Reader comments
Demos always blaming Bush

Well, hey, Bush isn't responsible for all of the world's ills, but that is all right, as the damage he IS responsible for takes a while to address.

It's hard to get anything productive done when Bush vetoes or threatens to veto and progressive legislation, or stands in Israel and calls those who would rather talk peace than start wars as "appeasers" (he would know, thanks to grandpa Prescott), invades sovereign nations over lies, fails to catch or pursue Osama bin Laden, tortures detainees, detains people without trials, strips Americans of their rights, spies on American citizens without warrants, and still has the chutzpah to advocate a war with Iran?

What would you have us do - refer to those as accomplishments?

Well we can always count on a Provoite to do the Ostrich impersonation. Here's a newsflash: The guy in charge gets the blame. Perhaps if he would be a little more collaborative rather than assuming (like you) that he is always right, there might actually be somehting positive happening. Oh, and when the head guy has less than a 30% approval rating it may just be that he should get all the blame. And as to legislation, if the guy sitting at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave says "no" to everything that comes his way just because it wasn't his idea, then he gets another mark in the blame column. I could go on but that will be another day.

Perhaps not every problem, but certainly every major problem! There is no need to repeat the litany of egregious mistakes made by the Bush/Cheney administration, but Iraq will be his legacy as the worst president of modern times. The list is long and has been chronicled for all to see. Others, I'm sure, will specify the multitude of problems for which Bush is to blame in making American the mess that it is today.

As for the Democratic Congress, it is necessary for the writer to remember that there is not a veto-proof majority that can get every piece of legislation made into law. This comment about a impotent Congress is absolutely absurd when there exists a concerted effort by Republicans to neutralize any progressive legislation that may be brought forward.

Nonetheless, the few remaining Bush/Cheney faithful will continue to see this administration through the rose-colored prisms that characterize the inverted world that is the Bush/Cheney years.

Also, the presumptive Republican candidate for president is attempting to distance himself from President Bush because he doesn't want to be tainted by the negatives that surround the current occupant of the White House.

It was sarcasm! The letter to the editor this writer is referring to was complete sarcasm.

You people are totaly missing the point of Mr. Jones letter. He is replying to an earlier letter stating that Bush gets a pass from the media. Jones is correct, nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It seems to me that you're the one suffering from myopia. Maybe you ought to do some studying of the issues yourself. By the way, there's not a dimes worth of difference between either parties........they're both taking us down the primerose path to self destruction.

except oh for the love - the letter referenced was being sarcastic. Guess that went right over this writer's head and a few others posted here

Lets see... Peolsi and her group promised to cut and run when she entered office, refuses to do anything substantial to ease gas problems. Her answer is to tax big oil which we end up paying at the pump, so who gets hurt, not big oil. Remember Hillary care? She is in favor of that disaster. Thank goodness President Bush's vetos cannot be over-ridden.

"It's hard to get anything productive done when Bush vetoes or threatens to veto and progressive legislation"

Vetoes: Clinton - 37
G.W. Bush - 8

"...or stands in Israel and calls those who would rather talk peace than start wars as "appeasers..."

He meant, "you don't negotiate with enemies threatening to wipe Israel off the map without preconditions such as, 'the h*ll you will.'"

"...invades sovereign nations over lies..."

Did you mean Clinton, who invaded Kosovo and attacked the sovereign nation of Serbia?

"...fails to catch or pursue Osama bin Laden..."

Did you mean Clinton, who bombed an aspirin factory and empty tents in the desert in his failed pursuit of Osama?

"...tortures detainees..."

To get valuable intelligence which likely as not saved your buttox.

"...detains people without trials..."

You don't give enemy combatants trials in the US. They're lucky not to have been shot on the battlefield.

"...strips Americans of their rights..."

You mean their right to plan attacks on America?

"...spies on American citizens without warrants..."

