"Just so long as one overlooks the terrorism that killed 3,000 people in 2001, Bush's record on domestic security is excellent." Please.

They also seem to forget a little episode known as the DC anthrax attacks...

yeah, the anthrax attacks never seem to make the news, do they?

and don't you understand that it's been THREE YEARS since a major american city was destroyed? it's been almost FOUR MONTHS since an investment bank that survived the Great Depression collapsed in on itself. the unemployment rate is lower than Pakistan. give the guy credit where credit is due.

Far, far worse than "silly." This nonsense represents a clear and present danger to the republic - perhaps even greater than the bush destruction itself.

Any acknowledgement of even the tiniest positive accomplishment of the Smirky/Darth maladministration opens the door to permitting the same lawlessness and insanity to be repeated in the future.

No, there were no redeeming features of the Inquisition, or slavery, or the Holocaust, or the Rwandan genocide, and there are none of the perfectly disastrous bush administration either.

I was about to chime in also with ANTHRAX, but i see this deceitful goon anticipated: he said "foreign attack on our land since 9/11"

Very clever, you lying goon. It also conveniently allows him to ignore the increased instances of global terrorism -- Bali, London, Madrid, etc, etc, -- perpetrated by many of the same forces and against our close allies. And, of course, it's not like Bush's policies have in any way contributed to that -- you know, like ignoring the head of Al-qaida to embark on our Excellent Iraqi Adventure...

We know that there has not been an elephant rampage in my neighborhood since 9/11. Is it because of the elephant repellent formula I mixed in my basement?

If it is proven that I kept my neighborhood safe, my neighbors will begin to see me differently as a leader.

In fact, only time will tell if I will be viewed as a kook, or if, like Lincoln and Churchill, my legacy will grow and expand and shine in the reflected light of history.

I have a rock that prevents tiger attacks, I have proof that it works, for I have the rock, and there are no tigers around, I will sell you this rock for a reasonable sum.

If we begin to expect that any chief executive of anything -- be it a country or a Fortune 500 company -- cannot make a mistake or two among the hundreds, perhaps, thousands of decisions they make, then our standards have reached the point of ridiculousness.

I love the Fortune 500 analogy. Bush's stewardship of the country has been so pathetically bad that he has driven the entire world economy into a massive tailspin, contaminating everything he touches. Yeah, I'm guessing there was a mistake or two in there somewhere.

I would say that if he were head of a Fortune 500 company then Bush would have been driven out in disgrace years ago, but the bailout of the financial sector (with many of the CEOs who made the horrible decisions still in place) makes it clear that no longer happens even in the business sector.

We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11.

As others have noticed, that's a pretty slick moving of the goalposts.

Good to know that if I rob a bank this morning, I can't be arrested for it the next day -- after all, I haven't robbed a bank in over 24 hours, which is exactly like never robbing it at all.

The argument, in effect, is straightforward: "Just so long as one overlooks the terrorism that killed 3,000 people in 2001, Bush's record on domestic security is excellent." Please.

Look, from the time he too office until November 22nd, 1963, no one assassinated President Kennedy, so I think overall the Secret Service record of protecting him was one of success. Why let the one day he was murdered overshadow the thousand days he wasn't?

Wow. This Conner guy must be trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records for the most stupid statements in one article.

Bush didn't make one or two bad decisions. Almost all of them were wrong. You could train a chimpanzee to chose randomly between policy options and he would have a better success rate than Bush.

And I'll repeat, just because the terrorists haven't needed to come here, doesn't mean that Bush has done a good job fighting them. Since 9-11 thousands of America's best and bravest have died unnecessarily because of Bush. All Bush has done is save the terrorists the fucking plane fare.

And comparisons between Bush and Churchill have never bothered me. Remember, it was a colonial administrator in Mesopotamia named Winston Churchill who, in his arrogance and ignorance (Sound like anyone we know?), decided that cobbling together a country made up of three major ethnic groups and a bunch minor ones -- most of whom were antagonistic to each other -- was a good idea.

Uh, there were 8 1/2 years between the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and its destruction in 2001.

Seriously, "running out the clock while crossing our fingers hoping a terrorist doesn't strike" isn't much of an achievement.

What's next, a "mission accomplished" banner because a hurricane hasn't wiped out an American city since 2005?

Actually, Bush and Lincoln do have something in common. Lincoln presided over a war that split the nation, North vs South. Bush has led this country to be split again, North vs South. And Democrat vs Republican. And rich vs poor. After that, the similarities between the two totally cease to exist.
Let look at them, shall we?

