In broad terms, the great penalty for having a fool for a president

[saltpoint]

is payable upon news from crisis venues, such as the Gaza Strip.

I consider the strenuous and genuine efforts of Presidents Carter and Clinton in that region toward a broader and deeper understanding and peace versus the remote unconcern Bush displays.

He lost his chance to be even faintly remembered as an effective president after he abandoned Gulf Coast Americans after Katrina.

The same absence of awareness and compassion is not serving anyone well in the current crisis in Gaza.

The historians have repaired to the library and will shortly begin their work.

[The Magistrate]

1. Very True, Sir

"I prefer the wicked to the foolish; the wicked sometimes rest."

[saltpoint]

2. Hello, Magistrate.

Good tidings to you upon the new year.

[ewagner]

4. Greetings Mr Magistrate

I look forward to your posts in this new year.

[tigereye]

3. it's amazing how much chaos he created in the first 4 years, let alone 8!

His lack of oversight, historical or other vision, and just plain common sense, is almost incomprehensible!

:cry:




Hey OC! :hi:

[saltpoint]

5. Hey there & howdy.

Yes. Bush asked for the job. Then cheated to get it. Then bungled and misjudged nearly every single opportunity for the last 8 years.

We hear from conservatives that history will be kind to George W. Bush.

I don't think so.


:hi:

[tigereye]

6. I certainly hope not.

He made pretty much everything that was good and right and lawful about the US into a travesty. He is very near to the definition of cynicism and cronyism. And he thinks that he was doing was what God wanted. Incredible!

[saltpoint]

8. Yes. It's unsettling to think he knows so little and claims so much.

Not my cup of tea in a leader of the free world.

[madinmaryland]

7. The reich wing media has been busy for the last couple of years

revising history. In a couple of years there will be a repuke(s) in congress that will start floating the idea of naming places after "W".

:grr:

[saltpoint]

10. In the past, Reagan, when he was alive, insofar as he ever WAS alive,

could campaign for Congressional GOP candidates out on the trail, and of course it was a big advantage for many candidates.

I don't think Dubya has given future GOP candidates any boost. He surely did keep a low profile in the 2008 election.

But I think your prediction is true about naming schools and highways etc. after him.

[monmouth]

9. I remember a history teacher of mine in grammar school who said

the possibility of this happening was absolute. Of course at the time we had Truman and then onto Eisenhower. A media that emitted only the news, very little editorial comments unless it was a specific program that did such. We were shocked to think we would have a President who wasn't highly intelligent and a gentleman of the highest order.....LOL.

[saltpoint]

11. Hi, monmouth. Yes. It would be great if the media could get themselves

together and decide on truer coverage. I'm not holding my breath, mind you.

Sometimes there are lousy leaders. Dubya more than qualifies. After Eisenhower, the GOP has trotted out some absolutely miserable candidates. Nixon lost then won the presidency. Ford was less repulsive than Nixon but on the other hand he was not exactly a visional thinker.

Reagan is still loved by Reagan lovers, proving the addage that for those who liked that sort of thing, he was the sort of thing they liked. If you mention the death squads in Central America to these people, they look at you as if you're speaking Coptic Egyptian.

Daddy Bush, Dole, and Dubya were all miserable excuses for public servants. I'd throw in McCain and Palin, just because the memory of their ticket is still fresh, and it was probably even worse than I thought it was.