What Bush Got Right

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ostinlt @ 08/11/2008 12:36:28 PM

    Only a Bush administration shill such as Newsweek could write such drivel. Bush is the worst President in US history, and should be tried for treason or impeached. He is owned by big oil, selling out US citizens by putting people like Rumsfeld, Bernanke, Paulson and the rest of these self serving morons in place.

  • Posted By: votenic @ 08/11/2008 12:28:06 PM

    And this 2008 election poll says it all. You Won't Believe These Results!

  • Posted By: MikeChris @ 08/11/2008 12:07:30 PM

    He is a great man he gave us the DO NOT CALL LIST!!!

  • Posted By: Bass Pro @ 08/11/2008 12:00:10 PM

    The only thing I want to remember of this guy is his butt going out of the door accompanied by lard-assed Cheney and Rice. Their claim to fame will be that they caused the lives of more than 4000 of our bravest and best young women and men in a war that was started using phony evidence cooked up by the Republicans. Good ridance to bad rubish!

  • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/10/2008 10:29:13 PM

    The same sniveling drivel from Newsweek that we, the American Public, have come to expect from them. Apparently, the "crack" editorial staff at this magazine believes that we are mindless idiots that can be continuously fed "crap" journalism enough times that we will begin to believe it. No mention of the complete and utter failure of this Democratally controlled congress that has half the approval rating of President Bush as a "failure", especially considering the state of our domestic oil production (or lack thereof) and the obstruction of our own domestic oil production capability that the Democratic party continues to produce - to our pocket-books dismay. President Regan was viewed by the contemporary media figures of his time as an utter failure, only to be judged by history as one of the greatest presidents in our country's history. His strong conviction was incorrectly viewed at the time as ???inflexibility" in his policy decisions. We as Americans want our president to be resolute, but our "popular media" views this as a negative "raggedness??? that does not bend to will of their popular opinion polls. Presidential candidates lay out their positions on policy and their reasoning behind those positions. We as Americans vote every fourth November on those positions - and reasonings behind them - and trust that our elected leader will be guided by, and as such as the candidate campaigned. That is what we expect of our elected leader, not their susceptibility to be misled by mediocre editorialism such as the like of Newsweek's contribution to our societies "popular media". No successful leader, as viewed through history's hindsight, has ever used "popular opinion" polls to guide them. The most successful leaders have used their intellect, moral compass, and faith to guide them through the world's pitfalls.

    Wake up people, these people want to make your decisions for you, for your own good and the good of the greater society! Take back your government and accept your responsibility for our government and your role in it instead of senselessly accepting Newsweek???s "editorialsm" of the United States, its position in the world, and your contribution to it.

    • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 08/10/2008 10:38:16 PM

      The fact that Congress has had a very small majority for the last 18 months has only been sufficient to stop the rubber stamping of Bush's policies.
      The American people are taking back the Government in just 6 months the Republicans are history.

      • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/10/2008 11:21:32 PM

        Fact is their inept leadership has failed to deliver on any of their campaign promises to the American people, and they know it. The fact is the Democrats can't keep their own party members in line when it comes time to vote for the radical left-wing agenda that Pelosi and Reid put forth because their local constituents would roast them in the next election cycle. The fact is the rest of the country has no desire to as broke as California and New York as these liberal - labor-union beholden, Demoratically controlled states are run into the ground. Wake up people, businesses small and large create sustainable job growth, not big government.

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/11/2008 10:57:52 AM

          yeah cuz fannie mae and freddie mac worked out great. atleast public enterprises are held to public scrutiny

        • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/11/2008 5:42:27 AM

          Why did you pick hyfler as a screenname, was Hitler taken?

          • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/11/2008 9:45:44 AM

            Thats the classical radical left-wing liberal response when facts no longer support their/your thesis or their too stupid or lazy to actually look for facts --- resort to name calling. Very nice, I bet when you got your first failing grade it was your *#$* professor's fault for making the class too hard for you. So sorry.