Lincoln: Genius, Tall, Strong, Brave, Worked 16+ hours a day, Never a vacation, Appointed leaders to his cabinet, hated war, compassionate, great writer, forgave his enemies, Great man

Bush: Dumb as a box of tacks, Short, Weak, TANG, 9-5, dozens and dozens of vacations, Appointed cronies to his cabinet, Loves war, No compassion at all (executed dozens), Not sure if he can write, Outed Plame, A$$hole

Lincoln and Bush. Day and Night.

We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11. Is it because of Bush's policies? If it is proven he kept our nation safe...

This fails basic logic. cum hoc ergo propter hoc Correlation does not imply causation.

The fact Bush had a set a policies and the fact that we have not had a " foreign attack on our land since 9/11" are not necessairly related. It could even be the lack of " foreign attack on our land since 9/11" was in spite of Bush policies.

It requires a bit more than this to prove "Bush policies kept us safe"

Is this all it takes to write for CQ? Any freshman who has had composition 101 could do better.

When Bush sycophants compare him to Lincoln, my default assumption is that they are referring to Elmo Lincoln, the firt movie Tarzan.

Good God, who is this Connor fellow? He did get one thing right - his standards have reached the point of ridiculousness. I think Connor and rightard Mark Davis are having an absurdity contest. For added giggles read the Mark Davis column "Bush Farewell" in the Dallas Morning News from yesterday. OR better yet - don't.

"Uh, there were 8 1/2 years between the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and its destruction in 2001."

*DING* We have a winner!

Clinton was just as successful/lucky as Bush when it comes to defending the country against a foreign terror attack, but WITHOUT doing 99% of the idiotic crap Bush did (there is that whole rendition thing). That's the standard Bush is going to be judged by in the future, which is why his reputation is going to get even worse.

Mike

Yikes. I'm surprised he didn't mention what a nice rug Laura picked for the Oval Office.

Even if you exclude 9/11, which no one in his or her right mind would, and say there were no "foreign attacks" on our land during the rest of Bush's tenure, let's face it: There were no foreign attacks on our land during most presidencies. So by that yardstick, Hoover, Buchanan, folks like that, were all great presidents as well?

Note to Connor and the other Bush shills: Name a single aspect of the country that is better since Bush came in. Forget the vague platitudes and windowdressing. Name. One. Thing. Anything. Or STFU and exit stage right, along with your boy.

I like letterman's take on it. Bush admitted to one or two mistakes.... his first and second term.

The people responsible for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center were captured, tried, and convicted and are rotting away in jail. All without attacking and declaring war on another country. How stupid of Clinton.

"We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11. Is it because of Bush's policies?

Bush and his national security team were warned about the 9/11 attack and didn't do shit to prepare.

Afterwards, Bush policies destroyed FEMA and rendered the Facistly named Dept. of Homeland Security impotent and incompetent.

So, when Hurricane Katrina came along with weeks of prior notice and a long record of acknowledgement that the levees were inadequate, it was Bush's policy to eat cake and play guitar while a city in the aforementioned "Homeland" drowned.

Now it is Bush's policy to evade responsibility for the harm done to workers at ground zero and victims of the toxic government trailers sent via no-bid contract (another Bush policy)that area continuous attack on the people of the "Homeland."

Bush apologist should STFU about Bush policies.

By comparing Bush to "Lincoln," he must be referring to Lincoln Savings and Loan, which collapsed in 1989 as part of the Keating scandal.

Bush /Cheney et al assisted Usama Bin Laden in terrorist tactics and there was no need to terrorize Americans.Therefore Bush/Cheney should be tried for TREASON

"Bush and his national security team were warned about the 9/11 attack and didn't do shit to prepare."

They DID do shit to prepare. They told their buddies to short airline stocks. Mission accomplished.

I have long thought that Franklin Pierce was the worst president in American history before 2001. That W. is directly related to the previous worst president in history through his mom--Barbara Pierce Bush is just an astonishing. But W. so dominated the horrible record of deceit and intrigue set by his Great-Great-Great-grandfather, that there really is no comparison even there. He is a new category of failure--Anti-Christ on steroids.

W diminished everything he touched, and touched himself often. With the Constitution. And yeah, he got up every morning at 6am and made the drains run on time.

jon swift puts it best:

in the three years and a half years since hurricane katrina not a single american city has been destroyed or partially destroyed. there are more than 10,000 cities in the united states and because of george bush every single one of them, except for new orleans, is still largely intact...

after the october 2008 stock market correction there have been no great depressions...

after iraq and afghanistan took a turn for the worse, president bush kept us from losing any wars.

although some presidents can claim that they did not lose a war during their administrations, not many presidents can claim that they did not lose two wars...

after abu ghraib, president bush reaffirmed america's adherence to the geneva conventions and against torture.

etc. etc. etc.

As for the "since 9/11" line, it gets less persuasive every time I hear it.

