I had the most fascinating Twitter “debate” Sunday. Actually, that’s something of a misnomer, since I don’t think it’s possible to “debate” on Twitter, because it’s limited to 140 characters at a time, and many things are not possibly explained in 140 characters. But that doesn’t prevent many right wingers (and the occasional left winger) from trying.
I simply made a really basic statement that I believe to be true, and that will probably be borne out by historians many years from now; that George W Bush was the worst president in US history. Let me repeat that:
George W Bush was the worst president in United States history.
That’s just my opinion, of course, and there are a few historians who disagree with me, of course, in that they may put a few other presidents behind Bush. Hoover, of course, is a rational choice, since he did nothing for 3 ½ years after the economy bottomed out, and led us into the Great Depression. And Grant was also a perfectly awful president, in the opinions of many.
But the reason I say Bush was the worst ever is because the results of his administration were almost as bad as Hoover’s, despite the fact that he had the benefit of a number of tools that were not available to previous bad presidents, such as FEMA, the SEC and banking regulations designed to prevent bubbles and market manipulations. Bush was purely incompetent, and in eight years, he seems to have had no desire to gain any level of competence. In fact, his last year, and especially the last 4-5 months were marked by an attitude that basically said, “I don’t give a shit. Get me out of here.” If Bush had had three and a half years after his “market crash” as Hoover had, it’s entirely likely we would have had another Great Depression.
The right wing response came from someone supposedly named Nathanael Yowell. The scary part of all of this is, he’s apparently a writer for the Shreveport Examiner. I seem to remember when the Examiner was a newspaper. I disagreed with the editorial stance a lot, but they seemed to at least feign legitimacy. As you’ll see, that no longer seems to be the case. Here is what his Twitter profile says:
I write for Examiner.com and my own Political Review blog. I'm a 31 year old conservative who is a political junkie, sports nut, and WWE mark, in that order.
And sure enough, his mug and another profile of sorts are located on the Shreveport Examiner here. Here’s what the paragraph-long profile says:
Nate is a 31-year-old conservative blogger, and he runs his own blog at weeklypoliticalreview.com. He has written on many subjects including but not limited to: illegal immigration, health care reform, taxes, etc. Nate believes that it is imperative that Americans are kept well-informed on the issues, and he'll strive to keep you informed. He has had his work linked by major political news blogs, such as HotAir.com and Newsbusters.org.
That is followed by his email address, which is a gmail, so I am heartened to realize that this guy has not been hired by anyone as an actual journalist. Look at his "credits." He's been "linked to" by far right hate sites? Gosh, how proud should he be? And no, “Nate,” having a blog doesn’t make one a journalist. I have a blog, and I am not a journalist. Journalism is about chasing a story, finding out the facts, and publishing those facts in a concise way that the average reader can understand. I don’t have the time to be a journalist, and being nimble with Google, Wikipedia and Lexis-Nexis does not make me a journalist. And “Nate” here is a journalist in his own mind, kind of like Andrew Breitbart.
If he was a journalist, he would respect history, and strive to get it right. But right out of the gate, this guy immediately showed himself to be no student of history, and more than willing to make absurd, unsupportable statements. Here was his first Tweet to me, in response to my opinion that George W Bus was the worst president in US History:
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook LOL. Was that a joke? He wasn't the best, but he sure as hell is way better than Carter, Obama, Nixon, LBJ....
(Disclosure: I am leaving out the names of others this guy included in his Tweets. I have no desire to drag others into this cesspool.)
It is simply not possible for ANY of the above 4 presidents to have been worse than George W Bush. In fact, it’s not even close. I’ll start with Obama, because it’s the easiest. Bush left Obama with a hell of a mess, and most of it has been cleaned up by Obama. On unemployment alone, the economy was losing nearly 800,000 jobs per month, and that number has been positive for 15 months now. Is the economy sluggish still? Of course it is. But Obama could take the easy way out and do what Bush did, and ignore a bubble because it means more jobs. But he’s trying to insert the United States into the green economy the rest of the world is starting to build, and the Republicans are trying to stop him.
As most know, here is a list of Obama’s accomplishments so far. Bush’s list would pale in comparison.
It just defies comprehension that the guy who cleaned up after someone's mess is messier than the person for whom he cleaned. But what about the other three? Turns out he can’t possibly be right on any of them, anyway.
Carter was actually one of the most underappreciated presidents in history. I wouldn’t put him in the top 10, but he certainly doesn’t deserve bottom 10 status. He was the president who hired Paul Volcker, not Reagan, and between them they curbed the double-digit inflation that was killing the US economy, a problem that had vexed both Nixon and Ford. HE was the one who championed deregulation and started removing unnecessary regulations from the books, NOT Reagan. Carter, however, was careful to kill only those regulations that actually hurt the economy. (In fact, only three presidents in the post-war era have overseen an actual reduction in the number of regulations, and they were Kennedy, Clinton and Carter.) The unemployment rate was also lower when Carter left office than it was when he took office. (Click here to check my math on unemployment. We’ll be revisiting these numbers a few times in this post.) The unemployment rate during most of the Carter Administration was at or below 6%. By comparison, the Reagan administration took almost 7 years to get the rate below 6%.
Carter was also very aggressive with regard to energy. He oversaw the establishment of standards that, had they been left alone, would result in far lower energy bills by today. Yes, that’s right; if we had followed Carter’s lead on energy, we would be spending far less on energy, and even if gas prices were $4 a gallon, we’d be spending far less for it. We would also have a strong renewable energy infrastructure by now, and we’d be less dependent upon unstable countries for our energy needs.
Foreign policy was a little rougher under Carter, although he brokered successful peace talks between Egypt and Israel, he never outed a CIA operative and would never have even considered torture as a solution to a problem. The United States was also regarded as a humanitarian state at the time, a reputation that was sullied greatly by George W Bush.
So, there’s no way Carter was worse than Bush, when going by history and actual facts. What about Richard Nixon?
Nixon WAS a crook, and he trampled the Constitution during his 5 ½ years in office, but Bush did that for 8 years. Nixon, for all of his faults, never oversaw the outing of a CIA operative, which used to constitute a treasonous act. Nixon did refuse to cooperate fully in the investigation, but he never commuted the sentences of those who participated in his crimes. Nixon and Bush both also committed war crimes, and killed innocent people unnecessarily, so as Constitutional scumbags, the two are about equal.
Of course, Bush started one war that could have been justified on some level, but abandoned that war, and the soldiers fighting in it, in favor of a completely illegal and immoral action against a country that had not attacked us. So, even that’s a wash. I don’t give Nixon the high marks some do on foreign policy, but Bush has nothing but a negative record on foreign policy. Nixon had his China policy, and even opened the door to better relations with the Soviets. Bush managed to get the entire world to hate the United States. He has absolutely ZERO foreign policy successes to point to.
Nixon sucked when it came to the economy and domestic issues, but only relative to his predecessors. Like Clinton handed Bush a strong, growing, vibrant economy, Johnson handed Nixon and even stronger one. But to his credit, Nixon didn’t blow the economy up right away. He did engage in monetary policy that brought about inflation that was unprecedented, and he did a few truly stupid things, economically, such as his 90-day wage-price freeze. But nothing Nixon did was on the level of watching the economy implode in front of him and telling everyone nothing was wrong, or demanding nearly $1 trillion in bailouts with a 3-page agreement containing no promise to pay it back.
As for Lyndon Johnson, or LBJ, that’s easy. In his 5-plus years, he oversaw passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Medicare. The unemployment rate NEVER went above 6%, and from December 1965 to the end of his term in January 1969, it stayed at or below 4%. It was the last time the unemployment rate would go below 4% until Clinton’s second term. If not for the Achilles heel of Vietnam, Johnson would be considered one of our greatest presidents.
That’s four presidents, and every one of them was better than Bush, Jr. And not one of those four presidents were warned of a pending terrorist attack ahead of time and failed to act, resulting in the deaths of 3000 people. For that matter, none of them failed to respond to a natural disaster that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
When I laughed at him and suggested he give me proof that Bush was better than those four, he Tweeted the following:
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook Econ under LBJ sputtered. Under W, it was doing ok, until housing bubble that Dems ignored & refused to do anything about burst.