  • Posted By: Chaotician @ 08/10/2008 10:43:40 PM

    George ws, is, and forever more is a failure; a failure at being a uman being and an abject failure as the Decider! His regime is corrupt, immoral, illegal, and criminal! The successes you refer to all typical Rovian style...they reflect going so dsaterously far from normal reasoned actions to something only slightly less insane...and they label it a compromise and we meekly acept the charde as some sort of moeration! Some occasional appearance of good results may have accidently occured; especially in areas where benign neglect was allowed after some high retorial progarm or activity was grandly announced and then promptly forgotten! George's position on Palestime is a disater for everyone, especially Ameirca! And thank God for our high moral standrads so we can tell the Russian the proper way to behave in the modern world!
    EVERYTHING GEORGE DID, SAID, OR THOUGHT NEEEDS TO BE REVERSED, DISCARDED, BURIED, REPUTIATED, AND STONGLY CONDEMNED! EVERY PERSON HIRED, FIRED, APPOINTED, OR PAID NEEDS TO BE FIRED, HIRED, IMPEACHED, AND SUED RESPECTFULLY! EVERY CORPORATION SHOULD BE GIVEN A LIFE OF 40 MORE YEARS AND THEN DISOLVED, NO CORPORATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE ANY MONIES, SERVICES, OR ANY APPEARANCE OF SUPPORT FOR ANY POLITICAL CANDIDATE...EVER! EVERYOTHER FINANCIAL INSTUTUTION EXECUTIVE SHOULD BE JAILED FOR CORRUPTION ON PRINCIPLA WITH NO PAROLE FOR A MINIMUM OF 5 YEARS OF HARD LABOR!

    Then perhaps we can take another loook at these criminal actions of this regime and see if there is anything to salvage!

    • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/10/2008 11:49:02 PM

      Sounds like the same crap D. Kucinich pukes out. Keep it up, the more crap like this you guys regurgitate, the more middle-of -the-road independents you scare away from the communist controlle Democratic party.

      • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/11/2008 10:55:51 AM

        ooooooooohhhhhhhhh communist scary, now the commies and terrorist have teamed up, we're doomed!

  • Posted By: Perusing-through @ 08/11/2008 6:09:32 AM

    .
    BUSH HAS ONE POSITIVE, , , AND THAT IS HE IS A BETTER SELECTION THAN McCAIN
    .
    Mr. Fareed Zakaria,

    It was clear while reading your article, that you were trying to spin, , , , I'm sorry, , , I meant trying to show the positive side of the Bush presidency. But unfortunately for Bush and McCain, you unintentionally and indirectly made the point Senator Obama's supporters have been making for the past 18-months. And that is, at the end of the day, leadership is about "judgment" and "good character", and not just experience.

    Bush stands now as the sole owner for the award of "Worst President in U.S. History". It gets worst. As the latest global Georgian-Russian military conflict unravels, the needle on Bush's "judgment gauge" continues to plummet to '0'. Remember, this is the same President that looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. Or did Bush see Putin's strategy to take advantage of Bush's Iraqi blunders and remount the Russian empire, because the U.S. is too busy looking for WMDs in Iraq.

    Before taking the helm as U.S. President, Bush had the "experience" of two terms as a Texas Governor, and a brother with like experiences, and a daddy that was also governor and President. And with all that "experience", Bush clearly and sorely lacked "wisdom" and "judgment" for U.S. Commander-in-Chief.

    And now the worst part, John McCain of 2000 use to be a Maverick that many of us would have supported in this 2008 presidential campaign. But somehow McCain begin to change back in 2000 after Bush politically smacked McCain across the lips during those Republican Primaries. The final phase of McCain's metamorphous has concluded as he completes the transformation of Bush's policies, agenda, and lack of discernment. In fact, when you stand Bush side-by-side with McCain, Bush clearly has the edge over McCain in wit, alertness, smarts, and charm. This does not bold well for McCain.

    It is pretty bad for McCain when the worst president in U.S. history Bush-II is still a more attractive selection than McCain.

    GOD Bless America!
    GOD Bless Obama!
    GOD Help Us on November 4th!

    • Posted By: Thought @ 08/11/2008 9:04:03 AM

      which god do u speak of? obama? he does not believe Christ or Christs claims to be the Way. the Life, the Truth. despite the modern view...
      Actually for an ancient Christ's life and words are very well documented. Even in our courts four witnesses agreeing on the basics is impressive. read the research on witnesses.
      Christ told us we believe in him and we become the sonchirdren of God... so lets kill these chldren in the womb? God agrees with you?

      • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/11/2008 10:36:44 AM

        wow off topic and creepy

    • Posted By: Thought @ 08/11/2008 8:54:23 AM

      which god? u?

  • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/11/2008 10:28:44 AM

    " the administration made a series of massive blunders in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. It went in with too few troops, dismantled Iraq's Army, bureaucracy and state-owned factories, arrested tens of thousands of Iraqis, mistreated and tortured some of them, and used overwhelming military force against all perceived threats." too bad these were intentional and not some accidental blunder.
    Hiflyer: although that might have usually been the case it has been a hallmark of the bush administration to forgo competitive biddings and instead award contracts on seemingly arbitrary reasons. cronyism at its finest.

  • Posted By: Johnny1967 @ 08/10/2008 10:46:37 PM

    Anyone who is using the free market theory on drilling is delusional. If you really believe in free markets then you should be for increasing competition among U.S. Oil companies and refineries. The oil companies are an oligopoly. Get it? By nature they price fix. Just giving them more drilling rights, without increasing competition, is plain stupid. You want to see gas prices come down? Then let the Japanese and European oil companies open shop in the United States. Remember when Toyota and Honda came to the United States? We got cheaper cars for less price. In any event, stop using the market theory argument to allow Oil Companies to drill. If you truly believe in free market, then fight for more competiion among Exxon, Shell, Arco, etc.

    • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/10/2008 11:43:20 PM

      And while your at it why don't you do a little research about the drilling that is occuring a little more that 50 miles of the shore of Florida. You want competition, you got it. The Chinese and Russians are now drilling in the Gulf under contract with the communist state of Cuba. They are drilling within the area as set forth by a Democratically controlled congress that prohibits US companies from exploring and drilling these same areas. Think the Chinese and/or Russians are more "enviromentally sensative" that our own US companies, think again brainiack. The simple fact is that oil production could begin within months off the California coast, within a year off the Florida coast, within two to three years off the Carolina coasts, and within five years in ANWR. Don't think several million barrales a day of new crude production would make a difference in the freely trading commodity called oil... I bet you failed Economics 101 the first time you took it.. if you even bothered to show up for class.

      • Posted By: Johnny1967 @ 08/11/2008 12:39:11 AM

        Your missing the point completely! First we are talking about the conduit to U.S. consumers. The price tagged onto our gasoline AFTER oil comes onto our borders. The issue is how is oil companies IN THE UNITED STATES charging its consumers. WHO'S TALKING ABOUT THE STUFF FOREIGNER ARE DOING OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY. That's a totally different issue. Second, I am not advocating one way or the other whether to bring foreign companies INTO the untied states. I'm pointing out the competition between U.S. companies supplying our stream. If you don't like foreigners. Why not bust up the oligopoly like we did with AT&T.

        In any event, the point is ITS DUMB TO ARGUE FREE MARKET WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT COMPETITION.

        • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/11/2008 10:03:29 AM

          Foreign companies do bid on, and recieve contracts from the US government for oil exploration and development of oil leases on sovereign US territory. There is plenty of competition in the US for oil exploration, development, production, and refining. Please, do some research before you so thouroughly discredit yoursel in public.

        • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/11/2008 9:55:49 AM

          Johnny,

          By the response that you gave it is crystal clear that you don't have the slightest clue on how oil is produced or how gasoline is refined. Again, your ignorance is exceeded by your stupidity. Who produces oil and their affliiation to an illegal cartel (OPEC) that sets specific production quotas has a direct relationship on how much oil is available to be freely traded on the open market. The US can and should increase domestic production, but a Democratically controlled congress won't allow them to drill for more oil in the areas that they know contrains oil. If you had done any research at all you would have found that US refiners are actually losing money right now, the price of gasoline - as it relates historically to the price of oil - should have been much higher than $4.00 to $5.00 a gallon. More like $8.00 to $9.00 per gallon. Who do you think is losing out, I'll help you out - it's the US refiners.

    • Posted By: hiflyer @ 08/10/2008 11:34:36 PM

      Unfortunately your ignorance on this subject is only exceeded by your stupidity. US oil companies control less than 6% of the total world oil ouput. As a matter of fact Exxon, the largest US oil conglomerate isn't even in the top five oil producing companies (as measured by daily production and proven reserves) in the world. Who is you ask? Well the top five companies are all state owned companies controlled by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and Kuwait. And while your at it, perhaps you can explain to the rest of of "uneducated" free- marketers how comoodity trading works on the NYMEX, ICE, and Dubai exchanges - just how exactly do US oil companies corner these markets, we're all ears! Perhaps you could also explain how OPEC works (an illegal cartel under US law) to foster free trading and decrease the cost of gas to you and me. I suggest you actually do some research - and that means reading something other than the crap Newsweek prints, like perhaps EIA or DOE reports. Just my two cents.