Did you mean Texas CPS who not only spied on FLDS but rounded up all the children in all households with a single piece of paper?

The fish always stinks the worst at the head.

Oh please! I'm a republican and I blame Bush! The writer failed to comment that Bush had a REPUBLICAN congress for much of his term that caused all this problem, with their "rubber stamping" action.

Gus correctly pointed out while Congress now has a democratic majority, it's a slim majority and not veto-proof. Thus Bush gets his way until he slides out of office.

To Gus: Yes, there is a need to list your litany, because each would be challenged and a list of accomplishments would be presented. Making global statements and asserting they are true doesn't work for me. I don't agree with all of Bush's policies and I have a couple of friends to the right of me taht can't stand him. For many, perception is truth. Not for me. There is no recession, (my major-economics) there is virtually no unemployment, (attrition and turnover is always around 5%) 100% employment is impossible, unless you have a slave society, and we have not been attacked on our soil, the dollar is down, thus bringing us to a more realistic global trading situation, the ambition of various dictators in the middle east are on hold, I could on, but of course, there's no reason to make an actual list.

Actually, we could tax oil without much concern about "higher costs" at the pump -- gas is set by world commodity markets, so oil companies are really "price takers" rather than "price setters" as implied by "rdub" above. Thus, even if we eliminated the national tax on gas, gas prices won't change and oil companies would simply take what was going to pay for roads for themselves. Oil is a commodity, so its price is less controlled by companies than people may think. All the subsidies we give oil companies don't seem to be increasing supply, unlike subsidies for wind and renewables (that are booming in development). I wonder if Congress sees where the best bang for their subsidy buck is!

@wrz-You failed to mention that while Bush only had 8 vetoes (or whatever the real number is), he had a congress rubber stamping his policies. Clinton didn't have a Democratic Congress, at the beginning of his term he did but soon became Republican and therefore, had a hard time doing anything. It wasn't a majority either. Your numbers mean nothing.

wrz: you really need to get over your Clinton obsession. HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE! And just because he was a self-serving louse of a President, which I agree with, does not excuse the far worse actions of Bush.

But just to refute your comments:

-He meant, "you don't negotiate with enemies threatening to wipe Israel off the map without preconditions such as, 'the h*ll you will.'"-

Why? Why do we have to constantly hold Israel's hand? If they are scared of being "wiped out" then perhaps they should do something about it other than running to us.

-To get valuable intelligence which likely as not saved your buttox.-

I would rather die than support the descent of America to the terrorists' level, where we cease to be any different from them.

-You mean their right to plan attacks on America?-

You mean their right to free speech? Their right to be protected from unwarranted searches and seizures?

It's sad you've been taken in and willingly give up your rights' due to fear-mongering.

Many of us who are against Bush also dislike many Democrats. The defense of freedom from tyranny is not a partisan issue!

Someone needs to step up and place blame.
Republicans are in denial when they support him.
He's failed on every level.

wrz gave quite a list for us to contemplate didn't he? (as if more is more)

Reminds me of the saying: "You can always tell the liar by the length of his tale."

When people panic or really have nothing to say, they tend to go on, and on, and on, ...

@gas price-Not exactly. Bush'es policies has tanked the value of the dollar which has a huge impact up on our ability to import oil. The value of oil is based upon the USD not world markets.

During the first 10 months of Democratic control of the Congress, the Rebublicans filibustered or threatened to filibuster legislation more times than during any 2 years in the existence of our Rebublic -- and the Rebpublicans called the Democrats "obstructionists" for objecting to 3 out of over 100 judge appointments. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

I'd like to see some evidence for your remarkable claim that "Repbulicans filibustered or threatened to filibuser ligislation more times than during any 2 years in the existence of our Republic"

Is that on a percentage basis? Republicans filibustered 2 of the 3 bills put forth for a 2/3 percentage. The highest in the last 2000 years.
Sounds like you just made that up. Provide some numbers.