Coffee House

The suspiciously sudden rehabilitation of George W. Bush

24 April 2013

2:21 PM

24 April 2013

2:21 PM

Are we hearing the opening chords of the George W. Bush redemption song? The Atlantic thinks so. This week he’s opening his huge presidential library, and a new Washington-ABC poll shows that his job approval rating now – more than four years after he left office – is 47 per cent, as high as it was just after he won re-election in 2004. Ron Fournier has written a piece for the National Journal entitled ‘Go on admit it, George W Bush was a nice guy.’ He tells some touching anecdotes, including this one:

One steamy summer day in 1999, then-Gov. George W. Bush called me with an exclusive interview and interrupted my first question. ‘What’s all that noise in the background, Fournier?’ he asked.

‘I’m at the pool with my kids, governor.’

Bush replied, ‘Then what the hell are you doing answering your phone?’

Damn good question, sir. We quickly ended the interview.

Bush II, much like Tony Blair, still inspires profound loyalty among those who know him personally. I remember sitting next to one of his staff at a wedding in Texas. She actually welled up when describing what a good guy he was. ‘Just don’t mention the Iraq war!’ someone whispered in my ear. He invited affection because he treated others kindly – remembered people’s names, gave them nicknames, asked them about their families – and because he was so viciously demonised in the media. He had charisma, charm and a sense of humour – qualities conspicuously lacking in most of his liberal opponents.

[Alt-Text]


But it should be obvious that being a nice guy is not the same as being a good President. Lots of Americans might today tell polls that he ‘did a good job’, but they are not so forgiving when asked directly about his handling of the economy and Iraq.

Time heals and absence makes the heart grow fonder and all that. But the sudden rehabilitation of George W. Bush’s presidency seems somewhat premature – and suspiciously timed to coincide with a PR drive for his new library. He may be loved in Africa, where he built lots of roads, but his War on Terror has been a disastrous waste of blood and treasure. (Coffee House readers please note: this is not to say Obama has done much better.) Bush was by no means entirely responsible for the financial crisis, but he spectacularly failed to deal with it. He saddled the Republican party with an unsustainable ‘big government, low tax’ agenda.

He encouraged the dream of a compassionate but small state which picked up the bill for nearly everything but didn’t ask for much money. He should be cherished as a good man, and forgiven for his failings, but that doesn’t mean we should go all gooey-eyed about his presidency.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • Donafugata

    Bush rehab, has he fallen off the wagon?

  • http://twitter.com/TheAgedP The Aged P

    Ignore Freddy Gray and just have a look at http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-w-bush-is-victim-of-rush-to-judgment/2013/04/19/fe7e0d14-a136-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_print.html

    The latter makes the pertinent point that Gray and others are making ill informed judgements without access to all the facts

  • David B

    He was dealt a poor hand as president, mainly because it was very difficult to respond to the attach on the Twin Towers. It was almost a Pearl Harbor moment without a visible enemy.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Yes, and as many mistakes as he might have made, he managed to avoid much additional islamofascist attack on the US. Obama apparently isn’t doing as good a job in that regard, as the islamofascists appear to be invited in, given public assistance and facilitated in their good works of murdering Americans.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=810714650 Joe Cogan

      FDR didn’t invade the wrong country in response to Pearl Harbor.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Think again. FDR invaded Morocco, in response to Pearl Harbor.

  • http://twitter.com/TheAgedP The Aged P

    I have said this time and time again…why anyone would use Freddy Gray or any of the Speccie schoolboys as a reliable guide to US politics is beyond me. He merely cuts and pastes from East coast media so just cut out the middleman and go there direct or, even better, go to some of the TP blogs like Legal Insurrection.
    BTW you all know that W’s biggest crime was to win the 2004 election (against all the predictions of the NYT & BBC)…..it was then that the media began it’s final transformation into the propaganda arm of the Democrats…a role it now fulfils as the palace guard of Obama/Hillary…

  • http://www.facebook.com/barbara.stevens.790 Barbara Stevens

    The present lot leave a lot to be desired and a big mistake which the USA have yet to wake up to.

  • victor67

    Bush 2 like Blair inspires much loyalty by those who know him”
    Like his Granny?

  • victor67

    Bush was a puppet controlled byAmerican imperialists likes Cheney and Rumsfeld and neo-cons like Feith, Wolfowitz, Bolton Abrams.

  • Mike

    Bush was not fit to be President. He was more deserving of likeable southern idiot. He could’ve been cast for a Three Stooges remake – and maybe should, Hollywood’s regurgitated everything else.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

      You are wrong. Bush was no fool but he was a folksy actor because he saw how it played for Reagan. You cannot fall for that media image

      • the viceroy’s gin

        The very sad thing is that over the past 4 US presidential election cycles, almost all of the major party nominees have been inexperienced and/or poorly qualified for the office. Obama, McCain, Kerry and Gore really had no business being on that ballot, and Bush and Romney, although better than those 4 and with significant gubernatorial and executive experience, were both mediocre and with significant flaws. It’s hard to nominate a Tier I candidate, apparently.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

          Yes. I knew Romney personally, but he was not up to the job. McCain is insane. It is a real pity there are only two parties and tragic that domestic US politics so childish is and people with international know-how and sharp-thinking don’t get ahead……

        • Curnonsky

          Actually, of the candidates you cite only Obama was truly unqualified and inexperienced. McCain and Kerry were senators, Gore vice president, Bush governor of a major state and Romney governor of a lesser but still important state.

          The problem with reducing these politicians to their media caricatures, especially at a distance, is that it trivializes their real flaws as leaders and politicians, for instance the egomania of Gore, the recklessness of McCain, the leftist pomposity of Kerry, Bush’s wrongheaded approach to the federal budget, Romney’s lack of the common touch.

          Unfortunately US elections are increasingly decided on the basis of non-qualities such as “likeability” and “I feel your pain”, and if you think British elections will not follow suit you are bound to be sadly disappointed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

            Obama was an unelected Senator for 2 years

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Don’t think so. Obama was elected in 2004 to the US Senate, I believe.

              Now, you can quibble about the nature of that election (sealed divorce records of his primary and general electoin opponents mysteriously turned up and sunk their candidacies, coincidentally enough).

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Being a senator is not a suitable qualification for the presidency, as history and the US electorate tell us. It’s only happened a couple times, and in 2008 only happened because the final bracket included only seated senators (Hillary, Obama and McCain).

            And VP’s only rarely get in on their own. Reagan got Bush I in, but Gore was so unqualified and temperamentally unsuited to the job that he blew the 2000 election, to a mediocre candidate Bush.

            Generally, the US prefers state governors, as they have the executive experience required.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Oh, and Call Me Dave and his hero Tone demonstrate that British elections lead the way with the “feel your pain” and “likeability” shallowness.

  • Jupiter

    Barry is making him look good. Now if only somebody could find Barry’s real birth certificate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

      I bet the Pritzkers have it as collateral for their boy

  • CraigStrachan

    Jimmy Carter’s also a nice guy. And a failed president. (Although a highly-successful post-president.)

    George W. may be a nice guy, but he’s also a failed president. (And so-far a negligible post-president.)

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Jimmy Carter is not known as a nice guy. He’s despised, especially by his living and deceased presidential peers…. all of them to a man.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

    When will they stop this tax dodge ? Build a Presidential Library with the taxpayer covering the running costs and the former president getting a huge tax write-off to donate “his” papers produced at taxpayer expense to the nation. It is one giant boondoggle

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Well, the libraries themselves are built with private money. They’re operated with public money though, as I understand, adjunct to the national archives, who control their operation.

