For his personal journey as a human being, I hope those moments of reflection will make him see WHY those things were inappropriate.

Sadly for the millions of people who leapt on the bandwagon, its too late. But if Bush can see the error of his ways, here is hoping that those who followed without questioning will too.

I agree with the comment above. I also think that he SHOULD regret about 99% of the things he's done over the past years. As someone who was never on board with him or his rhetoric, I am so ready (and excited!) for the next phase in the United States.

other accountability? why, yes. three words: war crimes tribunal.

Me too, coffeeteawrecks!

well this is a start.

He didn't know of the importance of his words as President before he took office?

How history reflects the implications of the war on terror and the Iraq war may be more positive than what is currently depicted. I'll wait 3-5 years to pass judgement on that one. Some good has been set in motion, and history will play itself out.

In my opinion, Bush's biggest blunders lie in his failure to veto anything for 6+ years and grow government worse than any Democrat administration would. He severely damaged the Republican brand to the point that we are electing Marxists right now because they embody "change" from his poor domestic policy.

Somehow I doubt in the future we will see the Iraq war as positive on the war on terror, last time I checked Afghanistan, no I mean syria but wait a minute now it's Pakistan is the biggest exporter of terrorists and terrorism.

"Sadly for the millions of people who leapt on the bandwagon, its too late. But if Bush can see the error of his ways, here is hoping that those who followed without questioning will too."

shadow - I completely agree. And this is one of the reasons I am very, very nervous about Obama. With very few exceptions - even on this board - Obama supporters do not have anything critical to say about him or his policies.

"Somehow I doubt in the future we will see the Iraq war as positive on the war on terror, last time I checked Afghanistan, no I mean syria but wait a minute now it's Pakistan is the biggest exporter of terrorists and terrorism."

Yes - we have them on the run.... much better than actually have them attack innocent people.

The Taliban recently broke off support for Al Queda. Al Queda doesn't have the support in the Muslim world they used to because of what they did in Iraq. They attacked innocent Muslims in hope to incite civil war. This backfired partly because we stuck around. Plus, as Kranky said, Al Queda is on the run. When Obama says Al Queda is stronger than ever, he's lying again.

In that region, Turkey was the lone moderate Muslim country. A moderate, democratic Iraq will add another and that will influence the rest of the region. I'm not in favor of nation building and social engineering, don't get me wrong. In a purely historical sense, the end product might actually be good.

Why would we be critical of Obama? He hasn't even started the job yet. Those who voted for him voted for what he stood for, believed in and the policies he would LIKE to institute when President. Since he hasn't started yet, we can't know if he will let us down or not.

Bush on the other hand has had 8 years to let us all down. There is plenty to base the dislike of President Bush on.

Also under the GW Bush foreign policy, Syria was pressured to pull troops from Lebanon. The Roadmap for Peace in Israel was important. While it never fully succeeded, it established a "right to exist" and some momentum for a Palestinian state. The root of most western hatred is the Palestinian conflict. GW Bush established good relations with Pakistan, and we liberated Afghanistan.

Not to mention that Bush has a greater than 80% approval rating in central Africa because of all the support that the US has given to AIDS treatment and overall humanitarian aid. That good will may pay historical dividends in the future.

If obama supporters thought his policies were anything but good we woudnt have voted for him. Not only has he already done a few good things without even being "president" yet but he has also said TWICE that things will take a while to get good. He's done more in a two weeks and has said more then Bush has in 8 years.

"Why would we be critical of Obama?"

"If obama supporters thought his policies were anything but good we woudnt have voted for him."

Well, I maintain that nobody was ever critical of Obama, save Fox news. As it was noted in the thread regarding campaign audits, Obama broke his campaign promise to use public financing, and nobody cared about that. His followers weren't critical of his lack of experience. The birth certificate issue is probably worth looking into, but nobody has/had the political courage to follow through on that.

For Obama, there was alot of coolaid to go around, and there still is. Don't jump on Kranky for being critical of him. SOMEBODY has to be.

"He's done more in a two weeks and has said more then Bush has in 8 years."

