Bush defends his presidential record

Tuesday 13th January, 06:50 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 48 Total Comments Show All

sailwind at 10:13 PM JST - 13th January

sailwind: "He got elected twice."

What does that say about the Americans who voted for him?

Not a heck of a lot.

Agreed

They have now also elected Obama......... Jerks
smithinjapan at 10:33 PM JST - 13th January

sailwind: "They have now also elected Obama......... Jerk"

Nice try, but they elected Obama after being absolutely fed up with bush's disgraces, and even those who only choose for superficial reasons changed to democrats and Obama because they want something different than the lies always being told to them. Hell, even the stupid in the voting lot realize they were taken for a ride with bush!

It really is quite funny, and sad, to see some of you here still defending this man. I bet you guys never do in public where opinions are mixed. Or if you do, you always say, 'Yeah, yeah... bush was bad, but he did do that one good thing where.... no? you disagree?... yeah, you're probably right. No? Not probably? Yeah (tear drop), you're right'. Of course, none of us blame you for not sticking to your guns in such a situation, you're outnumbered in the world by about 6 billion to 1.
SushiSake3 at 10:55 PM JST - 13th January

Smith, agreed. Watching anyone attempting to defend bush is just beyond pathetic.

$2-3 trillion wasted on a war that has made Americans less safe and done zip all to enhance the lives of Americans.

A US-born global economic meltdown.

Millions of jobs and outsourced lost in the US.

American prestige and reputation in tatters.

Need I go on?

Not really. bush's eye-wateringly long string of failures is so obvious it's hardly worth talking about any more.

I'm just happy that he WILL go down as the worst US president in recent history.

He can defend his non-existant record all he likes.

His final tune before he leaves the stage will be a global economic meltdown.

thanks mista bUsH! :-)
smithinjapan at 11:38 PM JST - 13th January

sailwind:

I have just one question, though, for those who honestly believe in your own arguments that someone who posts on a thread for which they don't belong (eg. people posting on bush who aren't American, etc.), do you admit having Israeli-derangement syndrome? or maybe Palestinian derangement syndrome? Is OBL really such an awful guy, or is it that you guys simply have Obama Bin Laden derangement syndrome? Obama derangement syndrome? Saddam derangement syndrome? Socialist derangement syndrome?

I guess that's more than one question, but they're all rhetorical and on the same point; no one on here doubts that OBL is a bad man, and we never say that those who make points against him are deranged in any way. If a person takes issue with what another is saying, they bring out proof, or try to, to back their opinions, but they don't simply try to 'win' an argument with no defense other than an absurd claim that the person is 'obsessed with Bin Laden', or some crap like that. Same with bush as OBL. We are free to argue against bush all we like -- he's an utter loser and unfortunately his affect is not limited to your country. Our bashing of him ought to bring about the best in argument from people who defend him. Instead, the only pathetic thing the can come up with is to pretend the people with all the arguments and all the credit have some bizarre syndrome they made up out of wishing bush were an actual leader.
smithinjapan at 11:39 PM JST - 13th January

Anyway, sailwind, as I said, that's about 6 billion people to your single opinion. Weep all you want, it's fact.
Good_Jorb at 02:28 AM JST - 14th January

“The most urgent threat that he’ll have to deal with and other presidents after him will have to deal with is an attack on our homeland.”

One would think that a failing economic system and ideology would be more important then an possible attack on the US. I suppose it goes to show were Bush's priorities have always been.

This is how thick Bush is. He said. Before going into the kindergarden class room to read My Pet Goat he was i the corridor watching TV and saw an airplane crashing into WTC then he said to himself.

Do have a source for this information?
Sarge at 07:01 AM JST - 14th January

"he didn't get elected twice"

According to our laws, he did.

"bush was elected once"

You mean the election in 2004, half a year AFTER the "illegal invasion" of Iraq?
WhiteHawk at 09:08 AM JST - 14th January

dennis, it was no more "illegal" than Clinton's wars.

All of the reasons were fake? Like the human rights violations?

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alertsaddamsc.html

Saddam's refusal to comply with 12 years of UN resolutions?

No, only one reason has ever been in doubt (WMD), and even on that it's a matter of semantics.

Of course Bush will defend his record as president. Carter is still defending his presidential record, and his was the worst post-WWII administration yet. If you're too young to remember it, don't worry, as Obama may give you a re-run.
zurcronium at 12:51 PM JST - 14th January

Carter is a nobel winner, the only prize bush will get is for selling more copies of mad magazine. Bush and Reagan are worse post WW2 presidents, no question about that.

Whitehawk, your pretend facts are made up. WMD a matter of sematics? You sound exactly like Clinton now, amazing how republicans copy what they pretend to hate. Not worth refuting the rest of your points as its just too comical.

Bush is a total loser and so are the apologists who still try to pretend that their born again President was not a total failure.
French_fries at 09:02 PM JST - 14th January

What would you expect ? That he writes a full confession of regret ? The resume of this guy can be summarized as the most ruinous guy in america. He first ruined past businesses he headed, lastly his greatest achievement is to have ruined his country financially and morally.

Being his speciality, he can only be extremely proud of it. After the Darwins award, there should be the Bushs award.
Sarge at 09:44 AM JST - 15th January

"Bush is a total loser"

He is not.

"He first ruined past businesses he headed"

He did not.

"his greatest achievement is to have ruined his country financially and morally"

If we're ruined financially, how is it other countries continue to receive billions in aid from us? Ruined morally? If we're ruined morally, how is it other countries continue to receive billions in aid from us?
shouganaika at 09:59 AM JST - 15th January

"He first ruined past businesses he headed"

He did not.

yes he did
Sarge at 11:16 AM JST - 15th January

"yes he did"

No, he didn't.
WhiteHawk at 11:32 AM JST - 15th January

zurconium:

Not worth refuting the rest of your points as its just too comical.

Go ahead, I dare ya.

Carter is a nobel winner, the only prize bush will get is for selling more copies of mad magazine.

Infamous terrorist and embezzler Yassaer Arafat also "won" a Nobel. Bush removed a mass-murdering dictator and his mass-murdering and serial-rapist sons, giving Iraqis the first free elections in their lifetimes. But you're right, he won't "win" a Nobel, because the committee is comprised soley of unhinged Leftist tools who think the award should go to embezzling terrorists. Maybe they'll posthumously award it to Saddam Hussein. It'd be par for the course.

Bush and Reagan are worse post WW2 presidents, no question about that.

And you call ME comical?!? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's rich!

If you genuinely prefer Carter's policies to Reagan's, give Obama a chance. He just might come back to the Left enough for you. If not, you can always move to North Korea or Vietnam.

As for Bush's record, I think more time is needed, at least on the foreign policies side. He can defend it now all he wants, but who gets to say "I told you so" won't be known for at least a few years.
Betzee at 01:01 PM JST - 15th January

It's interesting, GWB is now popular in China (from LA Times):

Many Chinese credit the Bush administration's free-trade policies with helping the Chinese economy blossom over the last eight years. They appreciate its efforts to rein in the fiery anti-Beijing rhetoric of former Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian. And Bush's attendance of the opening ceremony of last summer's Olympics, at a time when many world leaders were urging a boycott because of China's human rights record, is viewed with deep gratitude.

Yet most, or many, Americans would question whether becoming so indebted to the Chinese, necessary for Uncle Sam to remain solvent in the face of a five trillion dollar shortfall, is in our national interest. And his lack of support for Taiwan and Tibet call into question his commitment to "freedom."