      I guess it’s a close call here. If a president’s papers were split up among any number of universities, libraries, research centers, family members, etc., it might mean that we’d get more juicy nuggets out of them, rather than having them collected in one central location under the supervision of the national archive Stasi.

      On the other hand, if they’re all collected in one place, it makes for easier access, once the Stasi releases them for publication.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

        Yes but those private donors get a tax deduction too. I really cannot stomach say Stephen Schwarzman getting a tax deduction for buying a library for his Yale Clasmate George W Bush

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Well, that’s the price you pay for having a system of charitable tax deduction. It’s a non-profit, and it’s for a presidential library, which is a useful thing to many.

          You and I may not like a lot of what’s called “charity”, but others might not like things you and I do consider charitable. At some center ground, let’s hope good work gets done and the tax deductions are useful, but perhaps that’s too much to hope for.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

            I like the LBJ Library, it is really neat at UT…..but it is grand. when did the first Presidential Library get built ?

            • the viceroy’s gin

              They’ve always had informal libraries and collections, but I seem to recall the first official collecting of presidential documents was for Hoover, set up by US federal statute, and they’ve been doing it ever since.

              The cynic in me says that long about Hoover’s time, in the earlier 20th century, since they’d created all of the Federal Reserve and income tax and the original gun control and drug and alcohol laws then, plus the WWI murkiness and Versailles travesties and all that went along with that, and all the other Progressive, Constitution-busting shenanigans that went along with the Great Depression… that all forced them to collect all the smoking guns and criminal evidence that would have sent most of these presidents to the gallows if it ever got out.

              But again, perhaps I’m just cynical. Ya’ think? 😉

  • Chris lancashire

    I wouldn’t have thought being a nice guy was the first criteria looked for in a President or any other leader. Good judgement might be. And in that department Bush was lousy.

    • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

      His judgement wasn’t that bad, just that the entire media were in default slag-off mode. In the last 5 years POTUS judgement has been far worse yet media silence almost.

      • Chris lancashire

        Oh I don’t know. Mistaking Iraq for some sort of substitute target for Al Qaeda and causing 600,000 deaths along with further alienating the Muslim world wasn’t the best call.

        • HookesLaw

          No.
          First there have not been 600,000 deaths, nothing like, and the deaths caused by the war were relatively low. Most deaths from post war terrorism wee caused by muslims on muslims.
          And these deaths have to be set sadly against the deaths that would have occurred in iraq had Saddam remained.

          The invasion of Iraq caused Gadaffi to come clean on his nuclear programme and ultimately led to his overthrow and ended the game of threat counter threat in the middle east by taking one potential aggressor off the scene. This has paved the way for the overthrow of dictatorships all over the region and ultimately in Iran there is no external excuse for internal repression.

          • Chris lancashire

            Sorry, couldn’t disagree more. The intrusion into another sovereign country should not be justified by what might happen without it and Gaddafi’s nuclear programme was no where as advanced as Iran or N Korea – and I don’t think we should invade them either. Whether the death toll was 100,000 or 600,000 it was – and is – massive and the root cause, whoever pulled the trigger was George W. aided by his sidekick TB.
            I remain firmly of the view that Iraq followed by Afghanistan are two of the worst foreign policy mistakes of recent times.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

              They hanged Keitel at Nuremberg for

              Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace;
              Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression;
              War crimes; and,
              Crimes against humanity.

              • Charles Cosimano

                That’s because they lost.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

                  Of course it is……nothing more than that

            • HookesLaw

              The Invasion of iraq was justified (not least since Saddam had broken the ceasefire). Its purpose was messed up by Blair and the aftermath badly handled. This is where Blair and Britain could have had an influence if we had played our hand properly.
              Saddam was killing people by the shedload and the UN was complicit in it.
              600,000 were not killed and it serves nobody to quote it and then say it did not matter if it was 100,000. Huge numbers, far more than half a million might well have died if Iraq has stumbled into civil war but it did not.

              Iraq is not now a danger in the middle east and the rest of the countries there can find their own way to democracy.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

                Iraq is on the way to dictatorship. It has no airforce and is under Iranian influence. It is a disaster zone

            • JabbaTheCat

              “I remain firmly of the view that Iraq followed by Afghanistan are two of the worst foreign policy mistakes of recent times.”

              Not everyone agrees with that viewpoint…

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

            Ghadaffi was stupid to trust the British and giving up those weapons is the reason N Korea is flexing because he knows what will happen if he does not have viable warheads – same for Iran

            • HookesLaw

              Its no secret Gadaffi was stupid.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

                stupid to trust Perfidious Albion…..he cut a deal with Blair and H2B revoked the deal

          • victor67

            As the occupying power the US bore responsibility for the carnage that insued. Their policies of occupation were a disaster- disbanding the Iraqi army and sewing secterain divisions by promoting the shia at the expense of the sunni’s.

            The US also did its fair share of killing from shock and awe to fallujah, Haditha, Abu Graib and the trigger happy grunts who manned the check points.
            Contrary to the myths in the west the Iraqi insurgancy/uprising had widespread support for many of the above reasons and was not just made up of foreign jihadi’s.
            Iraq ended up with the US using someone else is country as a batlleground in there quest for revenge for the 9/11 attacks.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Yes, the US used Iraq to lure in boatloads of islamofascists and jihadists, from all over the Middle East and North Africa, and then proceeded to slaughter them, so they could send their corpses back to those Middle East and North African countries, and send a message thereby.

              Not sure I agree with that strategy, but I am wondering how the younger generation of jihadists is thinking right about now, having watched their older buddies come back in a box?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

              Yes the Geneva Conventions are clear on the responsibilities of an Occupying Power….but they were not too great in Germany in 1946 either

          • bengeo

            Latest death toll Iraq 2013

            Wednesday 24 April: 32 killed

            Mosul: 10 by gunfire, in separate incidents.
            Tarmiya: 3 by gunfire.
            Baghdad: 8 by car bomb.
            Khalis: 3 Sahwa members by gunfire.
            Sulaiman Bek: 4 by gunfire.
            Tuz Khurmato: 3 by car bomb.
            Tuz: 1 policeman in clashes.

            April casualties so far: 444 civilians killed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

          Iraq was in the firing line because Saddam knew the UN Sanctions would not be renewed and was stringing it out. He was home free and had outfoxed the US/UK with French and Russian help. It was simply that the Us would walk away from the UN altogether if he got away with it and Britain was terrified if the US did that it would be impotent as it had nothing but a Security Council seat and no real military power

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrewparke4 Andrew Parke

    Another anecdote is that, even though GWB was a complete baseball fanatic, he never attended a game during his time as President, as he knew the extra security due to his presence would cause great inconvenience to the other fans.

    Quite a contrast to Obama’s jet-setting.

    http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/curl-the-obamas-live-the-1-percent-life/

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.burnette1 Chris Burnette

      Boy, as an American myself I can attest to that. Obama’s ceaseless vacationing is more costly to the taxpayer than most people begin to realize. How many times does he need to take $200,000.00 vacations to Hawaii with his entire family? Apparently more than a handful of times, whereas Bush halted all forms of golfing during wartime in respect to the serving military. Does Obama display any such gestures of respect? Quite contrary, even to the point of being absurd.

      • Simon Semere

        Nobody cares about bush ‘halting golfing’, wouldn’t you rather a president take holidays than one that invades countries on a whim and kill thousands (upon thousands) in a quest for more oil, or do you Americans not give a damn. Also, Bush would have been better off spending golfing time doing geography, same probably goes to most of you

        • Curnonsky

          There is oil in Afghanistan? Perhaps you might want to refresh your knowledge of geography next time you are on the links.

          • Simon Semere

            Iraq you numskull

            • Curnonsky

              You said “countries”, and why would anyone invade Iraq at vast expense for their oil when it could be bought on the open market from the likes of George Galloway and Kofi Annan’s son.

