Tag Archives: George W. Bush

On this Day in History, October 20, 1803

20 Oct

October 20, 1803 – The United States Senate ratifies the Louisiana Purchase.

Immediately thereafter, liberal Democratic Senators hold a press conference to declare the purchase “Bush’s Fault.”


Tea Party Reporting Primer: Remember the Bush Years

12 Apr

John Hawkins has a reminder list of how tolerant and respectful the Bush-era protests were.

Right Wing News: Protest Sign Reminders: What The Liberal Rallies From The Bush Years Were Like
There are a lot of Tea Parties coming up this week and we all know what the routine will be. The left-wing media will descend on the rallies, find the most ignorant people they can, carrying the most ludicrous signs, some of whom will undoubtedly be liberals trying to make the Tea Parties look bad, and they’ll tell you that’s what the Tea Parties are all about.

Moe Lane at RedState says he missed one.

Peter Wehner dismantles the “Bush Lied” lie

26 Mar

Round 4: Wehner vs. Corn on Bush and the Iraq War
Politics Daily

The truth is troubling enough. There were serious intelligence gaps that we failed to find before the war. Some claims — by Bush administration officials as well as by leading Democrats and leaders of other nations — were made with too much certainty. And as I have written multiple times in the past, there were serious mistakes in the conduct of the war prior to the new counterinsurgency strategy being announced in January 2007. I have no interest in whitewashing history. But it is long past time that critics of the Iraq war stop willfully and deceptively twisting history to serve their own partisan ends.

Krauthammer: It can't always be George Bush's fault

29 Oct



Blaming Bush At Every Turn Is Getting Old
Charles Krauthammer, Investors.com

It’s as if Obama’s presidency hasn’t really started. He’s still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to “long years of drift” in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

Can you spot the hypocrites in this video?

6 Oct

President Bush at The National Cathedral

11 Sep

The New Tone?

20 Jan

How many people could we feed?

17 Jan

That’s the question the Main Stream Media was asking in 2005 when the second Inauguration of George W. Bush cost around $40 million.

Bush Inaugural to Cost at Least $40 Million
The New York Times, January 13, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) — It will take President Bush less than a minute to take the oath of office next Thursday, but before the inaugural events are over some $40 million may be spent on parades, parties and pyrotechnics.

For Inauguration in Wartime, a Lingering Question of Tone
The New York Times, January 16, 2005

Some critics say spending so much on these parties seems ill-timed both because of the Iraq war and the tsunami catastrophe in Asia. Anthony D. Weiner, a Democratic congressman preparing to run for mayor of New York, sent President Bush a letter on Tuesday suggesting that the millions in inaugural funds be sent to the troops in Iraq. “Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted – if not canceled – in wartime,” Mr. Weiner wrote, noting that in 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt limited the celebration to a cold luncheon at the White House.

Giving Bush a pass — again
Salon.com, January 20, 2005

And it might have been helpful in the limited media debate that did take place about the inauguration’s costs to point out that if the $40 million to $50 million raised for the GOP’s parties had been donated to the war effort, as some have suggested, the money would have covered only about six hours of the U.S. military’s operations in Iraq. (Costs are running roughly $110,000 per minute there.) Also interesting but unnoted is that between the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, Bush and his supporters have spent roughly $115 million total on parties and parades.

Inaugural price tag in line with history
The Washington Times, January 19, 2005

The Associated Press moved a story that asked, “With that kind of money, what could you buy?” The answer, the wire service said: “200 armored Humvees … vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children … and a down payment on the nation’s deficit.”

Okay, so fast forward to today?  Just for grins, go over to Google and search for the “Cost of the Obama Inaugural” without the quotes.  If you can find an American media outlet with the full story, I’d like to know.

Most likely you’ll have to go to the foreign press.

Bush declares a ‘state of emergency’ in Washington as cost of Obama’s swearing-in ceremony soars to £110m
Daily Mail, UK

The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.  But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m.

£110m is roughly $150 million in American dollars.

Now, let’s compare to the 2005 Bush Inauguration, at a cost of around $40 million.  To get to the cost of the Obama celebration you’d have to add in the 2001 Bush Inauguration ($40 million) as well as Clinton 1997 ($42 million) and 1993 ($33 million) to get to that amount.

Where’s the public outcry?

How many people could that feed?  How many home foreclosures could that stop?  How much relief could it bring to the still suffering Louisiana Coast?

These are questions no one will ask.

At least until the next Republican Inauguration.


16 Jan

For eight years, we have also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes. The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America’s air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner. And the Federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

George W. Bush in his Farewell Presidential Address
January 15, 2009

One of the memories I have from my time living in Washington, D.C. was on January 20, 1989 as my wife, four months pregnant at the time, and I stood on the National Mall and watched the helicopter fly overhead as it took Ronald and Nancy Reagan on the first part of their journey back to California. It was a bittersweet moment because, while we welcomed the Inauguration of George H.W. Bush, we knew that we, as well as the nation would miss the Reagan years, and we did.

Twelve years later I stood on the Mall again for the Inauguration of George W. Bush. This time with my son. It was a cold, damp day. And a slow drizzle fell that seemed to be Mother Nature’s way of cleansing us all from the stain of the Clinton Administration.

On that day none of us could even imagine what the next eight years would hold. The horrors of 9/11, Katrina and even the Virginia Tech massacre were unimaginable. And on that day, I was not sad to see the Clintons leave.

I suspect that come next Tuesday, not many of the anticipated millions standing there on the Mall will be sad to see the helicopter flying over to begin George and Laura Bush on their journey home to Texas.

To tell the truth, I’ve got mixed feelings myself.

But I’m not one of those so eroded by Bush Derangement Syndrome that I’ll categorize him as the “worst President ever.” To call him that ignores history and names such as James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson. And when I hear someone describe George W. Bush in that manner I realize that they were either too young or too stoned to remember the Carter years.

Others agree.

History will show that George W Bush was right
Andrew Roberts, Telegraph.co.uk

In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush’s legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic. The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush’s presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

Beginning with the Florida recount, and likely before, the left and the media hated George Bush. Even when a complete review of the Florida ballots showed that Bush would’ve won even if the recount Al Gore wanted had gone forward, the left couldn’t get beyond their “selected, not elected” delusions. [The New York Times, EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote, November 12, 2001]

In the early days and weeks following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the approval ratings for President Bush, from both sides. It was in those early days that the President said:

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People

The White House, September 20, 2001

Does Iraq Make Bush a “Failed President”?
Larry Elder, TownHall.com

Return to the bad old days immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, when terror attacks killed 3,000 on American soil. Eighty to 90 percent of Americans expected another attack — on American soil — within six months to a year. Critics called Bush asleep at the wheel, that he failed to “connect the dots.” Never mind that the 9/11 Commission said that former President Bill Clinton blew several opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.

For a time the nation stood with the President. Then politics got in the way. Things in Iraq weren’t going so well. And the left and the media attacked continuously.

Bush’s Final Jabs
Brent Bozell, TownHall

The media’s abusive coverage wasn’t personal? Try Dan Rather, or Rather’s old White House hand puppet, John Roberts (now anchoring at CNN). In 2004, Rather first ran the sloppy, error-ridden National Guard hit piece, never telling his audience the president’s primary accusers were political opponents with personal and political vendettas. Then Roberts publicly and dishonorably mocked the First Lady for doubting CBS: “Laura Bush offered no evidence to back up her claim, and CBS News continues to stand by its reporting.” That was a “Mission Accomplished” event for the entire media, which lapped up the CBS hit piece until the bloggers started to unravel it.

Over time, honest historians will look more favorably upon George Bush and his years in the White House. Some of us understand now.

George Bush did not live and govern by popularity polls. Rightly or wrongly, he stood for what he thought best for this nation.

The 9/11 Presidency
Wall Street Journal

By his own standard, Mr. Bush achieved the one big thing he and all Americans demanded of his Administration. Not a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11. Al Qaeda was flushed from safe havens in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and its terrorist network put under siege around the world. All subsequent terror attacks hit soft targets and used primitive means. No one seriously predicted such an outcome at the time.

Bush’s Imminent Rehab
Charles Krauthammer, Townhall

Obama enters office with a strategic success on his hands — while Bush leaves the scene taking a shoe for his country. Which is why I suspect Bush showed such equanimity during a private farewell interview at the White House a few weeks ago. He leaves behind the sinews of war, for the creation of which he has been so vilified but which will serve his successor — and his country — well over the coming years. The very continuation by Democrats of Bush’s policies will be grudging, if silent, acknowledgement of how much he got right.

There’s no real question that it’s time for George and Laura Bush to return to Texas. It’s been eight long years, no matter how you count them.

Thank you, Mr. President, for keeping us safe, and for doing what you thought best for our Country.

May history be more kind to you than the present.

Peggy Noonan: 'At Least Bush Kept Us Safe'

5 Dec

Sometimes even Peggy Noonan gets it right.

‘At Least Bush Kept Us Safe’
The two words Democrats don’t want tacked onto that sentence.
Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal

Back to the Christmas gathering. There was no grousing about John McCain, and considerable grousing about the Bush administration, but it was almost always followed by one sentence, and this is more or less what it was: “But he kept us safe.” In the seven years since 9/11, there were no further attacks on American soil. This is an argument that’s been around for a while but is newly re-emerging as the final argument for Mr. Bush: the one big thing he had to do after 9/11, the single thing he absolutely had to do, was keep it from happening again. And so far he has.

Read more.