# A Somber Bush Says Farewell to the Nation



## observor 69 (16 Jan 2009)

A Somber Bush Says Farewell to the Nation 

Shortly before Mr. Bush spoke Thursday, the White House published his schedule for Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s Inauguration Day. In the peculiarly stilted language of White House scheduling documents, it captured perfectly Mr. Bush’s transition from President Bush to Citizen Bush, as follows:

11:30 a.m. THE PRESIDENT and Mrs. Bush participate in the swearing-in ceremony for the 44th president of the United States of America. 

1:25 p.m. THE FORMER PRESIDENT   makes remarks at departure ceremony, Andrews Air Force Base — Hangar 6.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16bush.html?hp

 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jan 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> A Somber Bush Says Farewell to the Nation
> 
> Shortly before Mr. Bush spoke Thursday, the White House published his schedule for Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s Inauguration Day. In the peculiarly stilted language of White House scheduling documents, it captured perfectly Mr. Bush’s transition from President Bush to Citizen Bush, as follows:
> 
> ...


Dont' hold back.  Tell us how you really feel.  (I'm sure that Saint Obama will have the US and the world fixed in about 6 months)


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2009)

Bush had his faults but his decisions liberated over 50m people from oppression and kept the US safe. Obama has big shoes to fill - a tall order for someone so inexperienced.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (16 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Bush had his faults but his decisions liberated over 50m people from oppression and kept the US safe. Obama has big shoes to fill - a tall order for someone so inexperienced.



I with T6 and Bush 43 as is this writer http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1637/28/


----------



## Mike Baker (16 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Bush had his faults but his decisions liberated over 50m people from oppression and kept the US safe. Obama has big shoes to fill - a tall order for someone so inexperienced.


Agreed. IMO, in about a year, President Bush will not look half as bad as he does now to the people who believe Obama is some sort of, how you say, super man. 

There is no doubt in my mind he will do a good job, but it sometimes takes change to realize that things we not as bad as it was reported.


My 2 Euros.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Shortly before Mr. Bush spoke Thursday, the White House published his schedule for Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s Inauguration Day. In the peculiarly stilted language of White House scheduling documents, it captured perfectly Mr. Bush’s transition from President Bush to Citizen Bush, as follows:
> 
> 11:30 a.m. THE PRESIDENT and Mrs. Bush participate in the swearing-in ceremony for the 44th president of the United States of America.
> 
> 1:25 p.m. THE FORMER PRESIDENT   makes remarks at departure ceremony, Andrews Air Force Base — Hangar 6.



It would be interesting to see what the ORIGINAL document the reporter saw actually said - but why would WE ever want to see original documents when MSM can read them for us?   

Agree or disagree with the guy, GWB pulled a pretty heavy load during a particularly busy period of history.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2009)

Where I part company with Bush was his open border policy with regard to our southern border and his domestic policies which definitely are not conservative. This bailout is bad policy and wont work - it didnt during the great depression. It didnt work during the Japanese economic mailaise of the 90's. I believe in less government,not more government. Unfortunately I fully expect for the economy to get much worse if we embark on cap and trade,higher taxes and more socialist type spending programs. The poor will remain poor and the wealthy will become much poorer. When its all said and done I suspect we will see double digit inflation and interest rates t match.Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jan 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Dont' hold back.  Tell us how you really feel.  (I'm sure that Saint Obama will have the US and the world fixed in about 6 months)



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?pagewanted=print
Forgive and Forget? 
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies. 

At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.

The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.

Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed. 

There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq? 

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government? 

Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators. 

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again. 

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jan 2009)

Thanks  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2009)

> And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.



To the left war is a crime. FSA is a crime. Gitmo is a crime. Unfortunately the left's hatred of Bush is irrational and misguided. If Obama went down that road he and his administration might be the next in the dock which has never occured before in our history.

