cnn.com — Half of those polled say the United States could be better off today if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000 rather than Bush, with 27 percent saying the country would be worse off if Gore had won. Twenty-two percent say things would be about the same. Only 3 percent of those questioned say Bush was one of the greatest presidents in history.
Jan 20, 2009 View in Crawl 4
dipsomaniacJan 20, 2009
Naw, I kept America safe. In other words, you just can't take credit for something that never happened. There's no way to say truthfully that what Bush did lessened any attacks that didn't happen.
pepspaaJan 20, 2009
Well he did get away with 9/11...
bruin8uclapJan 21, 2009
That 3 percent probably married their relatives, or had parents that were relatives prior to marriage.
ultar6Jan 21, 2009
@cgradoThe Cheerleader in Chief would have been torn asunder if he'd tried to enter the country and strangle a single person.Instead, he killed many of them using the most powerful military force in the world. He did this based on a false premise.The rest died because the presence of the most powerful military force in the world destabilized the region and allowed militant factions to impose their will on innocent people. In turn, this manufactured the situation that "required" the stabilizing presence of U.S. forces.Amazing how that worked out.
rhmacJan 21, 2009
1840 wasn't a great time to be president either.
ieternalJan 21, 2009
This isn't a failure of the Bush Administration, this is a failure of the American people. Has everyone forgot the government is OUR bitch and does we tell it? The government is supposed to serve us, not the other way around. You people have gave all of your personal power to the government out of manipulated fear. Good job... pat yourselves on the back, you all f**ked up royally by letting this happen.BTW, I'm not defending Bush, I'd like to see him and the rest of the laviathans of the world tossed into the deep, dark, cold and unforgiving abyss of the atlantic as much as anyone else... but you people are responsible for your own freedom, not your government.
dipsomaniacJan 22, 2009
You don't mean Clinton had that offer, did you?Because he didn't. No 'nation' made that offer. Some wingnut with an inflated sense of self-importance tried to convince the US he could make the offer, but it really didn't amount to anything.
funkywoodJan 22, 2009
When O'Reilly and others come out with this as a Bush achievement I really want to shout f**k You!What about the London, Bali and Madrid bombings? Hey, some americans died in those too! All of these happened directly following Bush's decision to invade Iraq against all common sense. Britain, Australia and Spain (or their leaders at least) were simply too close to America to challenge Bush for fear of wrecking their relationships (Tony Blair at least tried to get Bush to go the UN route). Bush's stubborness was responsible for all those deaths.After 911 the element of surprise was gone so another attack against the mainland USA was unlikely under any president. If you're going to give anyone credit for that it's the intelligence services.Plus, the terrorists job was done largely thanks to Bush building it up even more. A better president would have treated it like the London and Madrid bombings as the act of a few nutsoid criminals who, while needing to be tracked down, investigated and vigileantly defended against should not have been raised up as makers of history. It certainly wasn't an excuse to start another war on an idea and if you are going to fight a war against ideas you do it with ideas not shock and awe.
chicagogirl58Jan 28, 2009
Obama is going to talk us to death! He's a Lawyer and that's what they do. This talk about " historic" is just BS. Are we as a country that stupid??God help us all.