Exactly. Every time they bring that up, I'm not thinking of all the attacks that didn't happen during Bush's two terms. It just reminds me of the one that did.

Yes, of course - Churchill was a great man.

Lincoln was a war criminal - sent his blue coated hordes to make war on women and children. Violated the Constitution.

Actual worst 5 Presidents (not necessarily in order)

Carter
Harding
Grant
LBJ
JFK

They lie, the MSM repeats it, and it becomes the truth for the ignorant.

Fred: Yeah, Carter was sure wrong about that energy crisis and the need for a long term serious strategy of conservation and alternative sources of power. And pushing the Stealth program weakened the Air Force. And he failed to construct a time machine to stop the CIA coups that put the Shah in power. And that Human Rights thing which empowered Poland and the Eastern Block to begin the march towards shaking off the Soviet Union? Folly.

I like how Pierce started the Civil War in Kansas and placated evil slave interests by allowing minority rule in the Senate. No way he should be on the worst list.

Connor's argument is similar to "there have been no vampire attacks since I hung garlic by my door"

Shorter fred t: Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster!

I say David Sanger on Charlie Rose last night, talking about David's The Inheritance . David went over how much we lost due to distraction by the Iraq War - the cost, even beyond the literal, is staggering.

Selling Bush right now is like selling a cart load of dung.

Good luck with that!

No one mentions the possibility that the reason OBL has left the US alone is because Bush caved into his demands. Bin Laden claimed that one of the reasons he waged war against the US was because of our military presence in Saudi Arabia.

In 2003, Bush decided we were going to remove all troops from there, which includes shutting down our air base.

Bush gave in to OBL's demands, and in return America hasn't been attacked. As Bin Laden would put it, "Mission Accomplished".

We know there has not been a foreign attack on our land since 9/11.

There was been at least one documented armed terrorist attack by a foreign national characterized at the time as linked to al-Qaeda after 9/11 (the LAX attack). There is nothing on the level of 9/11, of course, but there weren't any successful mass-casualty attacks by foreign groups in the US for decades before 9/11 either. (If one restricts the analysis to non-government foreign groups, there aren't any before 9/11.)

So, in terms of results in keeping America safe from foreign attack, Bush was, without question, the worst President in quite some time, possibly ever; that's even before you consider anything other than keeping America safe.

Is it because of Bush's policies?

I would be willing to say that the results in terms of Americans killed by foreign terrorist attacks (either exclusively those conducted within the US or those conducted globally) during Bush's Presidency compared to any of his recent predecessors are a direct result of his policies.

Of course, since the actual results are, in total, far worse than any of his recent predecessors...

If it is proven he kept our nation safe, we will begin to see him differently as leader.

Yeah, and if its proven that pigs can fly under their own power, we'll begin to see them differently as an air transport option. In the real world, Bush made us dramatically less safe than we had been at any time in, at least, most Americans lifetimes.

Nonsense...we know exactly how he will be remembered...as the worst president ever. History will not be pressured by the wingnuts of today. There is nothing he did not touch that didn't become worse or turn to disaster. History has a tendency to seek out the secrets of it's patrons and Bush has tried to hide so many things...lied about so many things...and kept hidden so many things that will be coming out for decades to come. Death of innocents, torture, corruption, mass murder, moving like a typical alcoholic as a tornado disrupting the quality of life for all those around him. The Shrub. He really doesn't care what you think... but he damned well is gonna' show you what you "should" think if you're a real American. The bubble bursts and the slime oozes out so Rush and others like him can have plenty to smear on their faces. Never has there been a more pathetic president in the modern age than Bush, the maker of disasters.

"What we do not know, however, is how he will be ultimately judged. "

If there should ever come a time when "Owww! My Balls!" is anything but parody, then perhaps Bush will be judged anything other than a failure and a miserable, wretched tin-pot tyrant.

Is there anyone out there who DOESN'T honestly believe that, since Bush came to power, the number of people who would be prepared to take part in an attack on the United States has increased by an order of magnitude? Before he came in, America was targeted by a loose network of extremist groups (which turned out to be enough). Now, I'd guess half the population of the Middle East would happily sign up.

fred t: Actual worst 5 Presidents

G. W. Bush's disapproval rating, 61%, is the highest for any president leaving office since World War II. - Gallup 1/15/09

heckofajob

meanwhile..

number of americans killed by arab terror inside the usa in the 7.5-months AFTER 9-11: 0

number of americans killed by arab terror inside the usa in the 7.5-months BEFORE 9-11: 0

gop: logic-impaired...for freedom

how is that working out?

GWB is NOT a failure. He accomplished his goal of perpetrating the largest transfer of wealth upward in American History.

That was his goal. He succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams.