The manner in which Katrina was handled you are laying at the feet of the Presidential Administration. I believe you are placing blame after the fact for ineptness on the part of the local government that should have taken better precautions then they did. I for one can not forget the parking lot full of buses underwater that were not used to transport people out of the danger zone. Every excuse was used as to why they were not used, however, none of them were worth their weight in dirt.

After Katrina hit, and supplies had be stationed outside the impact zone, the governor of the state was the one who had the responisiblity to call in the national guard, not the President. While we can say he could have and maybe even should have done that anyway, had he exercised that option people would be screaming about how he overstepped his authority. FEMA was not being managed well, I will give you that, however much of the civilian tragedy could have been avoided had the people in the area and the govenor of the state taken it upone themselves to protect themselves.

The tragic events of 9/11 can never be taken back. The Bush administration  may have overlooked some important indicators of the pending attack. Clinton likes to tell it as though he had warned the administration of pending doom. Yet the Clinton administration did little or nothing to act on the same information during their administration either. Since 9/11 there have been no further attacks on the US homeland so, while tragic, lessons were learned from that event.

 While I will agree that IRaq was not the best option at the time, and the reasons used to justify going back in were less then steller, this was not a new conflict. It had been raging since the first Gulf war and technically was under a cease fire with conditions for that cease fire to remain that were not being abided by. Doesn't change the outcome or bring back the money spent fighting and rebuilding there, but it was not something new that many people like to twist the facts to make it appear.

An administration is neither good or bad, the best or the worst, alone. Congress plays a vital role in the outcome of any administration. We have had the worst Congress for at least the past 6 if not the past 8 years. Congress had the power to control much of what the President has done in the past 8 years. They control the purse strings and they even control whether our troops can remain deployed. To lay the bulk of the blame or credit on the President is, in my opinion, a bit much.

We the people govern this country. We the people have allowed the politicians to run wild over our civil rights, spend our money with abandon, focus our countries resources in the wrong places. We the people are to blame for the past 8 years and will be to blame for the next 8 years. Until we the people stand up and tell our politicians they are wrong, they will continue to do what ever they please.

We the people have been the worst in the history of the USA. We the people have allowed our government to do whatever it wants and now we the people want to point fingers and blame someone else. 

What we have now is our own doing, not a Presidents. We need to stand up and demand changes if we are not happy with the way things are going. Congress had a worse approval rating then the President during the election time. Yet we the people decided they should continue doing (or not doing) what they had been the past 8 years. 

Obama called for change, I for one hope he can get people to wake up and realize that we the people control our future. I didn't vote for him in the final election, I don't believe his ideas and policies make much fiscal sense, and I would rather we had the option to choose "None of the above" on the ballot. But we haave him and I hope he can find a way to get Americans to wake up and take responsibility for our actions.

Hi K-Rock... Thanks for your comment. 

There is sure a lot of what you wrote with which I strongly agree.  I do agree that we get the president we deserve.  And you certainly can place some of the blame for the Katrina mess on local government, but with a disaster like that one, the feds have a great deal of responsibility and, in my view, they failed miserably in that responsibility.  Do your remember: "You're doing a great job, Brownie."  Bush was completely unaware of what was happening. 

Like you, I'm willing to spread the blame for the failures of the past 8 years on a lot of people, but we rate presidents on what their administration accomplishes weighed against the damage it does.  With the George W. administration, its accomplishments are very few indeed and the damage it has done to American, both at home and abroad, is massive and incalculable right now.  

I heard Laura Bush, in a CNN interview, say she thought when future historians take a close look at the Bush II administration, they will view it a good deal more favorably than people do today.  I strongly disagree with the First Lady.  When future historians look back on the George W. administration, they will see titantic damage to America, both at home and overseas, even more than we realize today.  They will find the most incompetent presidential administration in all American history. 

George W's War 

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.
 
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'
 
George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.
 
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
 
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support.  But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.
  
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.
 
 Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them.  Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar.  Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
 
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet, through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.
 
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat. At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained.  Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.
 
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.
 
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck.  The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
 
Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated.  After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.
 
So, on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown , a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

What?  Were you thinking of someone else?

War is Hell.  If the media was able to cover the first World Wars as it does in modern times, the World would be an entirely different place.  Let the Military handle the Wars & keep the media out - the American public is simply too stupid to understand what needs to be done to actually WIN a military conflict. There . . . I said it - SOMEBODY had to! 

The arrogance of certain posters who think they can predict the future historical significance of a sitting President speaks volumes.  Keep posting, Bob - if nothing else, you're a good source of entertainment!

Hear, Hear, K-Rock!  Well thought out post.  

Touché, Salmon!  'Nuff Said!

Irish, you are right on it, as usual!

Bob:  You wanted dialogue, well, I guess you got it!  I respect you for having the courage to put your opinion out there.  What continues to puzzle me is that you have previously stated your distrust of government in general, but you continue to support the party that promises--and delivers--the biggest dose of it.

Since you are into making predictions, Bob, I will make one of my own.  I predict that in four years, you will be either a Republican or an idiot. 

op

Bob we all like to accept credit and lay blame, that is human nature I think. History will look that the events of the past 8 years much differently then we look at them today.

I remember clearly the events of 9/11 and my first thoughts when I saw the smoke rolling out of the first tower that was hit. The media was reporting that a small plane had hit one of the twin towers. It only took a quick glance at the TV to know that was not a small plane that hit the tower. I knew immediately we had been attacked. I also knew immediately that this country was going to have a very hard time staying the course to bring those responsible to justice.

Flags flew off the shelves and you could bearly look any direction without seeing the Red White and Blue flying proudly everywhere.  We, as a country were bound and determined not to let this one go. We had the President in office that was willing to do what it took to defend this country. The problem, I knew then, was we are a society that has grown used to instant gratification. I call us a microwave society because cooking something on the stove takes to long.

We want what we want right now, if it takes more then a little while we grow weary and our attention shifts to something else. It didn't take long before the flags no longer flew, people were comparing the wars to Vietman, and a body count was running on almost every major news source.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the world is a safer place without someone like Saddam in power. Terror states took notice that the USA meant business and stopped their posturing. Things are better in the world today then they were 8 years ago in many aspects. However, once the magnitude of what we were doing hit home, many people decided they didn't have the stones for it. The press makes money from blood and death so the feel good stories never made it to the front pages. The far left in the Congress began jockeying for political position with elections coming up and the bi-partisanship this country needed began to fall apart.

There are many things I wish we had done differently with regard to Iraq. I wish we had accomplished the stated goal in Afganistan before embarking on Iraq. But through it all, President Bush held fast to his belief that this needed done. He will be viewed much differently as history is written in the years to come then he is today. As long as we have Carter in the list of Presidents, he will never make it to the top of the "Worst Ever" list.

Well said

Preach it, K-Rock!!!

op

Hello everyone... Thanks to you all for thoughtful comments... I appreciate them...  I will try to respond to some of your observations... First to Salmon Fan.

Yes sir, there are some wars that need to be fought.  Afghanistan was one.  We had every right to bring the people who bombed us on 9-11 to justice and that's what we should have done.  However, just when we were about to grab bin Laden and his closest cohorts, President Bush shifted our focus to a nation that had never in it's history done us one bit of harm and presented absolutely no threat to us.  It had on WMDs.  It had no connection with 9-11.  It was not acquiring an atomic weapon.  It had no missiles.  At this time, it was a threat to no one (its army having been seriously mauled by us in a previous war) even those nations in the middle east.  

Yes, Saddam was a bad man, an extremely despotic dictator and I do agree the world is a bit better off without him around.  Now, we spent billions (I really don't know how many billions) and over 4,000 American lives to bring down Saddam.  I think that was not a good expenditure of our precious (especially human) resources.  I know that if my country were in danger, I would risk my life to try to save it.  As a Vietnam vet. I have proved that.  However, I would not risk my life and I would not ask anyone else to do that in order to put Saddam out of power.  Again, I repeat.... I want to shout it at the top of my voice.  Iraq presented no threat to the United States... none whatsoever.  That's zero, guys.  Iraq was George Bush's war and his alone.  

To compare our war with Iraq with the Washington's victory at Yorktown is simply absurd.  Yorktown was the battle that brought our not quite formed nation into being.  Iraq was a war half a world away, with a nation that had never been a threat to us.  

Hello Old Pro... :} given the choice your gave me I guess I'll be an idiot.  I think my wife might agree with that one.  But, I really doubt I will be an Republican.  In fact, I doubt that I will even be a Democrat. 

K-rock... As I say, we can always argue over who was worst... So, you like Carter for that honor.  Okay, I will agree Carter does belong somewere on the list of worst presidents.  However, no president has done the harm to America that George W. Bush has done.  American is worse off domestically, in terms of our security, and in terms of our foreign affairs because George Bush was president.  If you wanted to destroy the reputation of America and place it in real jeopardy, you could not have found a more effective president than George W. Bush.  

The fact is that Because of George W. Bush's policies America is not safer today than it was before he was elected.  We have today more advisaries and fewer allies to help us, than we had before Bush took power.  Think of what happened.. Immediately following the 9-11 attack, practically every nation, even Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and other nation advisaries (along with all of our friends) expressed support of us and a desire to bring to justice the people who did that awful deed.  Now, because of Bush's policies, many of those nations are against us.  Some nations that were supporters have become advisaries.  Bush has hurt America like no president ever...

Tell all the dead Kurds Iraq didn't have WMDs! Once we ran Iraq out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm (1991); there were UN sanctions put in place, both SCR 687 and later SCR 1441 called for inspections for WMDs and if memory serves me correctly they never allowed the UN inspectors to visit the sites in question. If they didn't have any WMDs, why was it drafted?? Maybe if President Clinton had the balls for something other than an intern and forced their hand, we wouldn't be there now. Bob give me a backhoe and a few months and I can bury a lot, unless I decide to sell or give a few to another middle eastern country or radical muslim terrorist group.