To paraphrase, you said that Bush didn't get enough criticism or blame for what he did in office. During his last couple of years, his disapproval rating hovered around 70%. So, going off of your statement that this wasn't enough "criticism or blame," there's not much farther you have to go to come to a 100% disapproval rating.

And, believe it or not, I saw a wide disapproval of his policies. If you're talking about things such as the torture memos and the such, there's a huge segment of the legal world that has criticized the way the OLC handled the issue, and the way in which the Bush White House requested and framed the information.

And I think we still disagree about what would constitute "fairness" or "unfairness" in this situation. I don't think it's possible to judge Obama's entire presidency three months in. I think it is fair to judge individual moves, if one thinks that Obama is taking the wrong path on an issue.

Since the results of economic policies won't be known for years, and possibly decades (and may or may not even have an effect, depending on your view of cyclical economic trends), clearly we should not criticize until thirty to forty years after a President has left office, right?

This is the most disturbing youtube video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1

HOW IN THE HELL DID WE GET IN THIS MESS?? This is how...

Why didn't we stop it when the clues were in?

I want to add that I don't think democrats are all to blame and republicans are all innocent in this (I know that this is produced by somebody with an agenda). To me, though, this video shows that many (and probably from members of both parties) were sounding the warning bell back then.

I guess honestly, I don't really believe that you do know much about that. I want you to name the issues that actually upset you, rather than just going with language that you've heard thrown around before.

I'd especially like it if you'd list these issues without googling.

It's not that I don't think Bush did shady, perhaps unconstitutional stuff; it's that I suspect a lot of people who complain about it couldn't actually discuss what was unconstitutional about it.

ETA: I'm not suggesting that whether you can list stuff or not makes Bush a better President. I just think, by most people's standards and understanding, the language gets really overused.

lol The sad part is that you are probably serious...

I would just appreciate it if you wouldn't assert that I said or implied that I was looking for 100% because that's simply not true.
As far as judging individual moves, I think that is fine with any president. However, I would also add that when doing so, it is important to actually look at things with an objective eye. Some people around here are not looking at his moves with an objective eye. I think some people are just looking for flaws simply because they don't want him to be president.

I forgot to add that I appreciate your disclaimer despite the fact that some folks around here had a hissy fit because you wrote that.

Not to be snide, but what should make us think that you're looking at his moves with an objective eye? I mean, it seems from your previous posts that you're an Obama supporter. What, then, makes your opinions any more presumptively objective than someone who didn't vote for him? Are you just ignoring any flaws because you want him to be President?

Chalking up people's concerns to them not wanting Obama to be President is a fairly narrow-minded way of looking at things. There's some of that out there, sure...but it's like you're cheapening legitimate criticism out of some idea that people don't have honest issues with his policies.

To be honest, I saw that a few people were disagreeing with you, and I didn't want this to turn into another round of "mob" allegations.

No, the sad point is that she is right.

Just for the record, I was never a W supporter. But UGAalum is right -- lots of people, especially those who fall into the "George Bush is evil/the worst president ever" camp -- seem to repeat the mantra that W trampled on our constitutional rights, but they can't actually identify those rights or discuss exactly how they have been trampled on, other than by repeating what talking heads have said.

UGAalum didn't ask what constitutional rights W is commonly accused of trampling on. She asked you to identify specifically what rights you think were "stomped on." Whether you like it or not, you can't be surprised when someone interprets your avoidance of answering that question to mean that you don't have an answer.

Exactly - I hear people shouting from the rooftops about all the terrible thinks W did when he was in office, but when confronted with specific questions, the best that many people can do is speak in generalities.

The thing is, if someone is that heated about issues in the Bush White House, it's also fairly easy to do some quick research and find out background, no matter the problem. The way the White House accepted the OLC's advice regarding the Torture Memos? The issues with wiretapping and invasions of privacy, in light of Supreme Court precedent? Problems with the manner in which habeas corpus was made available (or not made available) to detainees?

However, it's easier for many people just to shout generalities, instead of debate specifics.

This is absolutely true.

I don't have the vitriol towards W that a lot of people seem to have, and I can't think of anything really bad (or good) that he did while he was in office. I can actually think of more things that Clinton did that I didn't agree with. Obama's already annoyed me a few times since Jan 20. Maybe all this means that either I'm more conservative, or more politically apathetic, than I originally believed.

No. Actually, she is NOT right. She has no basis for making an assumption that I can only speak generally and not point to anything specific. She has no basis for making an assumption that my only research tool would be google. She has no basis for making an assumption that I am only repeating what SHE thinks I have heard from other people. So, no, she ISN'T right.

I am an Obama supporter, but I can still remain objective. Don't forget I have made it clear that I didn't support Bush, but I was still able to remain objective and agree with him on some policies and other things. I simply haven't made up my mind how I feel about Obama's moves yet. I'm just pondering it all and waiting to see how things work out.

However, I can still get an inkling of when people's attacks on Obama are more personal than they are objective. A prime example would be the attacks on his speaking ability. His speaking ability has nothing to do with the implementation of his policies and should be separated.

I would also like to add that when I speak of people disagreeing with him because they don't want him to be president, I am referring to a very small part of the population here. The people I am referring to have made it clear that they don't want him as president and have made it clear that they aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You seem to ignore the fact that I'm separating objective criticism from obviously personal attacks. You are making the type of blanket statements you accuse me of making.

I don't think it's fair to assume that people who complain are not also doing their research. I have done my research, but I'm picky about when I engage in a full discussion about it. If it's a forum that I think is appropriate and worthwhile, then yes, I will have a full-fledged discussion. Otherwise, I tend to be general.

I'm telling you, the Bush policy that threw us into this recession AND trampled all over the constitution is that all staffers MUST wear suits and ties at all times!

All jokes aside, though, most of the time I think that Bush's cabinet/advisors had more to do with his policies than he did. I know that's the point, but it was almost like he was afraid of disappointing them, if that makes sense.