The truth is Obama is going to keep Gitmo open,what else can you do with these bad guy short of executing them ? Many of the detainee's upon release have rejoined the jihad so we can hardly turn them loose in the US proper. If he transfered them to a US Fed prison that opens the doors to Constitutional protections that they dont deserve and would be freed. Their home countries dont want them back.\

Obama is going to keep FSA,the foreign surveillance act. 
We wont be accelerating our departure from Iraq.The democrats dont want to be labeled as the party that gave away the hard won gains.

Basically all the so called evils of the Bush administration will be continued by Obama. My guess is that Obama can keep most conservatives off his back by maintaining current policy while focusing on the economy and domestic issues that really are his real interest. That wont mean that he wont be siding with the palestinians against Israel or being chummy with Iran. He no doubt will try to become more proactive in Africa,meaning the use of military force and humanitarian missions. Bush may own the economy for awhile a terrorist but an attack inside the US will be on Obama.


----------



## Bo (16 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Bush had his faults but his decisions liberated over 50m people from oppression and kept the US safe.



At what cost? 4,000 dead US soldiers. 30,000 wounded. Estimates put the civilian death toll in Iraq between 700,000 to 1.4 million. And given the US's history of supporting oppressive dictators throughout the world, it's unlikely that the reason for the invasion was to liberate Iraqis. 

Bush did not keep the US safe during his term. 9/11 occurred, remember? And the US today is more unpopular and has more enemies than it ever has before. So I doubt it is safer.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Jan 2009)

Hey, Bo, good to see ya!  Who had 18:15 in the pool?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hey, Bo, good to see ya!  Who had 18:15 in the pool?



I had 20:10

Missed by 5 min.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Jan 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hey, Bo, good to see ya!  Who had 18:15 in the pool?



I had 2030 hrs 

op:


----------



## CougarKing (16 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To the left war is a crime.



Not everyone on the "left" believes that. Not all liberals are peaceloving hippies who love sleeping under peace arches. Perhaps many of the people who vote for them are that way, but not necessarily liberal-leaning politicians such as American Democrats. But like other politicians of other parties, they have to be pragmatic once they are in office, and have to be willing to order military action if it is required, as in the case of President Clinton when he ordered US forces to take part in NATO's Operation Allied Force with air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo. Or we can even go further and use the example of Pres. Truman sending US forces to the "police action"of the Korean War. *Furthermore, they also understand that if they intend to commit the country to an undertaking such as full-scale war, they have to believe it is a just war, or at least be able to sell to the public that it is a just war.*


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2009)

The West is populated by a society that is much more fickle today than it was a century ago.  Larger populations produce larger numbers of desenters, although the percentages will have varied very little over the years.  Today's technologies allow the vocal minorities much more access to means of spreading their views loudly and to larger numbers of the population.  Are we following in the footsteps of so many "civilizations" before us and are now in decline; bent on self-destruction through becoming "soft" in the face of lean mean enemies?


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Bush had his faults but his decisions liberated over 50m people from oppression and kept the US safe. Obama has big shoes to fill - a tall order for someone so inexperienced.



Well said TH6!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## CBH99 (16 Jan 2009)

I for one am glad to see Mr. Bush on his way out.  While I don't hold Mr. Obama on a pedestal like many do, I believe the United States & indeed the entire world are ready for a change from Mr. Bush's policies.

While I think its important to remember the good that was done just as much as the bad, the bad in his case was exceptional.  Even if not all of it was his fault, he is still the leader of a government who has had an incredible amount of controversy during his presidency.  

-  A war started on faulty intelligence which has cost 4000 US soldiers their lives, 30,000 wounded - not to mention the families that have been affected.  Pardoning illegal immigrants coming up from the south in massive numbers, creating a huge problem in terms of infrastructure, employment, economics, crime, etc, etc.  

-  Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

-  Guantanamo Bay.  An American prison in which its primary purpose for existing is to house inmates & gather intelligence in ways that are illegal in the continential US.