              • Simon Semere

                Oh one country’s not enough, everybody knows GWB was the biggest mistake to not be elected, but no longer in the white house at least he only shoots on his nintendo

          • dalai guevara

            You may oil your lungs and veins with what comes out of AFG – often forgotten, rarely rejected by connoisseurs.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              This would explain a good deal of your posts.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

            There is supposed to be gas or a pipeline route at least

  • Robert_Eve

    Well he was far better than Obama.

    Not difficult.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

      Continuation of Policy

      • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

        Unfortunately one is lauded and praised or news omitted/edited whilst the other was pilloried.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

          True, but it is a rule that Democrats get a lovely press in Europe and the US and Republicans get a hostile press. Some say it is because Media Owners are Republican so the staff go Democrat, others that half-wits become journos and wallow in sentimentality

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Bush spent at 20-21% of GDP, which was too much, yes, but deficits were in the 2-3% of GDP range, perfectly acceptable ranges for a modern social democratic state, if nothing resembling fiscal conservatism.

        But Pelosi came along in 2006 in Congress, and Obama in 2008, and spending rammed up to 25-26% of GDP, and budget deficits soared to 12-13% of GDP, absolute fiscal insanity, and the Fed has gone completely berserk.

        I wouldn’t say policy was a continuation, not fiscally.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

          I was thinking of Gitmo, TARP+, Treasury Secretary as Wall Street patsy, Patriot Act, Slugfest in Afghan, letting Banks get away with robosigning and general fraud.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Yes, most of that is 100% continuation, I’d agree.

            Except Afghanistan. Bush authorized a 20-30,000 US troop count there, and that’s where it stood when he left office. Obama decided it needed to go up to 120-130,000 or so, and acted as if there was some big strategic impetus for that, which there wasn’t. It was just slaughter for slaughter’s sake, as far as I can tell.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

              Wow, he boosted it to 130,000 ! Lunatic, presumably the GOC was too busy with his mistress

            • Curnonsky

              No, Obama demanded a “surge” to wipe out the Taliban so that he could claim victory and withdraw but then refused to give his commanders enough troops (only 33,000) for it to succeed. So now he has not only squandered the hard-earned victory in Iraq but made defeat in Afghanistan a foregone conclusion.

              But that won’t stop Freddy Gray from getting misty-eyed about Obama…

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Bush negotiated the US withdrawal from Iraq before he’d left office. Obama had nothing to do with any of that, he just stood aside and let withdrawal fully complete as scheduled by CY2011, which was Bush’s intention, and likely the country’s as well.

                There is no “succeed” or “defeat” in Afghanistan, as Bush understood, which is why he only authorized the limited engagement there. Obama quadrupled the count of US troops there, for whatever reasons he imagined.

              • gcallah

                “So now he has not only squandered the hard-earned victory in Iraq…” There was never any “victory” in Iraq! The place has been a mess since we invaded. There was nothing to squander.

        • dalai guevara

          Great analysis – never thought you would come out as a Brown apologist and a Osborne hater.

          Dubya increased US debt by over 50% in times of absolutely heaving markets and unseen growth – any donkey could do that. He blew it on irrelevant military interventions to settle a long simmering family feud.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Actually, pre-Pelosi, and despite the left’s Senate control in the years 2000-2002, Bush increased federal debt about 50% nominally between the years 2000-2006.

            Obama and Pelosi have increased debt by well over 100% nominally since then. Twice as much.

            Twice as much.

            Twice as much, during a time when the Fed has manipulated interest rates down to nothing, such that when those rates finally rise, that fresh new debt he accumulated is going to SKYROCKET those debt levels.

            Amusing to know you got the paranoid “family feud” thing going on. All the socialist nutters seem to have that. I guess Obama had a “family feud” with the Taliban, quadrupling US troop counts in Afghanistan, then.

