That's an insult to Bush. He had the support of our allies (not just Sweden, who Obama promised a bunch oh baloney on climate change to bring them in). He also had the support of most of America and most almost all of Congress.

Bush never stood behind a podium and offloaded ALL responsibility for his actions to others, while blatantly lying about what he himself had said.

I watched his speech yesterday-and I call it speech to be kind. I've never seen a more embarrassing display of "it's not my fault!" than that, and I've got 4 kids. I've also never heard as many uhs and ums, ever. I don't care WHAT your politics are-that speech was an embarrassing humiliation of abdication of responsibility. We should all be ashamed this present-voting imbicile represents us.

He is far, far worse than Bush.

M4: Bush never stood behind a podium and offloaded ALL responsibility for his actions to others, while blatantly lying about what he himself had said.

Bush spent the entire eight years blaming Clinton for everything

Bush's statements: They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy

Conveniently ignoring any terrorist attack that occurred during his father's administration.

Kind-of-a-loser Rice: "The United States tried direct dialogue with the North Koreans in the '90s, and that resulted in the North Koreans signing onto agreements that they then didn't keep."

Bush lie: "Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession."

Bush: "In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We're turning that around."

(At this point in his administration, he'd actually lost 913,000. But I'm sure if you'd ask him, he'd tell you it was all Clinton's fault.)

And you'll never guess who his administration blamed for the deficit! "…the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton."

But you can actually post that Bush was some kind of stalwart champion of personal responsibility, and sob uncontrollably over how much Obama blames Bush?

If you aren't an unblushing liar, you were in a coma for the eight years of the Bush presidency.

Forget Bush, he reminds me of Mayor Barry.

I don't know what you two are arguing about, Bush and Obama are both pieces of shit. It's like arguing, would you rather have polio or the bubonic plague?

Husband's bumper sticker: "Bipartisanship=Double Penetration." (The other one says, "Lead: the other precious metal.)

assholio: "I don't know what you two are arguing about, Bush and Obama are both pieces of shit."

No one said they weren't. I just exist in this far right blog to keep the right wingers honest. So, when I see things like this, I like remind them of certain things: "Oh, woe is us! This horrible, horrible President, surely the most corrupt world leader since Caligula, just won't stop blaming Bush for everything. While that fine, upstanding, stalwart champion of personal responsibility, George W. Bush, would sooner die 1000 agonizing deaths before blaming anyone else for the problems of this nation."

Now that's just not fair, Patrick. I never said Caligula!

Ferdinand Marcos, maybe.

Bush's statements: They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy

Conveniently ignoring any terrorist attack that occurred during his father's administration.

FYI - the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon happened during Reagan's presidency. The Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia happened during Clinton's presidency.

I believe there were no major terrorist action against the US during his father's administration; minor activity, but no major activity. The Middle East was in an uproar as the Intifadah raged and Saddam Hussein repeatedly launched Scud missiles at Israel.

=========================

Bush lie: "Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession."

Bush did inherit an economy in recession. The dot-com bubble had burst and the economy had yet to completely recover. Or is it the "two-and-a-half years ago" with which you take exception?

CNN reported in 2008: "In fact, the evidence now suggests that President Bush inherited a recession."

Bush never really rescued the economy from that recession. He did achieve economic growth, but it was fairly anemic growth (1.65% average growth in GDP compared to Clinton's average of 3.8% and Reagan's 3.5%).

Most people forget (or ignore) that under GW Bush, the economy saw six years of modest expansion and growth. The last two years and the collapse of a long-building housing bubble form the basis for most of the criticism of Bush's economic policies.

And most of his critics forget (or ignore) that Bush warned that Fannie Mae needed to be corralled, but was firmly rebuffed by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and others in Congress. Of course, once rebuffed, Bush rarely brought up the subject again, so he can hardly be considered the Cassandra of the housing meltdown.