I completely disagree. What has he accomplished aside from changing stances on Poland, touring the White House, and electing some of his cabinet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's slacking off or not getting anyhting done. It's silly to say that Bush has done less in the past 8 years. Now if you want to argue that Bush has done less that you agreed with, that's another story...

Roar and momma - you mean to tell me that almost of Obama supporters are in COMPLETE agreement with ALL of his policies (including the ones he changed), his associates, his positions, and his decisions so far? I find that terrifying.

"He's done more in a two weeks and has said more then Bush has in 8 years."

This is indicative of the lack of understanding that Democrats generally have in matters of foreign policy.

You cannot take a country and make it moderate, it just does't happen at all, especially if your core beliefs are not their core beliefs, especially is the various tribes have strained relationships sooner or later it boils up and turns into a catastrophe. You leave and it's a ticking time bomb without american soldiers policing it, next thing you know there's a civil war and a genocide and people are asking for UN peacekeppers. And i doubt that Al Qaeda is on the run thats what people thought until the London bombings happened, I'd rather not underestimate those a-holes.

We weren't critical of his lack of experience because it was a non issue to us, hence why we supported him. Lack of experience was an issue to others and they didn't vote for him. McCain's choice of Palin was an issue for me, I didn't vote for him. That is how this whole democracy thing works. This argument is ridiculous. Nobody is saying he is infallible, but we believed in his ideas, which is why we voted for him. And to expect us to be critical of him at this juncture is ridiculous.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but it was because I didn't believe in anything he proposed, supported or stood for. The reasons I dislike him today are what he has done while in office. He has had 8 years of completely fu%$ing things up for me to form my opinion, Obama hasn't even started yet and you say we aren't questioning him enough? Silly.

"Roar and momma - you mean to tell me that almost of Obama supporters are in COMPLETE agreement with ALL of his policies (including the ones he changed), his associates, his positions, and his decisions so far? I find that terrifying."

Now your putting words into our mouths. What I am saying is, what Obama said and proposed on his campaign is more in line with what I believe in than the other side, so he got my vote. It is my understanding that this is how democracy works, you look at the issues from each candidate to learn where they stand, and you then vote for the choice that you most agree with.

I'm glad that he said this. I can't imagine what it must have been like to be him for the last 8 years.

We won't underestimate Al Queda. Well, Obama might, but GW didn't. But they are on the run and they are in a weakened state compared to where they were 4 years ago.

GW Bush was a fiscal liberal, and we don't need history to play out his failures there. Creating the DLH was a massive growth of government that could have had replaced by making the current agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI) work together better on their own. No Child Left Behind while sound in principle created more government bureaucracy. The same could have been accomplished by simply pushing forward the school voucher program. He and the Republican congress had the power to change the way Fannie and Freddie work and make them a private enterprise. Detaching them from government support would have made them act in a fiscally responsible way, and they would have never backed up bad loans. His bailout plan is right in line with the Democratic big government, big spending ideals, and we will be paying for that for years to come.

DLH = DHS. I must have been thinking shipping.

Roar and momma - I'm sorry - I certainly did not intend to put words in your mouths!

I get that his voters find his policies, etc. more attractive. I mean, duh, right?

What I don't get is the reaction that his supporters have if someone looks at his policies in a critical light (and by critical, I mean probing - not negative). I have had Obama supporters on this site jump all over me for asking a simple question about his policies, as have many other conservative posters.

I am honestly bothered by that reaction. I comes off as bandwagon-ish, and I honestly think that Obama supporters can't tolerate the idea that he might not do everything correctly and well. For example, Hypno is the only poster who has come on record that he is bothered by the fact Obama went back on his word about public financing. I respect that. It shows that Hypno recognizes that his chosen candidate is not everything to everyone.

Another example - Obama choses Emmanuel as his chief of staff. The man served on the board of Freddie Mac and is currently under investigation for fraudulent practices that occurred under his watch. Obama supporters were more than happy to bach McCain for lobbyists on his campaign, but are completely unwilling to see a similar lack of judgement in Obama. IMO, different standards come into play when Obama enters the discussion. That is wrong.

Please, tell me I'm wrong. I might sleep better at night.

See, beavis can be critical about the person he voted for...

Can Republicans still say they are the party of shrinking government? Bill Clinton (with the help of Newt Gingrich) actually shrunk government. Since GW took office (and Newt left), we've had the largest government growth since LBJ.

Why do a couple small details of the war on terror get a whole blog dedicated to them here where an entire domestic policy gets ignored?

"You cannot take a country and make it moderate, it just does't happen at all..."

nya - I'm sorry, I do not believe you have the background knowledge to make that kind of statement. Ever looked into the history of Europe? The Roman Empire? No one is saying that such a transition is pretty or easy, but it has happened.

And beavis specfically said he did not support social engineering, so why the comment about core beliefs? This is about removing very dangerous people from power. Are you saying the genocide that happened under Saddam should have been allowed to continue?

kranky - I don't think some of us will get much sleep for the next 4 years.

Obama has a long way to go and a lot to prove before I like him. I'll stand behind my President, but I just really don't trust Obama. I know there a millions of people who do (obviously), but I'm worried about what is really going to happen.

But even if we are McCain supporters or Obama supporters, we all have to remember things won't get fixed overnight. It is going to take time to come out of the state we are in. I just hope for Obama's supporters' sakes that he'll be able to keep some of the promises he made... or else, I'm afraid it'll get nasty.

I do not see how the UK bombings have anything to do with US policy on terror.

Al Queda bombed the London underground because the UK did not deal with the terrorists that were living and operating in their country. The government knew about those people, and chose to do nothing. The UK's policies about security and terorism changed radically (coming more in line with the US's) after those attacks, and they haven't had a major incidence since.

DID SOMEONE SAY COOLAID?!?!

star - I totally agree with your second paragraph.

I completely understand that Obama has inherited a mess, and it ain't gonna get cleaned up any time soon.

IMO, some of Obama's policies will actually extend the economic downturn - as did many of Roosevelt's during the Depression. That is why I hope he doesn't follow through on his campaign promises, and will celebrate the day he doesn't.

On a positive note (for me, other are welcomed to disagree), apparently Obama plans to keep in a lot of the security people and policies that Bush instituted now that he has been briefed on the actual threats to our nation. I suspect his supporters might get very angry about this though.

amy - I wasn't going to go there.

I went there. It's apparent that we play good cop, bad cop, Kranky.

Kranky, you are definitely much wiser than me!

Did you beavis? I missed that!

Nah, amy.

Since he is in the mood for apologizing for his mistakes (again) here's a list of 25 of 100 ~ perhaps he could make a day of it....and this list was only created in 2004 before the collapse of the stock market and more than a few historical banks. At this point, can't you guys just be grateful there is a dynamic man with a brain who is soon to be sworn into office? I think we should band together to back this new President.

1. Going after Saddam Hussein instead of Osama bin Laden for the American people trusted him to go after the terrorist who was responsible for 9/11.

2. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion.

3. Forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war; for not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – then belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.

12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq's water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country's infrastructure.

13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.

14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

15. Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush's announcement than before it.

16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.

18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.

19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to "coalition partners," unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.

21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting violence" – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

24. Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by the FBI.

25. Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

For the full list of 100 Bush mistakes check out site below.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/05/b64326.html

Thanks for all the additional info Jazz. As beavis pointed out, Bush also did some stuff int he domestic arena.

As for your comment about the collapse of the Banks... that was not all Bush's fault.

I have no love for the man, but I think it is incredibly important to give credit where credit is due. Especially because Bush is a lame duck. Most of people who engineered that situation are still in power and poised to make even more policies that could prove to be just as disasterous to our nation and the world.

While some or these are accurate, many those are debatable. These are outright wrong:

56. Promoting economic policies that failed to create new jobs.

57. Promoting economic policies that failed to help small businesses

The GW Tax cuts led to record GDP growth for 3+ years. Until a few months ago, unemployment was lower than during the Clinton administration.

Bush began and will end his administration in a recession. The part in between those recessions is pretty good. Recessions are a normal movement and correction of the economy. Businesses fail, the market adjusts. However, the recession at the end can be attributed to government, and that's not how it should be.