            • dalai guevara

              We know that.
              You are continuing your praise for Brown and the slagging off of Osborne, don’t you see that? It’s a parallel universe.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Who the heck is this “Osborne” and “Brown” you’re speaking of here, and how is it you’ve fantastically introduced them into this discussion? Is that a product of all your Afghanistan’s finest usage?

                Or is it just that you’ve got nothing of substance to say, unless it’s by way of a controlled substance?

                • dalai guevara

                  Get the ‘speccie teenagers’ to draw you a graph. I cannot be any more clear than what I stated.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I realize you can’t be clear, as you’re obviously ignorant and poorly educated.

                  Clarity requires facts and data, blended into narrative and argument. Of this, you are incapable, apparently.

                • dalai guevara

                  ok young man, I will educate you

                  your initial comment re Pelosi et al
                  remove the word Bush
                  insert the word Brown
                  remove the word Obama/Pelosi
                  insert the word Osborne
                  now switch on brain
                  read it out loud to allow maximised processing of information

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you go ahead and fantasize removals and insertions of various names and toys, as that seems to be a favorite pastime for you socialists.

                  It provides nothing to the discussion and I have no use for it, but however deviant it might be, if you enjoy it, go for it. The ignorant and poorly educated require a pastime, I suppose.

                • dalai guevara

                  the switch on brain part caused ’tilt’?
                  why did I assume you were a young man?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Maybe since you enjoy that game, you should remove the word “assume” and insert “drug-induced fantasize” in that post.

                  That seems to be what substitutes for intelligence and education, in your case.

                • dalai guevara

                  Enjoy? I didn’t like it. Did you not watch the video to the end?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, given the removal and insertion games you prefer, I doubt you and I share the same taste in videos.

                • dalai guevara

                  It’s only nine seconds…ADHD as well?
                  God, I am beginning to pity you.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It’s sort of difficult for the unintelligent and poorly educated to experience “pity”, although that may be a difficult concept for you to understand.

                • dalai guevara

                  speak for yourself

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I am, laddie, and don’t let drug induced fantasies intrude, and do include a proper level of education.

                • dalai guevara

                  Are you going on about your time at boarding school again and how your mother never loved you ’cause she sent you there? That would explain your lack of compassion indeed.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, leave my mother out of your little removal and insertion fantasies, lad.

        • gcallah

          Bush took surpluses and drove them up to a deficit of over 10% of gdp by the time he left office. Obama has brought that last Bush deficit down every year.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Actually, no, your statements are false. The US federal government wasn’t running a surplus when Bush took over, although spending out the Social Security trust fund and leaving behind IOU’s made it appear so, for anybody foolish enough to believe such.

            The US was running a deficit in CY2000.

            The federal budget deficit in 2008 was about $460B nominally, about 3% of GDP, and not the 10% you fantasized. It had risen to that point after Pelosi and the Left took control of Congress in 2006, as mentioned above. Previous to that, the budget deficit averaged about 1/2 that sum during Bush’s terms.

            In 2009, the budget deficit rung up under Pelosi and Obama ran up even further, to about $1.4T nominally, and yes that’s about 10% of GDP, and it’s remained way up there at those astronomical levels during Obama’s time, so you cannot blame anybody else It’s been over 5 years of spending madness… and Obama owns them.

    • HookesLaw

      The realisation of the sham that is Obama is one reason that when people look back at Bush they realise his benefits.

      • Simon Semere

        Wow I never thought there would be a president bad enough to see the benefits in Bush’s presidency, but there you go

      • gcallah

        Yes, all those people “realizing” that explains Obama’s crushing defeat in 2012… What? You say he actually won an easy victory? Hmmm…

    • gcallah

      Yes, with the unnecessary wars and the wrecking of the economy, that’s just sooo much better. (BTW I am no Obama fan, but at least he presidency has not been a disaster!)

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here