Lest I be accused of being a Bush defender (again), Clinton inherited an economy in recession as well (from Bush's father). In fact, most new presidents inherit a bit of economic stagnancy - especially with a changeover in the party in the White House. With the uncertainty of a new president, the appetite for risk slows until the new president lays out his economic policies and appoints his economic team.

A major part of Obama's problem is that his economic policies (except where it comes to higher taxes and more regulation) seems to shift daily. No one knows what new EPA regulation will spike energy costs, what new NLRB decision will increase the cost of employing someone or squash new plant openings (Boeing), which ACA provision will be ignored, etc. He has not only not created certainty, he has exponentially increased uncertainty.

Give investors and economic players a reasonable level of certainty and they'll work out how to make money in any given market; give them too much uncertainty and they'll keep their money under a mattress or in foreign markets. If companies know how much new and existing employees will cost going forward, they'll work out hiring plans. If not, they'll hire temps, cut hours, and subcontract jobs.

=========================

I just exist in this far right blog to keep the right wingers honest.

Thank you, Patrick, for nobly sacrificing yourself for the sake of humanity.

I just exist in this far right blog
???
far right = anarchist

Could be worse.

We could have McCain playing video poker while the nation decides on the Syria question.

"Obama is basically George Bush with a tan;" then somewhere in Indonesia a village is missing its idiot.

Conan, I've read the arguments that Bush inherited a recession. And I simply don't buy them. Back when Bush first started making this claim, the liberals pounced, naturally, and this was touted as a lie for a long time. Then I noticed that some people started arguing otherwise. Intrigued I looked at the arguments and realized two things; 1) a recession has a cut and dried definition; 2) Bush's supposed recession came about only with some very creative changing of the parameters, something that has never been previously needed.

And even if you could prove that this novel approach to redefining "recession" makes Bush's claims legitimate -- and you can't, the fact remains that this new understanding of how a recession is defined was made long after Bush started shooting his mouth off, claiming he inherited a recession like it was common knowledge.

The fact of the matter is, no one even tried to prove this was the case until after Bush made his claim.

So, I'll stand by my statement: Bush is a liar. Bush is a liar. Bush. Is. A. Liar.

But we are at the point in the life of this nation where a good president is no longer possible. I don't know when this happened, but I'm not old enough to remember a "good" president, and neither are you, and neither is anyone who's on this blog.

We will never see a good President. Or a good official. Washington is now such that elected officials who pay lip service to their constituents but will only act in their own self-interest is now the norm. If a truly honest individual with good plans for the nation ever tried to be elected, he would find in neither party. That is a given. And even if, by some miracle, he could be elected, he'd be hopelessly outnumbered. And his refusal to toe the party line on a single issue would earn this hapless person the wrath of the rest of the Congress who would willingly eat their own for the sake of their personal agenda.

The idea of someone being elected to Congress or the White House who truly wanted what he thought was best for the rest of the nation would be absolutely laughable to the rest of them. They'd smirk at him. Maybe let out an amused grunt. Then perhaps give him a brief period of time to get with the program, start capitulating to those who would only be too glad to line his pockets in exchange for votes.

But he better not take too long...or the rest of Congress will just get rid of him. Perhaps trump up charges that would justify expelling him. Or simply start supporting his opponent in the next election. Less dramatic.

So, for those of you who ache and yearn and hope for a good President/Congressman/Mayor/City Councilman/dogcatcher, I'm telling you right now, you can't have one. You never will have one. And you'd best resign yourself to that fact, because you not live to see one, nor will your grandchildren.

Patrick thinks I'm a right winger, and so brings up everything Bush did as some sort of retort to me. Unfortunately he can't get it through his thick head (ha ha)that I never voted for Bush. I don't think Bush was good. He was better than Obama. And he was a LOT better than this pathetic display Obama is putting on this week. When he isn't golfing.

I don't recall Bush telling the world Iraq wasn't HIS idea. He stood by his reasons and his decision, and accepted the outcome. None of this "waaahhhh, not my fault!" bullshit.

But we are at the point in the life of this nation where a good president is no longer possible. I don't know when this happened, but I'm not old enough to remember a "good" president, and neither are you, and neither is anyone who's on this blog.

We will never see a good President.

Washington is now such that elected officials who pay lip service to their constituents but will only act in their own self-interest is now the norm.

You're nostalgic for a past that never existed.

At least half the population alive when we had those "good" presidents thought they were terrible, possibly the worst ever.

And some presidents who were considered "good" when they were in office have had their reputations downgraded since leaving office.

The mark of a "good" president is the legacy he leaves long after leaving office.

And politicians have always been politicians:
"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." ~ Nikita Kruschev.

So, maybe we have had some "good" presidents. And I'm sure we still will.

Despite the overblown hype of the "St. Ronnie Beatification Society," Reagan we pretty good.

Even Clinton had his moments - not enough for me to consider him "good" or to vote for his wife, but he had a few.

==============================

I've read the arguments that Bush inherited a recession. And I simply don't buy them.

It was a recession - according to the National Bureau of Economic Research - despite the difficulties in establishing the exact start and end dates.

"However, economic conditions did not satisfy the common shorthand definition of recession, which is 'a fall of a country's real gross domestic product in two or more successive quarters,' and has led to some confusion about the procedure for determining the starting and ending dates of a recession."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

The idea of someone being elected to Congress or the White House who truly wanted what he thought was best for the rest of the nation would be...

...a nostalgic fantasy.

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." ~ Mark Twain

Ann Coulter weighs in on the subject in her usual style and, despite making a few wrong turns, makes some very good points about the differences between launching attacks on Saddam Hussein in 2003 and launching attacks on Bashar al-Assad today.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-04.html

Don't forget, GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, and GW Bush all had difficulties with Hussein. While Reagan supported Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, that was statecraft and not the love-crush the Left had on Assad.

The Assads have been frequent dinner companions of the Kerrys - the same Kerry who a few days ago compared him as monstrously evil to Hitler and ... wait for it ... Saddam Hussein.

Assad was a darling of Nancy Pelosi's, who visited him as Speaker of the House in defiance of GW Bush's attempts to isolate Assad and proclaimed "that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Conan, I'm not nostalgic for anything. I don't delude myself into thinking that any president was an unselfish man putting only the country first. (Save, perhaps, Washington, who belonged to no party and warned us not to get into them.)

And your Twain quote, clever as it was...and I do mean "was." As in "before the time when 'native American' didn't 'American Indian.'" Nowadays, if you started that saying, people would be expecting the punchline to be about Cherokees or Navajos or Shawnees or Blackfeet...only applied to Congress. He said nothing about the President. Evidently, he thinks a good President is possible or was in his time. No, it isn't. No, it wasn't.

And "good" person elected to the White House would be emasculated by Congress. If not impeached.

M4: I don't recall Bush telling the world Iraq wasn't HIS idea.

Um, duh? That would be because it was his idea?

And Obama said it wasn't his idea...that would be because it wasn't, right? He didn't even actually vote to give permission to go to war. So, it really wasn't his idea.

I didn't see the speech you're talking about, but you do know that Iraq really was Bush's idea, right? You didn't just take a sharp blow to the head recently, did you?

I didn't see the speech you're talking about, but you do know that Iraq really was Bush's idea, right? You didn't just take a sharp blow to the head recently, did you?

You really should have done more research before commenting.

In response to allegations that failure by Congress to endorse his "plan" to attack Syria would damage his credibility, Obama said in a speech in Sweden this week that the "red line" drawn in Syria was not his, but the world's.

"My credibility is not on the line. International credibility is on the line."

"The question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons?"

You see, Obama did not draw a red line in Syria in a poorly thought out speech two years ago. The world did in 1993, in a treaty to which Syria was not a signatory.

Obama made the threat and is now lashing out at the world and Congress because he may not get his way and may be revealed to be the Tom Buchannan president that he really is.

OTOH, Bush did not try to foist the onus of war from his own shoulders onto the world or Congress. He owned up to his "red line" and his role in advocating attacks and regime change on Saddam Hussein.

Patrick, if you haven't seen the speech being discussed (the one where Obama said Syria was the fault of literally everyone on the planet BUT him, and global climate change in there somewhere too) then feel free not to comment on it in your ignorance.

or, what Conan said.

Conan: You really should have done more research before commenting.

If you say so. I took M4's comment to mean that Obama should take the blame for Iraq. "I never heard Bush say that Iraq wasn't his idea." That's because it was.

So, if Obama had said that Iraq wasn't his idea, that's because it wasn't. He didn't even vote to invade Iraq. Which indicates he was just about the only democratic member of the Senate at time with even half a functioning brain.

(Yes, I do have that much lack of respect for M4's intelligence. I would have absolutely no trouble whatsoever believing that that was her point.)

I consider that to be the Crown Jewel in Democratic stupidity. "Oh, we don't really want to go to war. We just want to show the Iraqis that we're presenting a unified front."

You vote for war when you're going to war. Duh.

"He didn't even vote to invade Iraq. Which indicates he was just about the only democratic member of the Senate at time with even half a functioning brain."

You bring up his voting record and call Mo4 unintelligent? WOW.

"You vote for war when you're going to war. Duh."

Ignoring, for the moment, the dozens of speeches by Democrats endorsing attacks on Iraq, perhaps you'd like to comment on why Congress shirks its Constitutional duty to declare war.

Maybe you can even properly distinguish between a declared war and whatever-the-hell-it-is we seem to do today.

Ignore The Affordable Health Care Act, Syria's gonna kill us all!

Just want to point out the irony of how bitchy Patrick likes to get when his words are misconstrued due to actual ambiguity on his part, while he goes ape shit on others cause his reading comprehension sucks and he misses the point by a mile

I took M4's comment to mean that Obama should take the blame for Iraq. "I never heard Bush say that Iraq wasn't his idea." That's because it was. ... Yes, I do have that much lack of respect for M4's intelligence. I would have absolutely no trouble whatsoever believing that that was her point..

Careful, Patrick. You're dangerously close to saying it was M4's fault that you insulted her, when you were the one who misconstrued her comment - much the same way Obama is trying to extract himself from his red line comments in Syria by saying it's the world's or Congress's fault if he doesn't get his way.

M4 was saying that Obama is trying to pass the buck by claiming the "red line" was not his idea; and she was contrasting that behavior with Bush who never said Iraq was not his idea or tried to pass the blame to Congress for authorizing it - even when things were going badly.

Obama is a child, trying to displace blame because he's not getting his way and it could be damaging to his credibility, not to mention his view of himself as a living god.

Say what you want (and you will) about Bush, at least he took responsibility for his policy decisions - like a grown up.

=========================

Just want to point out the irony of how bitchy Patrick likes to get when his words are misconstrued due to actual ambiguity on his part, while he goes ape shit on others cause his reading comprehension sucks and he misses the point by a mile

Mmmm, irony.

=========================

Obama's bumbling stupidity in foreign policy is going to get people killed and possibly start a war.

World War I started as a series of small moves as Austria clumsily moved to punish the Serbians for Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Franz Ferdinand and Russia then blundered into protecting the Serbia (pre-Lenin Russia viewed itself as the protector of Eastern Orthodox Europe). The Germans and French added their complete incompetence and the world was soon plunged into war.

Today, Russian ships are moving to the Mediterranean and Putin is demanding to see the proof Obama claims he has that Assad was behind the attacks.

China would love to see us distracted so it can finally grab Taiwan.

North Korea is also watching the situation closely.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Japan just commissioned its first aircraft carrier since World War II? They know they can no longer rely on the US for their defense.

So, Cone-head, are you now out to become the actual conscience of everyone on this board? Or just me? Either way, you're heading to make a dreadful bore of yourself. However, you might wish to at least be a consistent bore.

Either way, you're heading to make a dreadful bore of yourself. - Patrick

Your complete lack of self-awareness is hilarious.