    • Posted By: Porkov @ 08/10/2008 10:57:54 PM

      Say, how about letting the Russians run a pipeline through Atlanta? That would certainly stir up some free market competition.

      • Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 08/10/2008 11:10:52 PM


        Yep, I agree with both Johnny and Porkov. And how about letting European airlines do domestic flights inside the US. Or drugs come from Canada. Or stop subsidizing oil and pharmaceutical companies.

        The biggest load of baloney besides the WMD myth, was Bush telling the American people that he is for free markets, when in fact, he is bankrupting the treasury with subsidies for companies which don't even need it.

  • Posted By: collegevoter @ 08/11/2008 5:44:11 AM

    Nothing. When are you going to understand this moron is STILL president and still has power for the next 8 months? Don't encourage him any more. Did you see him at the Olympics? There's currently a war going on in Russia. Don't in any way justify any approach this disaster of a president has taken. And please don't legitimize it. Otherwise he might take it again before he's out of office.

    • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 08/11/2008 9:38:35 AM

      Bush didn't need to get involved in the Russia/Georgia deal. Let him enjoy the Olympics. He delegated. Hussein said he would call Putin, and tell him to chill. Told him he would be back from Hawaii soon, and they could go to dinner and work this stuff out. NO PROBLEM.

      Must feel great, to be The One.

      NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: Notrepublican @ 08/11/2008 6:02:41 AM

    Alright, I'm back, and I'm ready to kick some ass. I've looked over the comments through newsweek and found some of the most important subjects(at least discussed) and here's what I got.

    Hillary voters( why should I vote for Obama?)
    We'll. Hillary supporters, I've mentioned this before, and I'll mention this again. You voted for Hillary for a reason, to not have another Republican in office, to put a Clinton in office.(since the last Clinton in office did a good job) I know Obama isn't a Clinton, but as you heard in the primaries, Clinton and Obama share much to the same views and goals. If Obama's ever going to go to anyone for advice, it's going to be the Clintons. They've been through presidential elections before, they've won presidential elections before. The Clintons will be Obama's biggest friends and biggest allies in this race. Now, I'm not saying all Hillary voters "have" to vote for Obama. But any Hillary supporter who thinks Mccain is closer to a Clinton, to Hillary, than Obama is, is utterly insane.

    Next we turn to experience. You say Obama is too inexperienced to be president yet Mccain is. (Yet the first point I want to point out, is neither candidate has experience being
    president). George Bush also had "experience" before he came into office, yet he's run our country to ***. We had a surplus going into 2000, yet now, we are nearing a recession, millions of people are going bankrupt and losing their homes and businesses, over 4,000 soldiers have died in an unnecessary war( and unwinnable war), and so much more. Even the most "experienced" leader can run a country into the toilet. So clearly, experience doesn't define a good president. I mean, isn't it better to have an inexperienced president with the right idea, than an experienced president with the wrong idea.

    Next we have the Reverand Wright issue. You say you're all scared of Obama because of his association with Reverand Wright. I have plenty of stupid friends who've I've been friends with for years and years, but it doesn't mean I share their ideas or opinions, or have become stupid or crazy by hanging out with them. I mean that's just stupid. I mean who hasn't had a stupid friend or one that was just a little off their rocker, I mean really.




    Continued below

    • Posted By: Thought @ 08/11/2008 9:11:13 AM

      WHY YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA FROM AN INDEPENDENT (VOTE ANY THIRD PARTY)
      1 WHAT HAS HE EVER DONE? HE COULD BE A NEWS READER
      2 HE ASSUMES HE WILL BE PRESIDENT. LOVE THAT SEAL (THE FAKE PRESIDENTIAL LOOKING ONE)
      3 HIS PEOPLE ARE ZEALOTS

  • Posted By: Smart Guy @ 08/11/2008 8:58:07 AM

    I am a Bush supporter who values this essay.