His mistakes have cost lives. I think the man is full of bad karma myself. I think the was motivated by greed. However, we shouldn't bash him. Hopefully he's learnt a good lesson here, he is officially the most hated man on earth.

I find many of the listed mistakes from Jazz's site that relate to domestic policy to be misleading or wrong. You are right on kranky, you really need to be fair and point out what he did right. While history should prevent us from making mistakes already made in the past, it also needs to exemplify good policy so that it can be put to future use.

blue - you are right. Bush has made mistakes. However, there are no American Presidents who did not make such mistakes even by not acting (Clinton and the Sudan, etc...). That is part of the job. All Presidents are human, and are subject to making bad decisions sometimes.

If Obama makes it through his Presidency without screwing up and costing lives than I will be very pleased.

this is from a president who says he doesn't read the newspaper.
nuff said.

"For example, Hypno is the only poster who has come on record that he is bothered by the fact Obama went back on his word about public financing. I respect that. It shows that Hypno recognizes that his chosen candidate is not everything to everyone." What bothers Hypno may not bother others, all Obama supporters are not the same contrary to what you seem to be suggesting. Also, I only respond to about 10-15% of things on here, I don't come on for days at a time, so what you see on here is not the whole me. Nor do I believe that my "...chosen candidate is not everything to everyone."

"See, beavis can be critical about the person he voted for..." It seems from what I read of Beavis's posts, he reluctantly voted for his candidate. I wholeheartedly voted for mine. And I never said I won't be critical of him, but i'd like to give him time to start the job before I do so. Preemptive negativity is a waste of my time.

roar - I am not trying to be mean-spirited, so I apologize if I am coming off that way.

I wouldn't presume to know what each individual Obama support thinks about each issue.

So, I am just going to ask you: is there one thing that Obama has said or done that bothers you at all?

He's been on the scene for 2 years and done plenty. I am not talking about his Presidency - as you rightly pointed out, it hasn't started yet. But I do not believe it is preemptive to discuss it. He is picking out his cabinet and speaking with world leaders - he is making Presidential decisions and taking Presidential actions.

Obama isn't going to change on January 20th, so any thoughts on what he has done in the past? There are a number of issues he has changed his mind about. Have you agreed with every, sinlge instance?

Who are the ones drinking the kool-aid? We have the terrorists 'on the run'(but still around I suppose, where are they running to?), they are killing innocent lives (aka - because Americans are dying in large numbers, no innocent lives are taken. Who cares about those in Iraq and Afghanistan..they aren't innocent) , all this garbage that conservative talk radio spews. On a post that is critical of GWB because of an article posted where he admits his own mistakes all I see are conservatives defending all the good he allegedly did or blaming the bad things on outside sources. Conservatives on this site brush so many poor decisions under the rug without a word!

And as an Obama supporter there are a lot of things I didn't like about his policies (his stance on same sex marriage is one), but on the whole he is a better candidate and that's why I voted for him.

Its amazing how a post about GWB admitting his mistakes turns into Obama bashing once conservatives get in their spin zone. Deflection anyone?

I wholeheartedly voted for Bush 2x Roar. Still, I'm fair enough to see the good and the bad.

Mydiadem, the conservatives on this thread posted more of Bush's failures than any of the liberals did (outside of a copy/paste of another site from Jazz). If anyone is being open and honest, it's the conservatives here. If anyone here is deflecting, it's the Obama followers. Obama was brought into this as an example of how the Obama followers aren't being open/honest about either Bush or Obama.

diadem - yeah, I take full credit for derailing the post. Perhaps it woud have been more appropriate to continue my conversation with roar with personal messages. I am new to this posting thing, so I readily admit that I am not up on all the etiquette. Sorry if I offended.

For the record, I never bashed Obama. Please show where I said anything negative about Obama as a person. You are kinda making my point that anytime anyone says anything probing about Obama or his supporters - people immediately go on the defensive. If Obama supporters want us to get behind him, we must be able to ask questions about him without fear.

On the flip side, I think ALL Americans should be able to be critical (or probing) about their President without fear. Thus, I am disturbed by the lack of critical questions from the left.