Yeah, you read that revisionism right. Under Johnson, the economy “sputtered”??? As I noted, the unemployment rate when LBJ took office under unfortunate circumstances was 5.9%, his last three years, it never went above 4%.
As for GDP growth, the United States’ record was nothing short of phenomenal. (Again, click here to check my math.)
Johnson NEVER had a quarter with negative GDP growth, which Bush can’t say, and he had several quarters in which the annualized growth rate was north of 10%. TEN PERCENT GROWTH in the largest economy in the world was certainly NOT “sputtering.”
Compare that to Bush. Even with a securities bubble that was making millions of people think they had tons of money when they actually had nothing, he had five quarters of negative GDP growth, and only three of them were in 2008. I will be kind, however, and say that the other two were not his fault, although based on Mr. Yowell’s very own standard, he should be given credit. I mean, if Obama is given credit from his first day...
What about job growth? If the economy under Johnson was “sputtering,” then Bush’s was, well…
Does “non-existent” sound about right?
Under Johnson, the economy only saw two down months in more than 5 years. (Once again, you’re invited to check my math by clicking here.) The Kennedy-Johnson Administrations saw an average annual job growth rate of 2.9% and the Johnson Administration saw an average annual growth rate of 3.9%. Compare that to the 0% job growth rate Bush saw in his first term and the 0.1% increase his second, and the net 1 million jobs that were created in eight Bush years.
By the way, just as an aside, Johnson was also the last president before Clinton to balance the federal budget. But it is an absolute falsehood to claim the economy “sputtered” under Johnson. Of course, being a RW clown, he actually contradicted himself on this, when he claimed that JFK's tax cut led to a huge cut in unemployment. So, what was it, "Nate"? Did it "sputter" or not?
The funny thing about right wingers is, everything they say seems logical to them, even when it can't be.
As for the DEMOCRATS ignoring the housing bubble, the first inklings of a bubble began to appear in 2003. I am not an expert, but I wrote on the issue back in 2003. I was seeing home prices rise at an incomprehensible rate, and I was being offered mortgages by “brokers” with absolutely insane terms. In fact, they should have been illegal. Even though I was a single parent making about $50,000 a year, I was being offered a mortgage on a $200,000 home (one that would have sold for $125,000 two years earlier) for up to five years at a payment of less than $400 per month. For ME to know there was a problem, the government HAD to know there was something brewing, because they have people monitoring the situation. And if not, they should have, because it’s their goddamn job.
But even if they didn’t know about it in 2003, by 2005, a problem was apparent. Here are just a few of the articles from May 2005 warning of a serious problem.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111645643190837423,00.html?mod=home_page_one_us
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2005/05/greenspan-only-recent-home-buyers-to.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=azb8fwbe5Fqw
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2005/05/housing-update.html
In other words, this ALL happened while the Republican Party controlled the White House and ALL of Congress. To even attempt to blame this on Democrats is lame as hell. By the time Democrats got in, the problem was already acute. But the above means that even Alan Greenspan was concerned, and the Bush Administration was already aware of the problem.
Not only that, but Congressional Democrats tried several times to pass bills offering mortgage relief to homeowners that would have severely limited the damage, but Bush threatened to veto them. In fact, just a few months before the entire system melted down, Bush promised to veto such a bill if Democrats passed it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/27housing.html
Only to drop his veto threat, AFTER it was apparent the entire system was about to go into meltdown mode.
http://mortgage.ocregister.com/2008/07/23/bush-drops-veto-threat-on-mortgage-aid-bill/1269/
Funny thing is, the Fed under Bush/Greenspan had been funneling HUGE amounts of money to the banks for more than six months by the time Bush threatened to veto the Democratic bill to help homeowners and block the predatory lending practices.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/24/magazines/fortune/eavis_citigroup.fortune/index.htm
So, the concept that Bush was trying to help and Democrats blocked him is not only not true, it’s actually the opposite of the truth. The Republican Congress and Bush had more than enough information in 2005 (with almost 2 years to go before they lost to Democrats) to tighten the rules and lessen the problem, and they did neither.
I’m not going to bore you with the entire exchange. It was rather long. Here are some of the highlights. What’s scary is, he actually seems to believe this shit.
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
Whatever debt Bush accrued, it pales in comparison to Obama's debt. http://bit.ly/kYwj5z
On this one, I actually left the link to his “proof,” because what right wingers consider “proof” is actually quite funny. You really have to love "Google Scholars," dontcha? The headline looks like it supports it, so he posts it as “proof.” But there’s one problem; check the date. Obama had been in office five weeks. That proves what, exactly? Are we using psychics as experts now? Should we be looking to Edgar Cayce for our historical analysis now?
But DOES Bush’s debt “pale in comparison” to Obama’s? Not even close.
First off, Bush was left with a surplus when he took office. The economy was down slightly at the time, so the surplus has shrunk slightly (Click here), but it was a surplus nonetheless. The projections by the Congressional Budget Office for 2001-2010 (keep in mind, Republicans ran Congress at the time, so they can’t even claim “liberal bias” in this one) showed a combined surplus of at least $4.7 trillion in that time, with the overall debt dropping from $6.2 trillion to just under $3.5 trillion. Even with a couple of years of minor economic trouble (like 2000-2001), the total debt should still have been no more than $4 trillion. Instead, well, let’s just say, we wish the debt was around $4 trillion.
Here are a few more choice Tweets about the deficit/debt.
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook And now Obama has ran up ~$4T more debt in just 3 short years! WTG!
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
Lying again. Uh. I'm shocked. It went up ~$5T under W NOT $10T. O's debt in 3yrs~=Ws 8yrs.
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook Right, just ignore facts. Deficit was ~$10T, when Obama took office. Now, it's over $14T w no end in sight. #DoTheMath
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook (Bush) had a deficit, I wouldn't say he exploded it. The Dem bubble bursting caused it to go up, & Obama doubled down on the deficit.
First of all, note the constantly shifting numbers. This is a guy who fancies himself a “journalist”? He should be embarrassed. $4 trillion is not the same as $5 trillion.
As noted, the debt should have been no more than $4 trillion when the economy melted down. Let’s remember that first. We were running surpluses, and Bush immediately pushed us into deficit spending.
But let’s use his admonition and do some math, shall we? You can follow along by clicking here for numbers.
When Ronald Reagan was elected, the total national debt for the first 193 years of the republic was about $900 billion. By the time Bush 41 was elected, the debt was more than $3 trillion, and by the time Clinton was elected, it had nearly doubled again, to $5.9 Trillion. After eight years of Clinton, the debt had climbed a bit, to $6.4 trillion, and it was on its way down.
So, Bush was handed a $6.4 trillion debt and a projected surplus for the next ten years that should have brought the debt down, which is what Republicans always say they want. Also, keep in mind, $5 trillion of that $6.4 trillion can be attributed solely to Republicans Reagan and Bush – you know, the party of “fiscal responsibility.” Yeah, right.
So, the Bush years started with a $6.4 trillion, and ten years of projected deficits. Huge tax cuts, two wars and a massive Homeland Security bureaucracy later, the debt was $11.6 trillion on January 20, 2009, when this clown presumes the economy was supposed to magically transform under new president Obama. The current debt, as of June 16, 2011, is $14.3 trillion. So, even in the worst case scenario, $2.7 trillion has been added under Obama, NOT even close to $4 trillion.
But it’s not even that cut and dried. BUSH is responsible for Fiscal Year 2009, not Obama, and the debt at the end of FY 2009 was $12.6 trillion. The deficit for that year alone was $1.42 trillion, and the deficit for fiscal year 2010 was $1.3 trillion. The initial projection for fiscal year 2011 was $1.5 trillion, but it’s already been cut to a projected $1.2 trillion, and some economists are suggesting that it could go lower still. So, the deficits have gone DOWN under Obama, not up. But he’s only responsible for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
The most you could “pin” on Obama for fiscal year 2009 was the stimulus package. Only about $180 billion of that had been spent by the end of fiscal year 2009, and most of that was tax cuts, which right wingers don’t consider “spending,” anyway. He did spend about $60 billion more on the wars but, unlike Bush, he put those costs on the books. Bush started those wars, and pissed $1 trillion away not even attempting to win either one, and someone had to do something for the troops, so as the father of a soldier, I didn’t mind Obama un-screwing up the two wars. (Just as an aside, new body armor arrived in Afghanistan about 2 months before my son did – thank you President Obama.)
So, as of the end of fiscal year 2009, the last one Bush was responsible for, the deficit was $12.6 trillion. That means, to date, $1.7 trillion AT MOST can be attributed to Obama. If you add in the stimulus spending, we'll say $1.9 trillion. Not $4 trillion; $1.9 trillion.
Only one problem; since $11 trillion of the debt was put there by Republicans, the interest on that portion of the debt surely can’t be lain at the feet of President Obama. For fiscal years 2010 and so far in 2011, Republican-added debt has resulted in interest payments of about $570 billion. (Here’s the total of interest payments on the national debt. I’m probably being kind saying it’s only $570 billion. But that takes Obama’s share down to $1.4 trillion to date. The stimulus has been spent, and that takes it up to $1.9 trillion. But Obama's deficits for the first two years are lower than Bush's for his last two years. I would also point out that the stimulus package probably actually reduced the deficit, by keeping a lot of state employees in jobs that states wanted to eliminate until then. The auto bailout saved a couple of million jobs; the loss of those jobs would have also increased the deficit.
We were losing jobs (taxpayers) at a rate of almost 800,000 per month when Obama took office, and the steps he took reduced that to almost nothing almost at once. That would have effectively cut the deficit, as well.
Another way to look at the deficit is as a percent of GDP. Here’s a chart that puts the lie to the idea that Obama was worse for the deficit than Bush, as well.
Deficits and debt are complicated, folks. I know right wingers like everything to be simple, but if you want simple, here it is:
Republicans are responsible for 90% of the current national debt.
Now, let’s check out our friend’s numerous Tweets re unemployment. (UE = unemployment in his Tweets):
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook Bush tax cuts lowered UE, after the .com bubble burst @ end of Clinton's pres. W tried to get Dems to fix bubble, but
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook all Dems would do it demagogue Bush's attempts at dealing w it. Dems saw trouble coming & did nothing.
Those two are connected. Before I debunk his stupidity on unemployment, let’s look at that "bubble" point. According to this genius, Bush tried to get Democrats to fix the dot-com bubble, but they didn’t. Keep in mind, Republicans had run Congress for six years, and in 2001, they had control the White House and Congress, so the very idea that Dems could “demagogue” anything is laughable.
But how do you “fix” a bubble after it’s already popped? Go ahead and laugh; it’s absurd.
(Referring to the mini-recession caused by the dot-com bubble, BEFORE Bush came into office.)
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook (Unemployment) went higher than 4.3%. It went way above 6%, close to 7%. It was a tiny one b/c Bush turned econ around before it got worse
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook True, it didn't go to 6% overnight, but there was a definite upswing of the UE, when Bush took office.
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShookWs tax cuts created jobs, until Dems bubble destroyed them. Os spending only grew govt & debt.
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook Just like a typical lieberal, (sic) you're forgetting that taxes do have an affect (sic) on business & how much they hire people.
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook Stats don't lie. Whenever taxes are cut, UE goes down. You can't deny that.
And when several of us called bullshit on that last one, he added:
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook BS! It happened under JFK, Reagan, Clinton (97), & Bush 43. Check back, if you want. It's true.
(Again, Click here to check my unemployment numbers)
It’s hard to know where to start. I guess we could start with the only true statement he made above; stats really do not lie. Of course, he seems to think stats come from his rectum.
For all of 2000, unemployment was pretty much exactly 4%. It jumped a bit to 4.3% in January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, but that was hardly more than a blip. In fact, a lot of economists hesitate to call what happened in late 2000, early 2001 a recession, since the economy didn’t really contract in any significant way and the unemployment rate barely budged. The rate climbed a bit during 2001, but it didn’t go above 5% until after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and it didn’t hit the 6% that “Nate” claimed until December 2002, which was about halfway through Bush’s first term. Also, the unemployment rate didn’t come close to the 4.3% level again until 2006, which is when the mortgage bubble was at its peak, and all sorts of people were flush with fake money. In other words, if tax cuts caused unemployment to drop, the delayed effect was about five years. In an economic system that works on fiscal years, it's hard to make the claim he's making.
That should put to rest the concept that tax cuts lead to lower unemployment.
There is absolutely no evidence of a direct correlation between most tax cuts and the unemployment rate. Check out this well-done blog post, complete with an easy-to-understand graph that shows tax rates and unemployment rates. Even if you ignore what he says in the blog text, and just look at the numbers, you can see that there is no correlation between the two concepts at all. In fact, if I wanted to draw such a conclusion, the numbers would actually show that unemployment tends to be lower when tax rates are higher. But that would be a stretch, so I’d rather not stretch things that far.
The very idea that a tax bill will determine how many employees a businessperson will hire simply defies common sense, anyway. First of all, you’d have to believe that these folks will stop trying to make money if their tax bill goes higher, when any rational person knows the opposite is the case. Businesses don’t hire employees out of a feeling of charity, they hire them to make money. And they only hire the number of employees they need to make money. In any case, the cost of labor is deducted before the tax bill is figured, so the reality is, the more people you hire, the lower your tax bill, anyway.
It’s an especially absurd claim to make in the case of Bush, Jr’s tax cuts, since there is no evidence of job creation whatsoever. His first four years saw zero net jobs created, and the first two years of the second term saw about 2.5 million jobs created, even in an economy that was flush with fake money. And when the bubble burst, all of that was lost, anyway. In the meantime, we're looking at AT LEAST $8 trillion of additional debt, with a net job creation in eight years of less than 1 million jobs.
BUSH is responsible for unemployment going to 10% in 2009, and without the economic stimulus, it would have gone much higher; many economists say it could have gone to at least 12-15%. Rather than constantly chiding Obama, Bush fans should actually thank him for saving what little legacy Bush had left.
Here are a couple more. This post is already long, so I’ll make these short.
Re: Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina:
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
@MiltShook He made mistakes. No doubt, but Blanco & Nagin were the ones that was responsible 1st. They failed badly. Unfortunately, W wasn't able to make it much better. Thank God we have Jindal in office, now. He did a tremendous job w the hurricanes a couple of yrs ago.
Here is a summary of Bush’s actions regarding Katrina. To say he screwed things up is an understatement. Here’s a Summary of FEMA’s response to Katrina. FEMA was Bush’s responsibility. Bush declared the entire Gulf coast a disaster area three days before landfall, which means he and DHS took full responsibility for all disaster preparations and the aftermath.
The following is from that second summary:
Hastert Was Warned About FEMA's Problems
On January 6, 2005, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., sent a letter to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to tell him that "The effectiveness of FEMA's all hazards programs is increasingly threatened with regard to natural disasters" following the organization of the Department of Homeland Security, under which FEMA now fell.
"Since FEMA has become part of the Department of Homeland Security, it has been a struggle. Funds have been raided, staff have been transferred into other DHS functions without being replaced, slowdowns because of added layers of bureaucracy for nearly all functions have dramatically increased, and there is the constant threat of reprogramming appropriated funds," the organization wrote.
In other words, not only was FEMA ill-prepared, but Congress, which has oversight responsibility, was informed that they were ill-prepared, and did nothing.
Heckuva job, Bushy.
By the way, Republicans, including Jindal, give credit to President Obama for fixing FEMA, and for his hurricane response in 2009:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/08/28/4430130-gopers-praise-obama-fema-team
http://www.sodahead.com/fun/republicans-praise-fema-changes-under-obama/blog-141941/
This last one was just plain funny. One of the others on this conversation brought up Bush’s “Mission Accomplished pageant. You know, the one in which he declared both wars over, even though they were still going strong when he left office nearly 7 years later:
ndgc12dx Nathanael Yowell
Go ahead and ignore what he actually said that day. He didn't know that banner was going to be up there.
Ok, think about this one a second. Here’s a guy who’s trying to convince us that George W Bush was a good president, but apparently someone was able to surreptitiously sneak a huge banner on board, without the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF’S knowledge.
Sigh... the only thing fun about right wingers is that that have no idea how stupid they really sound.
For entertainment value, they can't be beat. But we have to do whatever we can to keep them from running the government. EVER.
