Now where have we got to?

My opinion is that George will be seen by history as one of the most successful Presidents because:

He instigated a real war against AIDS in Africa ... Fact.
During his tenure we saw the largest number of people ever to exit poverty in the history of the world ... Fact.
During his tenure the world has become wealthier with the greatest distribution in the history of the world ... Fact.
He appointed the highest number of African Americans and Hispanics to the highest positions in US politics ... Fact.
He is the only President since Roosvelt/Truman to put the US in a position to win a hot war ... Fact.
Since he declared war on terrorists the US hasn't suffered a violent cowardly attack ... Fact.

'History tends to look at achievements or failures instead of the issues of the base politics of the all too close commentators. It knows they usually are pushing some sort of barrow.'

Besides the article being a prime example of that sort of rubbish let's look at the critics here.

Yabby: Is saying because Bush supports a policy of sexual abstinence till marriage all of the above facts are negated ... laughable rubbush and an example of a drunk pushing a wobbly barrow up the anti-US trail.

Daggett: thinks the US war effort is suspect because he thinks they shouldn't have invaded, were brutal and that the Americans attacked themselves on 9/11 ... he doesn't dispute any of the above facts. He's dragging his barrow up the anti-US trail.

Bushbasher: Opines he's the worst US president but doesn't say why. He think's we are the judge now, which is fair, but doesn't accept that history will judge more accurately. He think's George's war on AIDS was soiled by his abstinence policies. He either think's the world didn't become wealthier with greatest spread or that occurred in spite of George's free trade policies. He thinks many of the Hispanics and Afro Americans George appointed to high office are 'unqualified flunkies, or complete psychopaths'. He indicates he thinks the war in Iraq unwon as he asks to 'define win'. He only thinks the war in Iraq unnecessary and an US cesspit of human rights abuses. He thinks the US is safe from attack but a dictatorship... despite having elections and Obama indicating an intention to continue many of his security policies. He thinks George didn't win two elections. He thinks avoiding deaths in the Cuban crisis was a genuine crisis, which is fair, but that, in comparison, the deaths of over 3000 innocent people on 9/11 was a mere fleabite... and I assume insufficient reason to go to war on terrorists and terror sponsers in the mid east ... Afghanistan and Iraq. I wonder what he thinks of 12/7?
He's steps ahead of all of us and his barrow, which he is attempting to steer up that anti-US trail, by mind control.

And that is where the debate stands. No-one has refuted the six facts anywhere.

In deference to Bushbasher, I wouldn't mind seeing a comparable list of facts that indicate why history might judge him an unsuccessful president.

I notice that Reuben’s hissing-fit ignores the US Supreme courts deliberations before he denounces the Bush election, a convenient omission.

I note he has also failed to comment upon the school reforms and children of prisoners mentoring, which Bush has been behind.

Of course, he could have berated Bush for not pursuing Medicare reforms but I recall, Clinton tried and failed there too.

“On September 11, 2001, an estimated 2,762 people tragically lost their lives; a city lost two iconic towers and the Bush administration lost what little credibility it had left as the war on terror and pre emptive strike doctrine were announced to the world.”

Now I feel had Bush told the American people, who did elect him, anything less, he would have been negligent in his responsibilities as Commander in Chief or the US Armed Forces.

The point which he makes about relative numbers of dead compared to the number of American lives lost on 9/11 goes beyond the contemptible.

Another notable omission in Reuben’s pissant attempt at early writing, is Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which curtailed several deficiencies in US corporate law which became manifest after WorldCom, Enron and Tyco etc.

I suggest Reuben return to whatever garret of obscurity he came from and find another hobby, basket weaving or macramé maybe, something which will not over-excite him too much or if he insists on writing, childrens fairy-tales, something which he would have greater empathy with, than serious critical review.

*Yabby: Is saying because Bush supports a policy of sexual abstinence till marriage all of the above facts are negated *

Yabby is saying no such thing. Yabby has stuck to one point,
to see if even that penetrates your thick skull. It seems not!

Yabby is saying that due to Georges policies, family planning
clinics in Africa had to shut down, they provided assistance
to married couples, rape victims, etc. etc. Yabby is saying
that this causes more misery, more hunger, more unwanted children,
more poverty and more hiv spreading in Africa. Yabby is saying
what Melinda Gates is saying, that George has put the religious
right doctrine ahead of saving lives.

We can go through the other points one by one if you like.
But with two posts a day its a slow process.

*He instigated a real war against AIDS in Africa ... Fact.*

Wrong, he's providing some anti retrovirals. Given the US crappy
spending on development aid in terms of GDP, fair enough.

The Gates Foundation are instigating a real war against Aids,
not George.

*During his tenure we saw the largest number of people ever to exit poverty in the history of the world ... Fact.*

Now you want to give George credit for all that the Chinese,
Indians, Brazilians and others have achieved. Hey,they worked
for what they achieved. Meantime he has nearly bankrupted his
country and added 4 trillion $ of debts.

TBC

yabby, i'm surprised but pleased that you still have the patience to respond to such obtuse, dishonest nonsense. i've had enough.

Yabby hasn't the intellect to present a reasoned position and besides he's usually drunk.

Cut and run eh? Bushbasher ... that's what you'd have supported in Iraq too isn't it?

Personal abuse is the refuge of those who cannot produce a position to debunk their oppositions argument.

Typical.

My argument is just based on fact and yours ... well my synopsis says it all.