The list goes on, but I think I've made my point.  While some good things may have been accomplished by GWB, the controversy around his government is astounding.  I think the American people are ready for a new leader, even if he doesn't live up to all the hype that the MSM has given to Obama.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jan 2009)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I for one am glad to see Mr. Bush on his way out.  While I don't hold Mr. Obama on a pedestal like many do, I believe the United States & indeed the entire world are ready for a change from Mr. Bush's policies.
> 
> While I think its important to remember the good that was done just as much as the bad, the bad in his case was exceptional.  Even if not all of it was his fault, he is still the leader of a government who has had an incredible amount of controversy during his presidency.
> 
> ...



......and what were the alternatives?


----------



## Flip (17 Jan 2009)

In a couple of years we are going to miss George.
He can laugh at himself. I don't think Obama can.

In truth GWB was not a fortunate as most presidents but he did do the right thing WRT the war on terror.

If we review, we find  Clinton, for all of his popularity, sowed the seeds that resulted in war.
 GWB found himself cleaning up the Clinton mess for two terms.

Only the almighty knows how long it will take Sarah Palin to clean up after Obama.

I guess I revealed myself with that last line..... ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Jan 2009)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I for one am glad to see Mr. Bush on his way out.  While I don't hold Mr. Obama on a pedestal like many do, I believe the United States & indeed the entire world are ready for a change from Mr. Bush's policies.
> 
> While I think its important to remember the good that was done just as much as the bad, the bad in his case was exceptional.  Even if not all of it was his fault, he is still the leader of a government who has had an incredible amount of controversy during his presidency.
> 
> ...



Speaking of which (from today's Wall Street Journal):

_ "In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government's Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency's monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment's restrictions on search and seizure."_

The rest of the article can be found here: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206822799888351.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jan 2009)

Bo said:
			
		

> Bush did not keep the US safe during his term. 9/11 occurred, remember?



That attack in the beginning of his presidency?  Just like the 3 during the 8 years of Clinton.  I'm not the biggest fan of the outgoing POTUS but methinks you push history a bit to the right....


----------



## GAP (17 Jan 2009)

Flip said:
			
		

> In a couple of years we are going to miss George.
> He can laugh at himself. I don't think Obama can.
> 
> In truth GWB was not a fortunate as most presidents but he did do the right thing WRT the war on terror.
> ...



About 8 years......


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jan 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?pagewanted=print
> 
> Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.
> 
> And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.



Nobody should be above the law, but prosecuting former Presidents for national security decisions made in the international realm would be a massive mistake, in my opinion. It would harden the lines between left and right in the US and also harm long term national security. The left-wing _intelligentsia _ want their vengeance, but I hope that Mr Obama is wise enough to ignore them. He already has their support and where would they take it anyway?


----------



## GAP (17 Jan 2009)

I agree....every act/approval would become mired in CYA, ad infinum.....

White House tapes are bad enough, to have every action demand accountability according some future standard/political nuance would kill whatever little is accomplished by the government..


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2009)

I don't believe Bush can be impeached charged* any time soon, even though I do think he has some Constitutional issues for which he should be called to account.

In my view historians and scholars rather than the partisan politicians in the US Congress are best fitted to assess what Bush did or failed to do with regard to his duty to "preserve and protect" the Constitution of the USA.

But the debate will soon begin - I hope, and it should be fascinating.


--------------------

* Corrected. See Tomahawk 6's very correct statement below; Bush cannot be impeached once he leaves office.


----------



## GAP (17 Jan 2009)

There needs to be at least one term by Obama before any serious reflection can be done on Bush....

It takes the emotion out of it and gives something to compare to since.....


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jan 2009)

Once out of office Bush cant be impeached he becomes a private citizen. Second I dont see where Bush has violated the Constitution unlike some in Congress. The US went to war with Iraq WITH the support of Congress as Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. Bush made the biggest mistake in not declaring war once he did that Gitmo and FSA would be moot points.

As for the view of historians of the Bush presidency we wont see an unbiased view for 40-50 years. Truman wasnt viewed with any type of regard until many decades after he had died. Historians like everyone else have political views and always seem to be included in their books. The same goes for Clinton. The democrats will be busy spinning the horrid economy on Bush when it was their legislation that created the crash of 09. All the causes go back to the Clinton administration with the enabling of Freddie Mac and Fannie which undermined the banking system. The so called stimulus is pork barrel politics at its worst. When its said and done we will look like Britain in the 80's looking for a Maggie Thatcher.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Jan 2009)

In my humble opinion, I think Mr Bush got an undeservedly rough ride from the start. The media hated him and seemed to go out of their way to make him appear bumbling a a buffoon. Let's face it. No US party has the ability to put a clown in the White House, even if they wanted to. Ol' George had to have some credentials to have been given the chance to sit in the big chair. I agree with the other posters who said that in 40 or 50 years time we'll see a different take on this Bush's presidency. Those of us who were around for Gerald Ford need only see how he's treated now relative to how he was treated while in office to understand this.


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Jan 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In my humble opinion, I think Mr Bush got an undeservedly rough ride from the start. The media hated him and seemed to go out of their way to make him appear bumbling a a buffoon. Let's face it. No US party has the ability to put a clown in the White House, even if they wanted to. Ol' George had to have some credentials to have been given the chance to sit in the big chair. I agree with the other posters who said that in 40 or 50 years time we'll see a different take on this Bush's presidency. Those of us who were around for Gerald Ford need only see how he's treated now relative to how he was treated while in office to understand this.



This has to be one of the best posts in this thread. People forget that GWB attended Ivy League schools and did fairly well. I would guess that being a buffoon would be a tiny bit of a detriment to attaining an Ivy League education. My personal belief is that George allowed Dick Cheney just a bit too much authority and didn't reign him in enough.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Jan 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In my humble opinion, I think Mr Bush got an undeservedly rough ride from the start. The media hated him and seemed to go out of their way to make him appear bumbling a a buffoon. Let's face it. No US party has the ability to put a clown in the White House, even if they wanted to. Ol' George had to have some credentials to have been given the chance to sit in the big chair. I agree with the other posters who said that in 40 or 50 years time we'll see a different take on this Bush's presidency. Those of us who were around for Gerald Ford need only see how he's treated now relative to how he was treated while in office to understand this.



Bush was also a fighter pilot who flew the F-102 Convair which had a lousy accident rate:

_ "There were some minor aerodynamic problems with the F-102. For example, at certain power settings and angles of attack � like, say, *take-off* -- the jet compressor would stall and the aircraft would roll inverted. It is no picnic, skill-wise, to fly a modern F-16 with advanced avionics and fly-by-wire flight control systems. The workload on the F-102 was far higher. The F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14 occurrences per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102�s accident rate was more than three times that: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 � almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam."_

The above quote was taken from this website  which has a longer description of what George Bush had to do to fly the F-102. The author also addresses some of those "crimes" that people are always accusing Bush of committing.


----------



## Flip (18 Jan 2009)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> My personal belief is that George allowed Dick Cheney just a bit too much authority and didn't reign him in enough.



Agreed, and perhaps maybe Rumsfeld needed to go sooner rather than later.
But, who are we to judge?


----------



## observor 69 (18 Jan 2009)

"I would guess that being a buffoon would be a tiny bit of a detriment to attaining an Ivy League education."  2Cdo

Not with the Bush family name behind him:

"Like his father, Prescott Bush, who was elected a Senator from Connecticut in 1952, George became interested in public service and politics. He served two terms as a Representative to Congress from Texas. Twice he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. Then he was appointed to a series of high-level positions: Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the U. S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency."

It's not that unusual for members of important families to fumble their why through college.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> It's not that unusual for members of important families to fumble their why through college.




And in that respect there a are several prominent American families who have benefited from the best education money can buy and who have repaid their communities through 'public service.'

