftist President they’ve been hoping for. Although who will they have to direct their ire at now?

George W. Bush is no George Washington. Proud to say I didn't vote for him either time, I voted Libertarian both times.

That's right, George Bush is no George Washington. But he doesn't have to be to be appreciated for his accomplishments and his dedication to the responsibilities of the office.

"Yet, now that Obama is to be president, we already see a movement among Democrats to do just that."

Back it up... where is a link to that?

"in eight years he pretty much gave them exactly what they wanted."

I never wanted the Iraq war, torture, bailouts, warrant-less wiretaps, Harriet Myers, Plame-gate, the patriot act, tax cuts for the top 5%, bans on stem cell research, FEMA's 'Brownie' failure, the newly founded department of homeland security, 'freedom-fries', and so on...

Bush was a left wing president. He expanded the size of the federal government more than anybody since LBJ and he embarked on various nation building projects, a traditionally liberal enterprise, which conservatives, to our discredit, were duped in to supporting because he had an 'R' next to his name. To their discredit, the only thing that liberals didn't like was that he didn't have a 'D' next to his. They felt they had a right to win in 2000 after eight years of Clinton, couldn't accept that they lost, and were resolved to hate him from there on out.

Gee, now that you list those things, he did a pretty good job!

"To their discredit, the only thing that liberals didn't like was that he didn't have a 'D' next to his name"

Did you read my last post? There were several democratic principles that he broke, whether or not he expanded the size of government. He was anti-diplomacy, anti-human rights, anti-science, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion rights, anti-fourth amendment, anti-US treaties, anti-first amendment (freedom of information act), anti-fifth amendment, and was a global isolationist. These are not democratic principles.

"Gee, now that you list those things, he did a pretty good job!"

You are so ignorant

“Anti” for all the right reasons. I'm missing him more already.

Stop it horsesazz. You're just reminding me of the good old days and the things I like about Bush. I'm getting verklempt.

"Did you read my last post? There were several democratic principles that he broke, whether or not he expanded the size of government. He was anti-diplomacy, anti-human rights, anti-science, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion rights, anti-fourth amendment, anti-US treaties, anti-first amendment (freedom of information act), anti-fifth amendment, and was a global isolationist. These are not democratic principles." - Horse

He was a social conservative, of course.

As for the rest, the image of Bush on foreign policy that liberals have cooked up is a mythical one. The western international order has not significantly suffered under his tenure.

Facts just get in the way of horsesazz's rage Ben. Don't confuse the lad.

"Back it up... where is a link to that?"

If you insist... Rep. Jose Serrano (D) New York

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.5:

"I'm getting verklempt"

do you speak douche-bag?

"If you insist... Rep. Jose Serrano (D) New York

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.5:"

Gee Highlander, what about the same worded resolution http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

in which a republican Mr. Frank James (Jim) Sensenbrenner, Jr also sponsored in 2005...

Does that mean that Bush was also trying to repeal the same amendment? No. The argument doesn't hold water on my side or yours. Try again.

The timing of the resolution is key here. We'll see whether it holds water or not. I notice you only address the points of my arguments you think you can refute - the rest you avoid.

Mr. Flynn,
At this moment of my life as my opinions and beliefs on such matters begin to grow roots, I will act contrary to your suggestion and honor both men.

Among precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to take one precaution against our own. I must fairly say, I dread our own power and our own ambition; I dread our being too much dreaded. . . . It is ridiculous to say we are not men, and that, as men, we shall never wish to aggrandize ourselves in some way or other . . . we may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard of power. But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin. - EDMUND BURKE

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. - JAMES 4:17

I just read the: http://www.scribd.com/doc/185259/Bush-Administration-vs-the-US-Constitution-Scorecard

that Horse put up and even in it's attempt to look down upon the actons that were taken as anti-citizen, it still looks good to me. Tell me when was the last terrorist attack on US soil? And didn't all of these actions, save maybe Padilla's court jurisdiction issues, prevent such an attack?
The answer to the those questions is evident. There hasn't been another attack and those actions by the government to protect its CITIZENS is a win for those citizens.
Gain some perspective.

Oh I'm sorry Mike, that list was small and stopped in '06. If you are need any more reason to question his competency, there are 1,594 reasons here:

http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons/reasons.php

Hmm... do you have any credible, non-biased sources or do you always cite to places with an agenda?

