"How about the 63% of Democrats that thought that the Bush adminstration had something to do with 911?"
Something to do is broad enough to include failure to go after before the attacks, a charge fairly aimed at Clinton as well.
Caused or conspired to allow is completely different and would be crazy. And I do know a number of people thought that as well.
"Or........the 65% of Democrats that believed Sara Palin actually did say, "I can see Russia from my house""
LOL. Man, do you really want to go through this again? Allright, so people who thought she said those words were careless and jumped on a SNL bit.
The trouble is that in this case, the SNL bit was for all intents and purposes accurate. She cited the facts that (1) in the right conditions, one can see Russia from "land here in Alaska" (meaning a cold crappy Island no one goes to), and (2) Russian planes sometimes approach Alaskan airspace as proof that she has experience in foreign policy.
"my house" vs. "land here" is completely irrelevant when you look at the sheer idiocy of what she said!
"the 53% in exit polls a mere 4 weeks ago,that still blame Bush for the disaster that this incompetent fool has given us for the last 4 -years?"
I agree that the mortgage crisis and financial crises were not Bush's exclusive fault. Both had been building for more time. I could put more blame initially on Democrats for mortgage crises given the "home ownership society" push (of which Reps also contributed) and more blame on Republicans for the financial crisis (deregulation, which Dems failed to sufficiently fight).
But Bush did start the war in Iraq, which should have been fought to its end in 1991, with much better results. But starting the war wasn't the issue. Iraq didn't have to be a disaster.
Iraq became a disaster because of the sheer incompetence and profound naivety of an administration that thought if you just walked in and killed Saddam, and did nothing to establish an alternate power structure immediately, that:
- The Iraqis, who had been severely tortured as a people, would immediately form a funcitoning government.
- That there would be massive looting that set them back a good decade.
- That disbanding the Iraqi army wouldn't result in the sudden unemployment of 400,000 people, thrown into the chaos.
- That Sunnis, Shia's and Kurds would suddenly all hug and make up; rather than fighting one another now that the only thing worse than eachother was now out of power.
- That all these things and more would not push a huge amount of Iraqis towards sympathzing with incoming Al Queda and other groups.
YES I blame Bush for a trillion+ on Iraq.
YES I blame Bush for trillions+ unfunded prescription plan.
YES I blame Bush for trillions of dollars in missing revenue resuling from a war time tax cut.
Anyone who doesn't is a damned fool, im-not at all humble-o.
None of those things stopped costing money when Obama took office. Why do you think they are no longer Bush's fault?
Oh and I would just love to see what you'd be saying if Obama ordered immediate full evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan upon taking office. Especially if Al Queda strongly re-established itself in both places as a result, and then attacked us successfully.
Yeah ... I'm sure that wouldn't be Obama's fault. But now it's his fault he didn't do that because it cost money not to?
Right.
Bottom line: If you look at the actual numbers for the costs of the wars and programs Bush started, and compare them to new spending under Obama, Obama's new spending is way lower.
Shuld a President and his administration fly $8+ billion - cash in plastic - watch it disappear and no one is punished? Of course not, it was Iraqui "stimulus" (HA!)
