The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency

[HAL 9000 96]

There's simply no way Obama could be given "straight A" marks. He's the president-elect right now and hasn't spent one day in office as the president. Because of this, he has yet to do anything on a national or international scale. Let's wait and see how well Obama does before we praise him for his fantastic grades.

Or condemn him.

Well... we know already that biases are biases. Even those preconditioned to such foolishness.

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

But that will be remembered in another light in the future, apparently.

I say that his 'contribution' to our society will be duly noted and ridiculed even further down the time line.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

[mox 298]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Well... it isn't. Obviously. But the disaster is remembered for the collective failure of State and Federal Government to respond to the crisis.

[DeadPoolX 9]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

Edited December 30, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

the state and local level falls on it's face, and that's overlooked.

[HAL 9000 96]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

I'm sure a disaster zone is a perfect example of where Federal intervention is most needed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

And yet historians will look at Bush's presidency in a new light?

Perhaps some of his policies will be re-evaluated in time, but its rather difficult to see how his administration will be exonerated for what are quite obvious failures.

[DeadPoolX 9]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

I'm sure a disaster zone is a perfect example of where Federal intervention is most needed.

Perhaps. However, unless the federal government is specifically requested for help, the the state and local governments need to handle the situation on their own.

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

And yet historians will look at Bush's presidency in a new light?

Perhaps some of his policies will be re-evaluated in time, but its rather difficult to see how his administration will be exonerated for what are quite obvious failures.

We won't know, will we? By the time any subject of the Bush Administration is fully re-evaluated (with any sort of objectivity), we'll all most likely be dead.

[mox 298]

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

I'll let someone else argue the facts point-by-point because this issue had a fork stuck in it a long time ago. The facts are that the Federal response to Katrina was embarrassingly sub-optimal, and the Director of FEMA was criminally negligent in his duties. I don't think Bush needed to be personally monitoring and directing the response, but when the Federal government fails so spectacularly, I tend to lay blame all the way to the top no matter who's President. At the very least "Heckuva Job Brownie" should be in jail.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe 20 - 30 years is sufficent time for an objective view (e.g. Reagan).

[DeadPoolX 9]

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

I'll let someone else argue the facts point-by-point because this issue had a fork stuck in it a long time ago. The facts are that the Federal response to Katrina was embarrassingly sub-optimal, and the Director of FEMA was criminally negligent in his duties. I don't think Bush needed to be personally monitoring and directing the response, but when the Federal government fails so spectacularly, I tend to lay blame all the way to the top no matter who's President. At the very least "Heckuva Job Brownie" should be in jail.

Good point.

I believe 20 - 30 years is sufficent time for an objective view (e.g. Reagan).

Maybe, but look at how Reagan has practically become deified, where as during his two terms, he was despised. Time changes many viewpoints. I also think many people are far more forgiving of former presidents than they are of those still in office.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure.

[HAL 9000 96]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

I'm sure a disaster zone is a perfect example of where Federal intervention is most needed.

Perhaps. However, unless the federal government is specifically requested for help, the the state and local governments need to handle the situation on their own.

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

And yet historians will look at Bush's presidency in a new light?

Perhaps some of his policies will be re-evaluated in time, but its rather difficult to see how his administration will be exonerated for what are quite obvious failures.

We won't know, will we? By the time any subject of the Bush Administration is fully re-evaluated (with any sort of objectivity), we'll all most likely be dead.

Oh I think FEMA is Federal. And President Bush was asked quite quickly.

[mawilson 2,133]

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

But that will be remembered in another light in the future, apparently.

I say that his 'contribution' to our society will be duly noted and ridiculed even further down the time line.

Bush's legacy rests on the outcome of the Iraq war.

With time and reflection, historians might say that he did a remarkable job. You never know.