I think we run into trouble when we try to compare presidents from different eras. After WWII and the Great Depression politics was changed in some fundamental ways, so I think it's best to compare President Bush with other post-war presidents. President Bush's record pretty much speaks for itself. He is leaving office as the most unpopular president in history, and this assessment is well-founded.

The quixotic belief that History will somehow resurrect George Bush into a great president is ridiculous. Will History turn Nixon into a great president? Carter? But whereas Nixon's corruption and Carter's ineffectualness was limited in place and scope; President Bush's actions are like a wrecking ball against America. Even if Obama turns out to be sub-par president, he may be remembered as a good, possibly even great, president coming right on the heels of George Bush.

Only history will tell. You nor I can predict the future or public opinion. So you can keep your opinions and beliefs for as long as you like. History is funny in that we remember the good things about some people and bad about others even when those good and bad items weren't so good, nor so bad.

Outside of spending enough like a drunken sailor to give drunken sailors a bad name, why will Bush go down as one of our worse Presidents? Unless the U.S. Ministry of Education and Liberal Indoctrination (aka - public government schools) make sure of it.

The War? The war that Clinton thought we should fight and that most high profile democrats and the U.N. agreed that the U.S. should launch to halt terrorism and insure Saddam did not have WMD’s?

And, or course, the silly lefties' favorite: the domestic and foreign surveillance of communications concerning suspected terrorists, which has helped to thwart hundreds of terrorist attempts.

Both things, by the way, the status of which will not change under The Splendid Socialist.

So tell us again, how bad were things under Bush? Did everybody have a really dismal existence for the last eight years? Did they not live safe productive lives? (this would except you doom and gloom libs who are never happy anyway).

No matter what has or will happen, the U.S. Ministry of Propaganda (aka – MSM) will insure that Bush is wrong on everything and that the Messiah is right on everything.

(psst - yes horsesazz, there is media and there will be historical bias)

Believe me, I know that bias exists... I'm just not dense enough to see that it comes from both sides like you.

Don't underestimate yourself.

I think history will judge President Bush to be a bad president because he's consistently made very bad decisions. The ridiculous argument that "everyone" had a miserable existence under Bush is setting the bar is low as possible. I'm sure not everyone had a miserable existence during the Great Depression; I'm sure some people were happy and productive during the Black Death. What's the point?

Also, it's important to note that Bush's bad decisions are made because Bush is a bad character. The American people instinctively know this and that's why he's the most disliked president since WWII. For some strange reason the liberal media couldn't knock Reagan this low or sully his sound achievements as president.

As you point out, Bush's bad decisions begin with his reckless fiscal policies. This itself shows that he is indifferent to the fiscal well being of the country, and it doesn't matter to him what ruin he leaves future generations.

Of course the real measure of his character -- or lack thereof -- was revealed when he decided to invade Iraq; but not just invade Iraq but to deliberately manufacture a climate of fear in the country, exaggerate and even manipulate evidence all in the hopes of starting a war. Naturally, this blame doesn't fall solely on President Bush since others in his Administration were also gung ho for war. But he is the president and the responsibility was his alone.

Neither Ronald Reagan, Bush I, or Bill Clinton thought it wise to invade and occupy Iraq for every obvious reasons; reasons that have become apparent over the last few years.

So why is Bush a bad president? Because he's a bad person. Why is he a bad person? Because he manipulates evidence, manufactures phantom threats to start wars that kill thousands of people, wreck thousands of lives, and then claims he's making us safer. He then uses this fear to increase the power of the federal government and spy on innocent Americans and commit felonies against the Constitution.

People can prosper in any time under any president, so this rather pathetic argument hardly means much.

This is rich, "deliberately manufacture a climate of fear in the country".

Were you around during 9/11 Eric? Based on the chaos at the time, I don't think that Bush had to manufacture anything. There was enough fear to go around and most people weren't sure if they would the next group of people to be murdered. And Bush did the best that could be done to help quell that fear.

And yes (you could look it up!), Clinton was considering a military foray into Iraq based on what intelligence was available and what the U.N. had to say.

But Clinton didn't have the b@ll$ (much like just about any Democrat today). And when Fat Drunk Ted Kennedy said that Bush was moving on Iraq to gain political capital, he wasn't coherent enough to understand that Bush thought that it was the right thing to do even though it was clearly political suicide.

How quickly and conveniently we all forget the past when it works into our agendas. Hindsight is a truly amazing luxury isn't it!?

"... The American people instinctively know this and that's why he's the most disliked president since WWII."

Too many Americans believe what they're told to believe by the MSM. Were they relying more on their instincts they would know that Bush is a good man doing a difficult job to the best of his ability. To have seen anything else these past eight years is to have succumbed to the psychology of the mob.

Regardless of why Bill Clinton failed to intervene in Iraq he made the right decision. Remember, the most practical reasons for not occupying Iraq were made by the first Bush Administration and that's why the first Gulf War was successful -- it only aimed to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to avoid the perils of "regime change."

You continue to parrot the propaganda of the Bush Administration in linking 9/11 to Iraq. The Bush Administration used phantom threats -- remember Iraq's deadly arsenal of WMD? -- to frighten the American people so as to support a preconceived foreign policy of global hegemony. This is an act of a wicked and evil man.

I don't need any hindsight in opposing the Iraq war. I was dead set against the war from day one.

But this is all really beside the point. You are simply a Bush Cultist, and not a conservative. You don't like Clinton because he had a D next to his name. He love Bush because he has an R next to his name. You even admit that Bush isn't a conservative, yet the slightest criticism of him rankles you. Why? It doesn't bother you that President Bush isn't a conservative because you're not one either. Your opinions and ideas go no deeper than whatever suits the partisan interests of George Bush.

Highlander, I see you're using the old MSM excuse again. Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of alternative news sources these days, that Fox News is the number on cable news show, that conservative radio dominates the air waves etc. You Bush cultists keep using this same old tired refrain. However, why didn't the MSM cause Reagan to leave office with the lowest approval rating since WWII?? Reagan left office with an approval rating around 63%. This was before the internet, the rise of talk radio, and Fox News.

It's really not complicated. Bush is unpopular and widely detested because he's a horrible president. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Eric,

No, I'm not a Bush cultist. In my view he is neither the worst nor the best of presidents. If I were a cultist, I would believe fervently in the latter.

Just so you know, let me give you one definition of a cultist. A cultist is someone who makes comparisons between Obama and Lincoln - before the former has even served a day! That's a real cultist! No, I'm a realist. I recognize Bush is a very unpopular president at present. Most presidents who have had difficult choices to make, have been. But Bush has had something else to deal with that no other president ever has - the false label of illegitimacy that has been used by the opposition and the media to pummel him day-in and day-out for the last eight years. This incessant uproar has persuaded many like and weak-minded people such as yourself, that Bush is an incompetent and evil man. I only see him as a man - imperfect but dedicated to his job of protecting the American people.

Many of his tormentors should feel shame for their treatment of him - were they capable of it.

As for the MSM. It's true that Fox is the largest single cable network, and conservative talk radio is King. But taken together, liberal media still reaches more people. And enough of them are taken in by the propaganda to allow their views to be shaped by them. The liberal media shamelessly carried Obama during his campaign - and they were hugely successful in doing so.

No matter - Bush will have the last laugh. History will be much kinder to him than the small-minded people so keen to destroy him in the present.

So Eric, have your fun. By all means continue to let your hate cloud your thoughts and shape your vision. Perhaps someday you will mature intellectually enough to be capable of independent thought, rather than parrot the words of your elitist masters. Maybe, in time, you will be able to look back and see things clearer - NAAAH.

'R's and 'D's? That's your reckoning?

It's more complicated then that Eric. But whatever works for you to keep it simple enough for you to comprehend. But I will say that when I find a 'D' worth a $hit, I'll be on board. As it is, there are even fewer and fewer 'R's worth a $hit.

As I indicated with regard to hindsight: it's easy two or seven years down the line to look at the facts from a comfortable vantage point and assess what should have been done in a volatile and dangerous time in history.

So you and many others have mastered that. Congratulations.

Bush was the front man for the operation as it was his ultimate responsibility to make the hard decisions and based on the data that existed at the time, he made an extremely difficult one believing it was the right thing to do and that it would help to safeguard the people of the U.S. It wasn't an autonomous or a bi-partisan decision either with many applauding it who today are $hitting on him on his way out (very brave and noble that!).

With Clinton, and Obama I’m sure, running away from or wanting to have a Kumbaya moment with aggressors is the norm.

"Too many Americans believe what they're told to believe by the MSM. "

Did Russia attack Georgia, or did Georgia attack Russia?

"No, I'm a realist."

A rose by any other name is still a paranoid fear monger blaming the nation's woes on newspapers and tv that openly let conservative writers work for them. There are many conservatives that work for the NY Times, but they catch so much of this baseless 'liberal media' B/S blame (I went to H/S with one)

"But I will say that when I find a 'D' worth a $hit, I'll be on board. As it is, there are even fewer and fewer 'R's worth a $hit."

You just proved his point... If you need an example of a successful Democrat doing great things, learn about Kathleen Sebelius, the govener of a perpetually red state.

"... A rose by any other name is still a paranoid fear monger."

No, paranoid fear-mongering is... leftist trolls such as yourself advancing the opinion that Bush would attempt a coup before giving up power; that he secretly had captured bin Laden and would unveil him as a November surprise in 2004; that he planned or at least knew of 9/11 beforehand; that he started the Iraq war to enrich his friends and steal her oil reserves, that he planned on setting up a dictatorship; etc, etc. Perhaps some of my conservative friends can help me out here - it's a very long list.

No, try as I might, I can't compete with the colossal delusions of the left.

Horsesazz - WTF are you talking about?

Highlander - they ARE delusional. They are Johnny One Notes who have very few thoughts or opinions of their own. Even when there are facts to the contrary, you can depend on the cool aid drinking party line.

You throw around the 'MSM' label, and it is worthless because there is much strong right-wing media pushing 'propaganda'. Get over yourselves. What you call left wing media is far more center than you think. A recent newsweek comic ripped on caroline kennedy big time. The new york times has been critical of obama's economic team recently. CNN reported on all of the Ayres, Wright, and Blago mess with no hold's barred. You are paranoid conspiracy theorists pushing fear like everyone is out to get you, when reality paints a different picture... and for the record, Georgia attacked Russia knowing the US would come to it's side.

ASDF, let me sum it up for you...

"[you] love Bush because he has an R next to his name. "
"I'm going to miss that big lug...But I will say that when I find a 'D' worth a $hit, I'll be on board."

I know its you favorite line... but you just haven't been paying attention

Mike, you really have nothing to live for if you can't read a story by the BBC on human rights violations, by CBS on a pre-war poll showing a majority of americans wanted to let weapons inspectors finish their jobs, a boston globe article on detainees disapearing, a DOD article quoting rumsfeld saying he KNEW where the WMDs were, an Economic Policy Institute report showing that Bush's Tax code gives billions to companies that send factories overseas... and et cetera

Is that one note or are you all just the blind following the idiots... I'd say the latter

Now that President number 43 has left the White House followed by curses & shoes anyone wishes to throw at him, being the most stupid person (not president) in the history of USA for making his country & humanity suffer from his deeds & the millions of living people & martyrs due to his awkward policy & thinking. I wish he goes straight to Hell.

Hani, you are, quite simply, a hate-filled, ignorant, fool.

Mr.Highlander. Likewise, that's exactly what I felt about your reply. You are an arrogant hate-filled, ignorant, fool like your former president who wherever he put his feet, there was killing fields with destruction,sabotage & terror. USA had great presidents like Kennedy & Clinton. Just compare USA economy in the era of W.Bush & Clinton. To your knowledge, I am an MD doctor not interested in politics. My profession teaches me to be merciful to people, not acquiring the skills of killing and invading remote countries for trifle reasons like your president number 43. By the way what is the level of your education?

Mr.Highlander. Likewise, that's exactly what I felt about your reply. You are an arrogant hate-filled, ignorant, fool like your former president who wherever he put his feet, there was killing fields with destruction,sabotage & terror. USA had great presidents like Kennedy & Clinton. Just compare USA economy in the era of W.Bush & Clinton. To your knowledge, I am an MD doctor not interested in politics. My profession teaches me to be merciful to people, not acquiring the skills of killing and invading remote countries for trifle reasons like your president number 43. By the way what is the level of your education?

"By the way what is the level of your education?"

Careful Hani... they'll just call you an elitist as their only defense when backed into the corner. Some people just like murder and torture, and there is nothing we can say to thick skulls about it to convince them of any other option.

"arrogant hate-filled, ignorant, fool like your former president"

Really? How so? GW was a lot of things, but hate-filled was definately not what he was.

He was noble and gracious to the end and it's unfortunate that you venomous folks on the left don't have the class or the brains to recognize it.

Hani,

Why am I not surprised that your an MD? I work in IT at a large hospital, so I am familiar with MDs. Although there are exceptions, I find them as a whole to be arrogant, closed-minded, and one-dimensional. Your attempt to haul your education out as a trump card is symptomatic of the type.

Incidently, I have degrees in history and political science, so I do have an interest in politics.

"He was noble and gracious to the end "

Sure, torture is real noble and only aided the GWOT.

Highlander,

Explain to me how history will be kind to a president who drowned this country in debt and told fables to start a war that had no relevance to our national security? Some things improve with time; some don't. How will history make Bush look good?

ASDF,

"With Clinton, and Obama I’m sure, running away from or wanting to have a Kumbaya moment with aggressors is the norm."

Okay, you're able to repeat simplistic cliches that have no bearing on reality. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq and Kosovo. Is this an example of a Kumbaya moment? I don't think so. You just repeat the most stereotypical cliches in partisan politics so it's no wonder you love Bush so much and despise Obama.

Eric,

I'm sure I couldn't offer any explanations that would satisfy you, but here goes:

(1) He has kept this country safe since 9/11 - I don't think anyone foresaw the complete absence of terrorist attacks since that time. The actions that Bush took are responsible for that absence.

(a) Libya's Colonel Qaddafi renounced terrorism and gave up his weapons of mass destruction programs, including one for nukes. We now have a Tripoli embassy for the first time in three and a half decades.

(b) the Bush administration helped foil a plot hatched in Pakistan that aimed to bring down about 10 US- and Canada-bound airliners over the Atlantic with liquid explosives after taking-off from the United Kingdom.

(c) Bush also fielded a missile defense system to protect us from the threat of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction from the likes of North Korea and Iran.

(d) The Bush administration also developed the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a voluntary effort consisting of some 90 nations, working together to battle the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

It is credited with intercepting material for Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear programs, which many increasingly believe isn't for peaceful purposes.

(e) His administration also uncovered and took apart the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network, an international smuggling ring that had been selling nuclear know-how and equipment to North Korea, Iran and Libya -- and to who knows who else.

(2) He removed a crime family from power in Iraq that had possessed and used WMD (and had positioned themselves to do so again), a supporter of terror (both financial and logistical) - and replaced it with an increasingly functional democracy. Right in the heart of the middle east. This has the potential to make a real difference in that area in the coming years. That is most definitely in our national interest and will be for many years. Moreover, it is in the national interest of many other countries as well.

(3) Bush's Medicare prescription plan is up and running and is saving senior citizens hundreds of dollars a year.

(4) Reading and math scores have improved dramatically among minority children under Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education plan.

(5) Bush's successes in fighting AIDS and malaria in Africa (he has done more than any other president) are not well known here - partly because he hasn't advertised it, partly beacuse the media hasn't often reported it.

(6) US-India relations are better than ever due to Bush administration efforts. The importance of this relationship can not be overstated.

For these reasons and more, once the synthetic din of the last eight years has quieted, and cooler heads prevail (I don't count you among them), Bush will be seen in a more balanced and favorable light. You can count on it - much to your displeasure no doubt.

"The ridiculous argument that "everyone" had a miserable existence under Bush is setting the bar is low as possible." - Eric

Exactamundo Eric! I think you're getting it! I agree that it is a ridiculous argument that everyone had a miserable existence under Bush. In fact, outside of the doom and gloom Dems and their house organ media carrying the anti-Bush banner, things weren't all that bad in the Bush years.

And you've got to love the lefties who accuse us of being 'Bush cultists' when they adore the elevate a corrupt, flawed, incompetent neophyte whose only attributes happen to be that he speaks well and looks good in a suit.

asdf,

I don't think you're doing justice to Obama's qualities. I happen to think he looks great in a suit.

Touché.

Highlander,

"(1) He has kept this country safe since 9/11 - I don't think anyone foresaw the complete absence of terrorist attacks since that time. The actions that Bush took are responsible for that absence."

This is the most popular argument made by the Bush Cultists but it is entirely fallacious. First, the argument is ahistorical: Americans were not any safer under President Bush than we under Clinton in the 1990s or Reagan in the 80s. I don't remember thousands of Americans dying at the hands of Islamic radicals annually during the Clinton Administration; or thousands of Americans dying at the hands of Communist insurgent in the 80s. If this was the case then an argument could be made that Bush has kept us safer. But we are not safer now than we were in the 90s, so the argument that "Bush kept us safe," is rubbish: compared to what?

The rest of your list can easily be described as an exercise in grasping for straws. None of the "accomplishments" you metion will go down in the history books as a salient feature of the Bush Administration.

Futhermore, there is no case to be made that the ivasion of Iraq is in our national interests. The casus belli was WMD and now that that argument has vanished into the ether, the Bush Cultists have changed the rules after the game has been played. This is cheating. How many so-called conservatives were saying before 9/11 that we should invade and occupy Iraq even if Saddam isn't producing WMD just to turn the country into a democracy because it would be in our national interest? Probably close to zero. This proves that this argument is just special pleading -- making up a new argument after the original casus belli was shown to be a fraud.

