You and your logic get the hell out of here!

This thread fails. George Bush and his cronies will produce an outstanding record of criminal and civil charges in the next few year.

Obama will most likely be needed to commute sentencing for Bush's impeachment.

btw that would be for a list of crominal actions, torture, illegal war, etc.

Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the surplus. Nothing. What caused the surplus can be summed up in two words: microcomputer revolution. If anything, you could say Clinton caused part of the current debt mess by failing to anticipate the dotcom bust (which bush had to deal with in the early part of his term). And ftr I'm not saying that was his (clinton's) fault, I'm just saying that his actions as president in no way caused the '90's economic boom, which is the real reason the US government had a surplus.

OT: worse than Harding, Buchanan, Johnson...? no. Was he a good president? hell no, but he's not even close to the worst. and neither is Bush btw.

I would like to point out though that you really have to wait at least 35-40 years before you can get a truly accurate picture of how good or bad a president's actions were. For example, look at how people view Nixon today vs. when he left office. Nobody thinks he was a great president (though I have read some historians praise his foreign policy decisions), but nobody is like ZOMG!!! WORST PRESIDENT EVAHH!!!11 like they were in the late '70's.

You're right, I'm sure the president had absolutely nothing to do with economic growth.

So then why wasn't Bush running a surplus during the housing bubble and the times during his administration when the economy was doing well?

Look up community reinvestment act and the effects on this current recession. One name is responsible-- Clinton anyone? Yes and yes.

1) the war wasn't illegal in any way. he asked for a declaration of war from congress and they gave it to them. As for whether he can be held jailed for believing faulty/fabricated intelligence reports, well, as far as I know, there is no law against believing what your advisors tell you. Another complication if you do ignore that fact is if you're going to impeach him for that, you'll have to impeach every senator and represenative who supported the resolution for war.

2) As to whether he can be jailed for 'torture' (I put it in quotes because it is challenged what exactly entails torutre as virtually all interrogation technics involve some form of physical or mental stress, all of which could potentially be considered 'torture'.) I would like to point out that you can't punish someone for breaking a law that does not exist at the time the 'crime' was committed. As of today, the Supreme Court has yet to hand down a clear ruling of exactly what rights the prisoners have and regardless of what they ultimately rule, the fact remains that during Bush's entire term of office, the torturing (because let's be upfront here: that is what they are doing and it's most likely unconstitutional) they have been doing were not ruled unconstitutional. Even if it is ruled unconstitutional in the future, Bush can't be prosecuted for it because it hadn't been decided when he was in charge of it. (Arresting him for that would be along the same lines as arresting everyone who had ever had a drink in their lives on January 16, 1919 because alcholic drinks were now illegal)

housing bubble =/= dotcom boom

observe

dotcom:

housing bubble: (starts approx in center of graph)

I personally find it difficult to compare one president to another primarily because not all presidencies are equally challenging.

Bill Clinton, in my opinion, was a below average care-taker president. His presidency didn’t face too many challenges, and those he face he mostly muddled through and got by without causing too many problems; and many of the more serious problems were pushed off to the next presidency. I don't think that he is going to be remembered 20 years from now except as the president who was caught fooling around with an intern who was not particularly attractive.

In contrast, I think George W. Bush was elected just before a lot of unhandled issues from the Clinton presidency became a problem. In general, George W. Bush muddled through most of these problems and pushed off many of them to the next presidency. Unfortunately (for George W. Bush) there was an unprecedented focus from the press on making the president look bad, and he faced an unparalleled level of unbalanced criticism. I expect that 20 years from now George W. Bush’s presidency will have very mixed opinions with a combination of being the "Worst President Ever" and "Not as bad as people think"

Unfortunately, Barack Obama is the president who has to deal with (about) 30 years of presidents who have solved problems by creating bigger problems down the line. To a certain extent what scares me the most is that before he has even officially become the president he is making decisions to solve the problems of today by making bigger problems tomorrow.

There is clear evidence, presented by Vincent Bugliosi at the congressional meetings last year, that proves Bush was told by the CIA (prior to asking congress and the UN for permission) that there was no immediate threat from Saddam Hussein and that HE DID NOT seek "significant quantities of uranium" from Africa.

Find out about the manufactured evidence, that relates to the Downing Street memo and British intelligence being changed by Blair's government,  and you will see for yourself how incorrect you are.