    Having tried numerous times to engage Bush critics into their disagreements with my support of this administration, I find that not many of them can get passed their hate and "Bush misled us to war" rhetoric. This is a very throughtful essay and is on point. My only two issues with this essay are that:

    1.) While making a valid point that the war in Iraq distracted from a proper focus on Iraq, it fails to give air-time to the argument put forward in Doug Feith's book War & Decision, that the Bush administration concluded that there simply was not enough symmetry from the US vantage point of a war in Afganistan as a response to 9-11. That is to say, AL QAEDA knocked down the TRADE TOWERS & PENTAGON, killed 3000 Americans, and in response we were going to bomb caves in the mountains of Afganistan mostly attacking the Taliban's grip on Power, and NOT even Al Qaeda's grip----Al Qaeda could simply abandon their parasitic relationship with Taliban and consider their ability to exact more terror against the west as completely unscathed DESPITE 9-11 and our response. Bushies concluded that attacking Iraq sent a clear message that anyone who HARBORS, PAYS, or TRAINS terrorists, or considers passing WMDs* to the terrorist network can expect to punished by the every element of the United States gov't. Rightly or wrongly, the BUSH Admin concluded that to prevent another 9-11, the response to 9-11 couldn't just be cosmetic----it had to completely affect the universe within which all terrorist networks exist.

    2.)It fails to aggressively compliment that these Bush policies---failures and all---have at least succeeded at preventing any more 9-11s to this point. Given the way the world looked after 9-11, I'll take 30% approval and no further attacks. The American electorate may have made the proper choice between this miserable Presidency and absolute destruction of the American way of life.

  • Posted By: MontereyDean @ 08/10/2008 1:36:57 PM

    What a windbag. The fact that you needed all of those verbal twists, turns, qualifications, and can't just list what he got "right," pretty much means that there was nothing "right" about the messes George and Dick will leave for others to clean up.

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 2:11:27 PM

      I assume you're talking about the Iraq war... OK, we all know about that, and I agree... bungled to say the least. Make no mistake, I dislike Bush's cavalier attitude and his desire to carry a sledge hammer instead of a big stick. However, to say Bush got nothing right simply isn't correct. IMO, Bush was right on terror, right on energy and right on taxes.

      Not as much as you and I would like, but certainly more than 'nothing".

      • Posted By: Mimi13 @ 08/10/2008 3:05:42 PM


        What's "right" about demonizing whole sections of the world, using that to justify torture and imprisioning people who may or may not have done anything wrong. Even the conservation Rand Corporaiton now says that the legal approach to combating terrorism would be more effective than Bush's shoot-'um-up policies?

        What's "right" about an energy policy that has resulted in obscene profits for oil companies and $4 gasoline for the American consumer? Wha'ts right about no significant initiatives into alternatives fuels, clean coal or renewable sources of energy? What's "right" about allowing American auto makers to get away with low milage standards while the rest of the world is to be able to produce cars that get 40+ MPG?

        What's "right" about a tax breat that benefits only about 0.5% of the American population?

        What's "right about George Bush? NOTHING!

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 4:00:01 PM

          And... just what sections has he "demonized?' (whatever that means) And what the hell did I say? I said I didn't like his cavalier attitude! I know, you forgot! And if you'd do a little research rather than spew your hatred of Bush, you would see that 4 years ago asked congress for 1.2 billion dollars to develop hydrogen cars. (yes, that's water and electric). And if you want a car in the meantime that get 40 miles to the gallon, go buy one! They're available from US auto makers right here! Tax brat? 0.5 percent? Absurd. Once again, do your homework. Of course people who pay in more benefit more. BTW, I'm wondering how you spent your 600.00....

          • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 4:24:49 PM

            Mimi13 - and BTW, if you're referring to Iraq, friends and family members there send back very different stories than what's regularly reported in the media. I hate this war, however the letters I receive have been positive and do not indicate any "demonization" of Iraq or its people. Trust me, I will believe them before someone like yourself, who in all probability, has never been there.

            And if you're referring to Bush "demonizing" Afghanistan.... well then, call me a demon!

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/10/2008 5:03:31 PM

              Sky, I would never call you a demon. I would call you il mio Cielo celeste.

              • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 5:15:54 PM

                Hi PiaZadorable!!!!

                Sì Sì Sì, voi siete a casa!

                Je vous avez manqué, mon amour!

                • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/10/2008 10:46:36 PM

                  Je voudrez plus parole d'amour.

                  • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/11/2008 12:25:50 AM

                    Comme vous le souhaitez, mon amour!

                    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/11/2008 8:25:15 AM

                      Allright! Merci.
                      Bonjour mon amour.

                • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/10/2008 5:19:46 PM

                  Sky, got in a little while ago. Check gmail.

                  Ditto on 'manque.' Big time!