In regards to the Iraqi "democracy" that you mention, I fail to see how this is in our interests. The two main political parties are backed by Iran. Saddam Hussein was never a supporter of international terrorism against the West, and even if he was, why should US soldiers fight and die to make Iraq safe for Iranian backed parties?

ASDF, If Obama's only two virtues is that he can speak well and looks good in a suit then that's two more virtues than President Bush.

How was life in the Bush Administration? Well, it depends on who you ask, so this question or formula doesn't prove much. We do know that private sector job growth under President Bush was the worst since WWII, gas prices were high, and the investment markets miserable. So it hasn't been a bed of roses either.

The agrument that President Bush is one of the worst presidents in history isn't predicated on the fact that everyone was miserable, but on the fact that as president he has consistently made bad decisions that have had bad consequences for the country. But again you don't have any arguments of opinions to offer. You're simply a Bush Cultist and ergo you think Bush is a good president and Obama a bad one.

” We do know that private sector job growth under President Bush was the worst since WWII, gas prices were high, and the investment markets miserable”.

Really? Prove it. Bush presided over government when we had the lowest unemployment numbers in recent history, when gas prices rose as a result of market demand (and dropped again for the same reasons) and investment markets were good until Democrat policies and intervention screwed them up.

We don't know yet if Obama will be a good or a bad President. In fact, we don't know anything that Obama has done that would help us understand anything about him. Other than he's a hell of the candidate and can fool guilty liberals and undereducated, indoctrinated kids and women.

You'll never admit to it Eric because unlike Bush supporters, you'd have to be a cultist to support and vote for someone like Obama who has either not taken a stand on much of any serious consequence or when a position had to be taken has always taken the painless liberal one. But he can read from a teleprompter and is.....cool.

I don't think a lot of people woke up daily during the Bush Presidency worrying about their security, productivity or overall survival. That won't be the case during the administration of the slick inexperience huckster that you've just elected.

I'm still "Hope" ing for the best but I think I'll be disappointed and that our country will be in greater danger than it’s ever been.

Eric,

If you don't see a case for Iraq as a stable democracy in the middle-east being in our national interests, then your vision looking forward is every bit as myopic as it is looking into the past. It's really quite simple: Is the middle-east a strategically important piece of real estate to the U.S. and the world? The answer is ceratinly yes. Would a functioning democratic ally in the area serve to bring stability to the region? Quite possibly. Would that be in our national interests for that to be true? Absolutely.

Cultists Eric? With your guy, we’re talking REAL and scary cultists.

Many in this country wouldn’t recite the American Pledge of Allegiance but they will pledge allegiance to a person.

Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore have come up with their own pledge to Obama and have cut a video reciting it along with a bunch of their fellow brainless Hollywood friends and colleagues. They pledge to Obama to "be the change" that so many want to see with his incoming Administration.

Now THAT’S a cult.

ASDF,

Because you are obviously incapable of arguing with me you just invent your own liberal, Obama fanatic strawman to argue with. I didn't vote for Obama nor do I support Obama. I do support prosecuting George Bush for war crimes, ending the occupation of Iraq, and repealing both Patriot Acts, among other things. Do I think Obama will do any of this? Not really.

But sorry to interrupt your argument between you and your imaginary strawman.

Do you really expect me to believe that you are not a raving leftist and that you did not and do not support The Messiah? I'm pretty sure you did as your talking points are right out of the Obot hand book.

You mention Bush Cultists and I counter with how a supporter of the alternative are the true Cultists as they have and will blindly follow the fraud from Chicago and you sound to me like a perfect example of that. Obama will never do his own dirty work and has proven that he will appear to remain above the fray while his minions do the heavy lifting. I'll be willing to wager that you are one of those.

But for those who think that Bush will be prosecuted for anything, consider that Pelosi, Reid and Obama are guilty of violating the Logan act and more open to prosecution than an ex sitting President who was making executive decisions in a time of grave national crisis.

So tell me again, right after you insist that a new precedent and a low in American politics should be set, how you are not an Obama cultist.

ASDF, Well there is this little thing called evidence. Feel free to search through the archives of the Flynnfiles and find a single post where I say I'm a Barack Obama supporter. You can't do it because it doesn't exist. Sorry again, to interrupt your argument with you and liberal strawman. The fantasy may resume. I'll tell Oz you need a brain.