Basically, what he was trying to say is that at least he didn’t burn the place down.
His legacy is undisputable: a weak leader with strong faith based opinions.
Can’t wait until Jan 20th
Based on the lack of responses, perhaps no one watched it. I know I didn’t.
I listened to it. I think he is a sensitive and emotional man (like his father) that puts up a good front of toughness. Many would call him stubborn but I say he is a principled man that right or wrong, was not swayed by pressure from the press, the democrats and world leaders. Except for the last year, he kept the economy stable. He kept the homeland safe in an awful period in our history. He had one of the most eventful 8 years I can recall. Overall, not one of our finest leaders but certainly not one of the worst.
He’s still around?
He kept the homeland safe in an awful period in our history. He had one of the most eventful 8 years I can recall. Overall, not one of our finest leaders but certainly not one of the worst.
I will never undestand how people can give this man a pass for 9/11. Yes, he kept the homeland safe except for the worst terrorist attack in US history.
Maybe if he hadn’t gotten a memo entitled “Bin laden poised to strike”, I too could give him pass. But then, that was August 6, 2001, and he was on vacation. Instead of doing something about it, he stayed on vacation until Labor day.
Yeah, I didn’t watch it for reasons that Last Tri in 83 FAILED to mention in his appraisal of Bush’s legacy.
For example:
Katrina
Iraq War/ Failed search for Iraq’s WMDs.
Stifling US R&D efforts by instituting short-sighted and misaligned regulations on stem cell research.
…just to name a few…
Basically, what he was trying to say is that at least he didn’t burn the place down.
His legacy is undisputable: a weak leader with strong faith based opinions.
Can’t wait until Jan 20th
Time will tell on Bush’s legacy. Obama’s eventual crash and burn should play out like a nice Greek tragedy. If given a choice between a weak leader and a leader that will drive us off a cliff, I’ll take the former.
He kept the homeland safe in an awful period in our history. He had one of the most eventful 8 years I can recall. Overall, not one of our finest leaders but certainly not one of the worst.
I will never undestand how people can give this man a pass for 9/11. Yes, he kept the homeland safe except for the worst terrorist attack in US history.
Maybe if he hadn’t gotten a memo entitled “Bin laden poised to strike”, I too could give him pass. But then, that was August 6, 2001, and he was on vacation. Instead of doing something about it, he stayed on vacation until Labor day.
What could he have done? Without knowing the details of the attack all he could of said was “Everybody get ready for something. We don’t know what or when, but be ready”. Its easy to say he should have stopped it - after the fact. But knowing what little he did know - there is nothing that he could have done.
Do you think that in Crawford he couldn’t call the directors of the FBI or CIA and get information? Be reasonable.
He kept the homeland safe in an awful period in our history. He had one of the most eventful 8 years I can recall. Overall, not one of our finest leaders but certainly not one of the worst.
I will never undestand how people can give this man a pass for 9/11. Yes, he kept the homeland safe except for the worst terrorist attack in US history.
Maybe if he hadn’t gotten a memo entitled “Bin laden poised to strike”, I too could give him pass. But then, that was August 6, 2001, and he was on vacation. Instead of doing something about it, he stayed on vacation until Labor day.
Exactly…the whole “Bush kept us safe” argument assumes that 1)there was an actual terrorist plot to be protected from in the 8 years since 9/11 (I don’t doubt there wasn’t one, BTW) but 2) that any other president (had one been elected) would have failed in protecting us from this attack (i.e. that Bush was the only one that could do it).
Actually, Clinton is to blame for 9/11. He missed the chance to get Bin Laden.
Actually, Clinton is to blame for 9/11. He missed the chance to get Bin Laden.
If you say so, but there is also evidence to suggest that Bin Laden could have been captured/killed…AFTER 9/11. I’m pretty sure that was on Bush’s watch.
On top of that…rick_pcfl argued that Bush wasn’t responsible for preventing 9/11 because he didn’t know what was coming…so by the same reasoning, why should Clinton be held accountable? Like Bush, knew even less about Bin Laden and 9/11 during his tenure as president.
Actually, Clinton is to blame for 9/11. He missed the chance to get Bin Laden.
What chance was that?
Um, he’s right. We had that chance in 99, we weren’t given the green light to ‘pull the trigger’.
I suppose then by your logic that if a terrorist attack of large scale happens within the next 9 months, Obama will be totally to blame in this correct?
There are many people that can be “blamed” for what happened that day, but I don’t believe it’s fair to lay it all at any one persons feet.
Um, he’s right. We had that chance in 99, we weren’t given the green light to ‘pull the trigger’.
We also had chances in the Battle of Tora Bora (Dec 2001) and the CIA unit tasked with finding Bin laden was shut down in 2005. It makes no mention of Clinton’s chance of getting Bin Laden in 99. Clinton did convince the UN to impose sanction on Afghanistan in an effort to extradite him.
Time will tell on Bush’s legacy. Obama’s eventual crash and burn…
Hmm, let’s see…after 8 failed years, Bush gets more time before we determine his legacy. Obama isn’t even the POTUS yet and you’ve determined him a failure. Reason much?
Katrina- would you give some consideration to the fact that this was probably the largest natural disaster ever and its not something that can be planned or prepared for? Bush has even admittted they didn’t handle that well.
not something that can be planned or prepared for?
Seriously?
It being ‘wiki’? I wouldn’t take that as all knowing
I suppose then by your logic that if a terrorist attack of large scale happens within the next 9 months, Obama will be totally to blame in this correct?
There are many people that can be “blamed” for what happened that day, but I don’t believe it’s fair to lay it all at any one persons feet.
You mean like the folks who blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC bombing, which took place ~ 35 days after he took office? 
Anyway, I never laid ALL the blame at Bush’s feet. I simply disagree with the statement that he kept the homeland safe from attack, because he did not.
Could more have been done? Absolutely. Would it have mattered? We’ll never know.