Caroline Kennedy, anyone? (She graduated from Radcliffe and Columbia (law) - you can't get much more _Ivy League_ than that.)


----------



## observor 69 (19 Jan 2009)

And apparently she will not become the next Senator from New York state. 
Family connections only go so far.


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Jan 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> "I would guess that being a buffoon would be a tiny bit of a detriment to attaining an Ivy League education."  2Cdo
> 
> Not with the Bush family name behind him:
> 
> ...



Yes, I get it. You don't like George Bush. I will try to find the article I read a few years ago that showed GWB has an advanced degree (I think it is a Masters) and his IQ was substantially higher than Kerrys'. The Dem's loved to trot out how smart Kerry was. I still think for all the Obama supporters the shock is going to be severe, Obama is a greater speaker but seems to have all the depth of a wading pool.

And I'll still miss George.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Jan 2009)

Baden Guy, apparantly she will.


----------



## observor 69 (19 Jan 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Baden Guy, apparantly she will.



I don't know who your source is but this is the best I can come up with: 

JANUARY 19, 2009, 4:36 P.M. ET 
Paterson Won't Reveal Clinton's Replacement in the Senate 

WASHINGTON -- New York Gov. David Paterson said he has winnowed his choice to replace Hillary Clinton as his state's junior Senator but declined to say today who he plans to select.

At a news conference held amid festivities for Barack Obama's presidential inauguration, Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, said he's still mulling the decision and that his weighing will likely extend into this weekend.

"I'm focusing on a few candidates now," he told a handful of reporters. "I can't say definitively. I do not know  who the next senator of New York is now."

Mr. Paterson has faced some criticism for taking so long to decide on a replacement for Sen. Clinton, who is expected to be confirmed this week as Secretary of State. The choice has been made difficult, observers say, because of the inclusion of two powerful contenders, New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, and Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of former president John F. Kennedy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123239696115695199.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Jan 2009)

It was all over the radio news first thing this am down in Texas. 

You could check out Google News for Caroline Kennedy, Senator for lots of info.

I believe it is a very, very done deal, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2009)

And according to this report from the Associated Press, Ms. Kennedy has withdrawn her name from consideration, in a one line written statement sent to the NY Governor.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jan 2009)

As posted by E.R. Campbell, Fox News states: Caroline Kennedy Confirms End to Senate Bid
In a one-sentence statement released early Thursday, Kennedy says she has told Gov. Paterson she is withdrawing from Senate consideration for 'personal reasons.' 

All over the news down here. Personal reasons is indicated that the NY Governor will appoint someone else on Saturday, and is a save face decision, ya know.


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Jan 2009)

My take on Bush Jr is straight forward. Alot of people critize him for his actions. What would any of them have done if they were the leader of a country that suffered a brutal attack as 9/11.

In that case any action taken would have resulted in jeers from somebody. I think as a war time president, he did well.

I do think that having Obama as a "change of pace" though will benefit the american people and potentially the world. Its not good to be tto far left or right.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jan 2009)

ArmyRick, I agree.

I am thoroughly glad that President Bush is gone. I am sick to the teeth of Bush this, Bush that, Here a Bush, There a Bush, Everywhere a Bush, Bush. Did you know Bush is the cause of:EVERYTHING BAD, ABSOLUTLY EVERYTHING ?

The media and the looney toon left will have to get a whole new repertory. The toons at MSN, CBC, G & M et al, LPC etc are scratching their "heads".

President Obama is just a man, not a miracle.

If your inclined to, pray for President Obama.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Jan 2009)

Obama and a democrat majority in Congress is a recipe for extreme socialism.Day 1 close Gitmo amd suspend tribunals for prisoners. Day 2 get out of Iraq. Work on getting a $1Trillion stimulus through Congress. An interesting sidenote it took 40 some Presidents to get to the $1T mark for national debt and in less than a year we will add another $2T. Not good.


----------

