*The US population elected Bush. They should be asking themselves some serious questions, instead of spraying round the blame on everyone else.*

So very true. They say that people elect the politicians which
they deserve, there is some truth in that.

I think with hindsight today, both left and right agree that
the population landed up electing a dummie team, which showed
incredibly bad judgement, with George and Dick.

Some of us pointed this out 8 years ago, but of course nobody
took any notice :)

George had the advantage of having Karl Rove on his side, who
knew how to push the emotional buttons of the American true
believers, religious fundamentalists and the millions of
grandmommies worrying about Osama under the bed, in the second
election.

If we compare America as Clinton left it, compared with today,
the rest is history. The American people and sadly the rest
of the world who had no vote, have paid a heavy price.

But then democracy as a process is not perfect, its just the
best process that we have. Nobody has suggested anything better.

Let's hope that Americans have at least learnt a little bit
out of all this, as it seems we humans need pain to learn,
often the hard way.

j s mill, i'm sorry but i think "rant" is the only reasonable response to 8 years of bush's dishonesty, stupidity, murderousness, lawlessness and outright psychopathy. what is there to discuss? what can you possibly praise? if bush is not the worst president of all time, he's a damn fine runner up.

Goodness me,

You've missed the AIDS relief to Africa ... obviously in-sufficient. You've missed the largest number of people ever to exit poverty in the history of the world ... obviously in-sufficient.
You've missed the world has become wealthier with the greatest distribution in the history of the world ... obviously in-sufficient.
You've missed the fact Bush appointed the highest number of African Americans and Hispanics to the highest positions in US politics ... obviously in-sufficient.
You've missed the fact Bush is the only President since Roosvelt/Truman to put the US in a position to win a hot war ... oops don't talk about the war!
You've missed the fact the US hasn't suffered a violent cowardly attack since Bush declared war on terrorists ... obviously too ineffective. Bearing in mind the prime duty of an American President is to keep the American people safe and secure.

Jeez and you've missed Bush won two elections and that history will show he'll be regarded as the least popular but one of the most successful US presidents ever ... just like Nixon was one of the most corrupt but his achievements are now being seen as quite remarkable. 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.

And isn't the above article a prime example of that sort of rubbish.

Keith,

Nice piece. Far too many of the unthinking left resort to the insensible rant, rather than make a reasoned analysis.

The reason they hate Bush so much isn't because he started the war in Iraq. Its that he failed to lose it. For that transgression he will never be forgiven. The modern peace movement is fully invested in ensuring that America loses any conflict in which it becomes involved, regardless of the cost in American lives. Sad.

The US will have left Iraq within 5 years, a functioning democracy capable of protecting itself. The dictator Hussein, who caused far more pain to the Iraqi people than the US ever did, has paid for his crimes. Besides all else, the invasion has been an object lesson to all the jumped up dictators and theocrats, that the US and its allies will do what is required when necessary.

Bush certainly made a major miscalculation in siding with Rumsfeld against the Pentagon on the planning in the lead up to the 2003 invasion, but history will show that "the surge" was an inspired and courageous decision under difficult circumstances.

sorry sancho, for overthrowing the murderous dictatorship of saddam hussein. if the shoe-throwing iraqi had targeted saddam while he was in power, he would have been tortured, killed and thrown in a mass grave.
i ask you as i ask all the left wing loons who use weak arguments based on oil against the iraq war; where were the seizures of oil field? if bush just wanted more oil on the market, why not lift the sanctions? but you will ignore the facts and continue on your blind crusade against the american "empire".
you know, you should take a course in international politics sancho, though not the same crackpot one that our friend "bushbred" took, and then you will understand the importance of iraq in a post 9/11 world anyone with a shred of common sense does. but maybe a thread of common sense is too much to ask from one of you america bashers.

*You've missed the AIDS relief to Africa ... obviously in-sufficient.*

Goodness me, you've missed that George thinks that abstinence is
the solution in Africa, so clearly Africans should cross their
legs for birth control, unlike Americans. You've missed the many
women in Africa who had a chance of family planning under Clinton,
all cut by George.

So George got rid of Saddam and his two boys. Kill 100'000 Iraqis,
4000 Americans, maim another 30'000 or so, to kill 3 people.
Sounds like intelligent to you?

Think again Keith. The man is a dummy.