                  • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 5:29:50 PM

                    Grazie! Been there, done that! Do the same, capish? lol

                    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/10/2008 10:41:25 PM

                      Ho capito mio delicato caro.

        • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/10/2008 4:08:55 PM

          Garbage. You forget that Zakaria,has tried to make an attempt to leave his position on the left-of-center and provide a more balanced view of the consequences of the Age of Bush. His most brilliant legacy will have been to throw the neo-cons under the bus and carry out a multilateral solution to several of the worlds most troubling areas[multilaterialism,we will recall,in the case of North Korea,that was firmly opposed by Kerry,Dean and Biden to their detriment. Indeed,with Iraq,Bidens hacksawing of the nation is looking more stupid by the hour].
          RAND observes rightly in its report that treating terrorists as ''criminals'',while largely eschewing military solutions in response to these threats does not remove this arrow from the quiver of US foreign policy.[and makes a strong case that the ''Keystone Kops'' policies of the Clinton adminisration,with ''walls''erected to block the sharing of information are an onus in securing cooperation between national security agencies in order to see successful conclusions to their efforts].Then too,what success Iraq has seen in the dismemberment of the al-Qaeda threat and the backing down of the Sadrists lay in military response,first and last,as Anbar and Basra proved.This is to say that when it works,it works,when it is properly fixed[by a Petraeus] and when gumshoeing fails[the Gorelick ''Wall''],it is due to unneccesary bureaucratic meddling and inter-department rivalries,which Bush to another area of his credit,has moved to fix with the installation of the ''pragmatists''[Reagan-style],and the removal of the ''neo-cons''.
          Obviously,Bush cannot be faulted for his ''energy policies''due to the fact that we have HAD no other policy since the invention of the internal-combustion engine. It is ignorant to blame ''oil companies'',in a world that Zakaria rightly calls ''The Rise of the Rest''[NEWSWEEK,June,2008],which are placing increasing demands upon ''old''energy sources. Besides,as it now stands,those main forces of alternative energy that move us away from foriegn dependance such as nuclear and coal are being fought by Democrats. Not Republicans. If ''American automakers'' are ''getting away'' with it,it is due to the fact that they are driven by a powerful union that serves the interests of Democrats. Not Republicans[as you can see on www.opensecrets.org,The Center for Responsive Politics], when you keyword:

          The United Autoworkers Union

          and check which party gets the most bang for the campaign and lobbyist buck.

          The GDP of the last quarter cycle increased at a 1.9% rate due to checks mailed to hundreds of millions of Americans. Not your ''0.5''%,which is a piece of liberal revisionism that is not sustained by hardnosed economist scrutiny.[PBS Nightly Business Report,May 19,2008 and the United States Dept.of Commerce,www.commerce.gov].

  • Posted By: Klancy51 @ 08/10/2008 4:27:53 PM


    Who got the most benefit from the billions of dollars spent on the war? It certainly wasn't you or me...I don't think the the starving refugees of Iraq are too happy either. ???Some people wind up dead, some rich. You just have to be on the right side.??? Who???s richer?

    Barak Obama is going to win. Get used to it. While he was touring the world, John McCain was have sausage at a restaurant in Ohio. Obama was addressing 200,000 people in Berlin, and McCain was getting all confused about borders and Shiites and how to forward an e-mail. The last incident with the tire gage made McCain look dishonest. I???m sure he knows better, and it demonstrates that he really believes that voters are to stupid to understand the details of the issue.

    Obama has been ahead for months. Look it up:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

    A 5-10% lead in the polls translates to hundreds of electoral votes. Which is still how we do it here. The electoral college isn???t going to give the republicans an advantage this time.

    It is disingenuous to portray the race as being close just to make news. The current president got everyone used to lying to prove a point. I believe Stephen Colbert calls it ???Truthiness.??? Many seem to think that lying is acceptable now. It isn't. Especially when you write propaganda and then present it as "News."

    Klancy

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 4:44:05 PM

      Quote: "Barak Obama is going to win. Get used to it. "

      Klancy, so glad you have a crystal ball... would you please tell me where you bought yours? I want to check stocks before tomorrow.....

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/10/2008 5:01:02 PM

        Same place I bought mine... the crystal ball shop.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 5:28:23 PM

          Pia Zia.... lol... Io sono di nuovo sorridente!

          • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/10/2008 10:40:16 PM

            Bene mio miele... ti mando cento baci.

            • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/11/2008 12:14:16 AM

              È che tutti? Pezzo di torta!

              • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/11/2008 8:22:48 AM

                Oops! Piece of cake! I'm not fully awake yet. Bisous coming to you....

              • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 08/11/2008 8:21:38 AM

                Lol! Yes, piece of pie.

        • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 6:24:43 PM

          But I need that address! ; )

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 5:25:21 PM

      Quote: "Barak Obama is going to win. Get used to it. "

      Klancy, so glad you have a crystal ball... would you please tell me where you bought yours? I want to check stocks before tomorrow.....

  • Posted By: frankhorton @ 08/10/2008 7:24:35 PM

    finally some one who makes sense! Bill Clinton had many faults but at least when he left office this country he left it with a surplus and no wars. now we and our children are in debt(great great grand children too?) As an Iraqi war veteran king George has complicated my life to no end. Over the last eight years i have seen my fellow soldiers and friends go and die for WMD that were never found. if the war ended in 2003(Mission accomplished?)then why was i and others seen multiple deployments back too Iraq since 2003? i plan on getting very,very,very drunk when January 1 2009 arrives and King George leaves office. I do not care if you agree with me or not but personally i think the history books will not be very kind to G W Bush. In the mean time pass the beer will you?

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 7:49:31 PM

      Great points! Clinton did nothing to fight the war on terror, leaving it to the next president to handle. (as in when the WTC was bombed the first time, USS Cole, our embassies). He decimated the military (no need to defend ourselves anyway, why not?) and raised taxes to get his "surplus". Of course, he was too busy for any of this anyway.... time with Monica, getting impeached, lying under oath, defending himself, getting disbarred.... stuff like that.

  • Posted By: Anju Chandel @ 08/11/2008 8:14:17 AM

    Well, Mr. Zakaria, this whole argument in favor of George W Bush seems to be a bit biased. Ok, I agree that Bush's major blunder had been his misadventure in Iraq but on various other crucial fronts too his administration didn't do well at all. However, he did take 'war on terror' seriously but here too he failed miserably in reigning in Pakistan - the crucible of Islamic fundamentalism-extremism-terrorism... Nevertheless, he has been a good supporter of India's civil nuclear aspirations and for which Indians view him favorably. (Now the doubt over Democrats' position on this issue has also been laid to rest with Barack Obama's assurance in this regard.)

  • Posted By: art525 @ 08/11/2008 7:09:31 AM

    Well hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? It's too bad that , Mr Zakaria, you an your other colleagues in the press were asleep at the wheel for the first seven years or so. Goerge Bush has been the biggest failure to ever occupy The White House but you too have to take some responsibilty. Now your premise that the next president should heed the wisdom that this administration has finally acquired- well I find that laughable. I think Barack Obama has already displayed a wisdom far beyond anything evidenced in this adminsitration and I think the best thing that Obama can do (and I do pray that he is elected insead of the equally dismal John McCain) is trust his own judgement which has so far proven to be pretty daned good.

  • Posted By: art525 @ 08/11/2008 7:09:13 AM

    Well hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? It's too bad that , Mr Zakaria, you an your other colleagues in the press were asleep at the wheel for the first seven years or so. Goerge Bush has been the biggest failure to ever occupy The White House but you too have to take some responsibilty. Now your premise that the next president should heed the wisdom that this administration has finally acquired- well I find that laughable. I think Barack Obama has already displayed a wisdom far beyond anything evidenced in this adminsitration and I think the best thing that Obama can do (and I do pray that he is elected insead of the equally dismal John McCain) is trust his own judgement which has so far proven to be pretty daned good.

  • Posted By: art525 @ 08/11/2008 7:07:10 AM

    Well hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? It's too bad that , Mr Zakaria, you an your other colleagues in the press were asleep at the wheel for the first seven years or so. Goerge Bush has been the biggest failure to ever occupy The White House but you too have to take some responsibilty. Now your premise that the next president should heed the wisdom that this administration has finally acquired- well I find that laughable. I think Barack Obama has already displayed a wisdom far beyond anything evidenced in this adminsitration and I think the best thing that Obama can do (and I do pray that he is elected insead of the equally dismal John McCain) is trust his own judgement which has so far proven to be pretty daned good.

  • Posted By: ErnestPayne @ 08/11/2008 6:34:38 AM

    Another blind supporter of the war in Iraq steals away into the journalistic night hoping that his record will be forgotten by this titanic lifeboat of a column. Sorry Fareed your idiocy will not be forgotten.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse