FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Intro: "With two George Bushes and their wives visiting the White House today for the unveiling of George W.'s official portrait, how much of the Bush legacy remains in place? The election of 2008 was a classic 'time for a change' contest, in which Americans picked a fresh-faced young senator to replace an increasingly haggard and unpopular President. Three and a half years later, what's different?"

The Obamas and the Bushs pose during the Bush portrait unveiling. (photo: CNN)
The Obamas and the Bushs pose during the Bush portrait unveiling. (photo: CNN)

go to original article

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+36 # rogermathews 2012-06-01 11:52
This was a good and fair review of the accomplishments of the first three years of Obama's 'reign'. And as usual it ends with a statement about 'popular disappointment' because expectations in 2008 were so much higher.
BUT you speak as though ALL of America is disappointed when actually only those who voted for him --his supporters-- had the high expectations. The other 48% of Americans --his opponents and their representatives , the TeaParty GOP-- were appalled at Obama's election and vowed from day one to stop his policies dead in their tracks.
That was Obama's playing field ... the toughest one in decades. In Olympic sports scoring terms, the ‘degree of difficult is a 10’.
It’s time we shifted our EXPECTATIONS to a more REALISTIC viewpoint. He is not King …
he cannot dictate his will; thank goodness, he operates under America’s checks-and-bala nces gov't. We should stop comparing Obama’s performance to ‘the perfect execution of his campaign desires’ and Progressives' wildest dreams-- and view them in the context of the possible.
I am a liberal and I feel that --under the degree of difficulty provided by the GOP’s induced econ-crisis and their strenuous legislative obstruction since 2009-- Obama has done well in protecting me from the insurgency of a rabid, irrational, far right GOP agenda. I completely understand the ‘sense of disappointment’ narrative … but I would hope the media would put it in a proper perspective.
 
 
+28 # Barbara K 2012-06-01 12:53
rogermathews: I so agree with you. I also wonder why they are doing any comparison at all. Bush had 8 years to do his damage, why score Obama for trying to clean it up after 3 1/2 years? Ludicrous. Get more Dems in Congress and then watch what can be done FOR OUR COUNTRY. I am not disappointed in the least. He has accomplished more than Bush did in less time. And what Bush did was not good for the country or us. President Obama has had more challenges to get thru than any other President. Any alternative to him will be just to complete the total destruction of our Country, our Government, and ultimately to anyone who is not a millionaire.
 
 
-6 # Noni77 2012-06-01 23:09
Quoting Barbara K:
rogermathews: I so agree with you. I also wonder why they are doing any comparison at all. Bush had 8 years to do his damage, why score Obama for trying to clean it up after 3 1/2 years? Ludicrous. Get more Dems in Congress and then watch what can be done FOR OUR COUNTRY. I am not disappointed in the least. He has accomplished more than Bush did in less time. And what Bush did was not good for the country or us. President Obama has had more challenges to get thru than any other President. Any alternative to him will be just to complete the total destruction of our Country, our Government, and ultimately to anyone who is not a millionaire.

The Dems controled the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010... And they had nothing to do with frenzied spending?
 
 
+3 # paulrevere 2012-06-01 13:03
I had to force myself to continue reading after stumbling head first into point one's failure to acknowledge that mysterious number of US troops manning, how many hardened bases in Iraq?

The author's point 4 positive to o is a joke which needs no redundance from me.

Point 5..."proposed but didn't introduce" AND enhanced the business volume of the HC industry by $30 billion a year...sigh.


Point 8...no card check, no drum beat from the bully pulpit FOR labor, and a continued slack jawed and echoey drool for labor

Sorry, my tally borders 10-0 bushco carries on...and then some!

This was a softball critique...
 
 
+7 # Feral Dogz 2012-06-01 13:07
Well put Roger. I firmly believe that expectations correlate inversely with with satisfaction.

I think this has a lot to do with the way "conservatives" function. High expectations and a sense of entitlement leaves a feeling of disappointment with their achievements, so there is always a need to have more. The Mercedes is nice, but there are people with Bentleys and chauffeurs and I'm not good enough 'til I've got one. Now that I've got the Bentley, I need a private jet 'cause that's what success looks like. There's no end to it.
 
 
+23 # Bloomington 2012-06-01 15:31
rogermathews thanks for saying what so many of us know...the GOP blaming Obama for weak job numbers is like refusing to give a fire fighter water and then blaming him for not being able to put out the fire you helped start.
 
 
+5 # RLF 2012-06-04 06:55
Half of the scores for Obama were things he only TALKED about...and we all know talk is worth.
 
 
+33 # Old Man 2012-06-01 12:18
The mess G.W.B. put on the shoulders of President Obama (thank god if there is one) that he was elected.
Can anyone imagine were this country would be if McCain & Palin would have won? Double or triple the debt we have now.
 
 
-11 # paulrevere 2012-06-01 13:06
Just like the backlash dems experienced in 2010, any McPain/Plainlin admin would have been trashed equally...matte r of fact it may have gotten the braindead off their Barka's too!
 
 
-4 # Noni77 2012-06-01 23:06
I thought that Obama doubled/tripled the debt he inherited? So how was this "better"? Just saying... Bush AND Obama sent this ship off the waterfall. The American dollar is so weak and fragile that now other countries are taking measures to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency. If that is done and Obama keeps up his spending frenzy, the dollar will slide into hyperinflation and we'll have a Weimar Republic situation where people take their paychecks and run to the market to buy as much food as they can afford and hope its enough to get to the next paycheck without starving. "Oh thank (the God we deny and ignore) that OUR Captain is steering the ship off the waterfall, it would be SO much worse if THEIRS was!" Really?
 
 
+2 # rockieball 2012-06-03 13:24
The difference is that one spent to make the rich richer and send us flying into a useless war just for revenge.
The other side spent to put American's back to work, to help them keep their homes and their health as well.
One who's backers even today say "Let them eat cake," and when as John Fogerty said "And when the tax man comes to the door, their house looks like a rummage sale Lord."
The other who at ever turn was met with a party that still says their number one goal is NOT to help America but make sure Obama is a one term President. So they let America rot.
 
 
+2 # RLF 2012-06-04 06:58
Maybe on the way to 'change we can believe in' because it would have gotten bad enough that people would wake up.
 
 
+22 # Billbb 2012-06-01 12:29
The failure to prosecute criminal torture by the previous administration and criminal acts on Wall Street and elsewhere that led to our economic meltdown must be seen as a favoring of white, white-collar crime and compared to the vicious prosecution of medical marijuana. I'm also deeply disappointed in Obama not coming out strongly -- if only in the bully pulpit -- against global climate change.

That said, and looking at the opposition, I'm fully in support of Obama's re-election. Somehow, we must break the back of the two-party/one-b enefactor system but in this election, the stakes are too high to do anything but hold one's nose and vote Obama.
 
 
-30 # Robt Eagle 2012-06-01 14:45
You mean the criminals like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, the heads of the SEC and FINRA who all did no oversight and actually praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they knew it was a disaster. How about the criminals who did not appropriately report the disaster about to unfold who were in charge of S&P, Moody's, Fitch, you know, those big wig analytical firms that were supposed to safeguard the quality of investments by letting everyone know how bad they were. Read "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson to learn how the financial disaster really happened. Frank and Dodd should be in jail along with the former heads of Fannie and Freddie.
 
 
0 # Glen 2012-06-02 07:03
Robt, you are right about who should be in jail, and there are a LOT of folks who should go. Sad to say it will not happen. That is now the nature of the American beast.
 
 
0 # forparity 2012-06-02 10:54
Well, but to be fair (and not intending to let Fannie and Freddie off the hook), but the entire game plan was set up via the vision and regulations pushed on them, and fueled by Clinton and Andrew Cuomo's HUD.
 
 
+14 # mpatrick 2012-06-01 12:30
Well-said, rogermathews; I agree....and I would add my voice to your plea to the media, especially given the stakes of the current campaign.
 
 
+4 # marstob 2012-06-01 12:30
John Cassidy's article was well balanced, with thoughtful insights. It was a pleasure to read, causing one's self to review these last few years. Also, to wonder how we came to these exceptional difficulties our nations are encountering.
 
 
-47 # Robt Eagle 2012-06-01 12:31
Absurd anaylsis!!! Obama has driven this country into an abysmal situation getting worse daily with the national debt approaching $16 Trillion. Obama never closed Gitmo, he screwed thepooch with Eric Holder trying to hold trials of terrorists on American soil (NYC and then elsewhere). Obama has caused the destruction of our health care model and will be drummed out of office with the Supreme Court throwing out ObamaCare on its ear. Obama is a disaster for America and the population knows it. Onaly the folks who receive hand outs want more Obama, but even they have been disappointed because he failed and continues to fail them.
 
 
+29 # paulrevere 2012-06-01 14:17
"Onaly the folks who receive hand outs want more Obama"

Hmmm, RE, you must be referring to all the giant oil cretin corps, Wall Street in abundance, most of the 'capital gains' 1%, and well...

Strawman Strawman Strawman
 
 
-43 # Robt Eagle 2012-06-01 14:34
Paulrevere, look at the market today, it's a sign of how bad things are! Obama is just driving our economy into free fall. He has done absolutely nothing for the rich or the poor except destroy our economy. Wake up, he MUST be thrown out of the White House for our nation to recover. The only folks who will vote for Obama are the ones who expect more freebies. Any one with intelligence can see that Obama's policies are to destroy America. He has used his Executive Orders to undermine the Constitution, and with Eric Holder's help has done everything to ALLOW voter fraud to get Obama re-elected. If Obama gets re-elected he will surely crown himself Emperor and then usurp the Constitution completely, and he will summon the anarchists. Wake up and see the reality of his grand plan.
 
 
+18 # paulrevere 2012-06-01 14:49
I am no o fan!! But you do get mighty full of ire and verbosity about his malfeasance.

I'd posit that your take is like blaming the results of an avalanche on the rescue crew.

If anything, the man has not used his leverage from the most powerful seat of influence on the planet...he has been a go along get along, and no more.
 
 
+21 # Timaloha 2012-06-01 17:54
Yeah, let's look at the market today....it's more than double what it was when Obama took office.
 
 
+4 # forparity 2012-06-02 11:35
Actually - no it's not (assuming you're speaking of the DOW?).

The DOW is up 49% from when Obama took office.

The Dow is down 13% from it's peak in July, 2007.

It's down 9% from it's recent highs, last month.

The cycle is doing it's thing. So far all it's done this time is work it's way back up to where it's been before.

Bush had a similar issue. When he came in, the markets had crashed (9-10 months prior) - had a recession, as a result of the dot.com bubble collapse - surpluses disappeared because of that - and then the markets had a huge run, with soaring tax revenues and decreasing deficits. Then it crashed again - a worse crash, to be sure.

Looks like this recovery cycle is over - at least that seems to be the consensus of opinion these past few weeks. Only this time, it's the weakest recovery (so far) we've ever seen.

Little to work with.
 
 
+18 # Bloomington 2012-06-01 15:42
Absurd comment except for the part about not closing Gitmo which is an assault on our dignity as Americans. With that in mind what exactly was the problem with holding trials on American soil? Fear of justice or fear of some "magical power" of the accused. By the way the trials were for people "accused" of terrorism. I believe that concept of innocent until proven guilty is at the foundation of our legal system.
 
 
+13 # X Dane 2012-06-01 19:58
Bloomington. I think a lot of our countrymen forget that, the republicans refused to bring the Gitmo prisoners to American soil. A few places that showed interest in housing the prisoners were quickly shouted down, and they decided not to press the issue.

The trials also were nixed n New York. It was said that it would be too dangerous. Well....they tried the blind sheik and the other terrorists, that did the first bombing of the World Trade Center,..... in New York.... There was no problem and these nasty guys are now in super secure prisons ....for life.

As much as Obama and many others, including McCain wanted to shut Gitmo down, It simply was not possible. As stated earlier. Obama is NOT king.

It is also important to remember, that EVERYTHING Bush did,.... wars tax cuts, prescription benefits,.... the WHOLE SHEBANG, was put on the credit card, to be paid off by Obama and all of us, including our children and grandchildren.

AND TOO MANY OF OUR CITIZENS EXPECTED 8 YEARS OF MESS TO BE CLEANED UP IN THREE AND A HALF YEARS ???? with the republicans obstructing every step of the way......REALLY ....REALLY??

I used to think we Americans were fair people. I think the racist hatred of the right has blinded too many reasonable people, to what is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE.
 
 
-2 # forparity 2012-06-02 16:55
Well, I don't know, if they'd closed Gitmo, they'd be renditioning captured terrorists again. That's why Obama kept the Clinton/Bush policy of extraordinary rendition available - in case he closed it.

Actually - now since he just kills everything in sight, perhaps they'll never catch one again; it's shoot on sight - launch hellfire missiles - boom - sorry kids.
 
 
+17 # Churchlady320 2012-06-01 12:35
Not all his supporters are disappointed with the careful means by which this president has dealt with the right and the leftovers of Bush. In the compromise in the lame duck that let the high earner tax cuts stay for two years, the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities noted that it was only 14% of the agreement - the other 86% benefited middle and low-wage workers, securing the unemployment extension and many benefits. In foreign policy federal district courts terminated a great deal of the "Bush Doctrine" and over-rode abuses of civil rights as the Obama administration let those cases play out - and did NOT appeal them to the Supreme Court that would have upheld the dreadful executive power. He could NOT close Gitmo with the weak-willed Congress, but he has implemented civil and human rights changes of great significance. It is the rights, not the symbol, that matter. According to the Center for National Security Studies, Obama kept the substantive promise. That's what counts. Obama has accomplished MORE than 50-50 when all is reckoned. He deserves the credit.
 
 
-9 # cordleycoit 2012-06-01 12:42
There has not been a change in Washington. There is no practical change except healthcare and that looks doomed by the courts.
Obama will be remembered as an inept president unable to deal with a Congress of fools and knaves. He is a timid prolog for the tyrants to come. He has assumed great power (life and death over citizens)for no real reason. He is a sad refection of machine politics.
 
 
-32 # brucbaker 2012-06-01 12:47
Nothing about the CZARS .. nothing about the number of freedoms trampled upon by Prez Obama's executive orders...nothin g about Bush not have a super majority in Congress to PASS anything he wanted, and that is big reason there was so much compromise as Democrats added burdens to whatever Bush proposed. I mean ... if you REALLY want to be fair ... why LEAVE OUT SO MUCH? And the CONTINUATION to get Osama Bin Laden .. was as much LUCK as it was allowing a program in place to continue ... so enough with the celebrating on that issue. Fact is .. if you look at the real history of most of Prez Obama's accomplishments ... most of them were started under Bush/Cheney .. go figure how that got left out!
 
 
-42 # Robt Eagle 2012-06-01 14:39
As far as getting Bin Laden, Obama was a sideline President. The plan was in the works for months and the SEALs executed the mission. Obama had the head of the operation, a SEAL Admiral out to hang everything on if the mission went badly. Obama is a fraud, from the get go. When Obama takes credit for getting Bin Laden it turns my stomach. My oldest son is an officer in the SEALs and to have Obama take credit for what these guys suffer for is ludicrous. Special Operations Forces, including SEALs, Delta, Air Force FAC's, Special Forces (Green Berets), and Rangers plus CIA operatives all deserve credit...but NOT Obama for getting Bin Laden.
 
 
+14 # Timaloha 2012-06-01 18:07
Sure, you keep telling yourself that. And Eisenhower doesn't get any credit for D-Day right? Was he a "sideline" general because he didn't storm the beaches of Normandy? Obama has NEVER tried to claim credit for the raid itself. In fact, he's gone to great lengths to praise the Special Operators, CIA, and everyone else involved. But Obama and Obama alone made the decision to go. And that took great courage. Especially if you compare his actions with Bush/Cheney/Rum sfeld who lacked the courage to make the hard decision and therby let Bin Laden slip away in 2001 at Tora Bora, Afghanistan.
 
 
-15 # Noni77 2012-06-01 23:13
I've read that Obama WOULD not make the call, so Panetta and H. Clinton made it in his stead purposely waiting until he was off golfing yet again.
 
 
-3 # Anarchist 23 2012-06-04 11:54
It really is a shame Bin Laden was killed before he got to say anything on how he did it. Magicians the world over wanted to know the secret recipe for 'Fiend Fyre' used on 911 which turned purified kerosene (jet fuel) into such a substance that it exploded the towers in a vast display of pyroclastic dust exploding outward! Wow! Dead Men Tell No Tales. OSM-meet LHO!
 
 
+2 # OldRedleg 2012-06-04 15:33
Hey Anarchist

I think most of the readers are either going to pummel you or ignore you for picking at that scab. There are just too many ugly things hidden under there for them to get serious about discussing. Sort of like the missing WMDs and the real reasons why we went invaded Iraq not ever really being discussed.
 
 
+4 # walt 2012-06-01 13:30
All pretty accurate reporting.

However, the one thing the public echoed from the 2006 and 2008 elections was that they wanted an end to war. Obama failed his supporters when he increased the troops in Afghanistan. He failed them again when he did not stand firmly against the Bush tax cut showdown he had with the GOP.

And he is failing a public that wants peace when he launches drone attacks around the world and not launching a single peace initiative at all.

Sadly, the "change we can believe in" has been far too little.
 
 
+6 # Glen 2012-06-01 14:52
Agreed walt. In truth, I pretty much expected Obama to be just another chosen one, and he has pretty much followed the agenda laid out a long time ago, including expanding war, surveillance, grabbing resources, and control of territory, not to mention domestic police brutality and increasing militarization of same. There's more, but most know it if they admitted it.

It was obvious during George W.'s administration who controls the country and who runs for president. Obama is president in a different style than the rest, but the underlying agenda is the same.
 
 
-4 # Noni77 2012-06-01 23:14
The audacity of hype...
 
 
+15 # Archie1954 2012-06-01 14:01
Unfortunately I thought we had seen the last of that beedy eyed creep and his plastic wife. He souldn't be allowed out in public.
 
 
+21 # rblee 2012-06-01 16:09
RobtEagle's dark fantasy novel about a usurper who's going to "declare himself emperor" is a kick. Suppose there were no term limits and Bush, who's new portrait aptly shows his constitutional (that's physical and mental...OK, and political) weakness, got a third term. Could RobtEagle types possibly dream up a scenario where everything would now be all rosy and not fallen into the abyss? A Gothic panorama with vampires attacking the masses would be more like it. Of course, we have a blood-thirsty Count Romnula beating at the door to be let in now. We must not open it!
 
 
-10 # jimattrell 2012-06-01 16:20
It's still time for a change..... Just four years late.
 
 
+1 # Legion 2012-06-01 16:43
The earlier comment about Obama's continuing Bush's education policy and consigning public schools to "mind-numbing mediocrity" is true, but the trend toward "mind-numbing mediocrity" has been building for at least the last 160 years, since the days of Horace Mann. I would be hard put to propose any solutions to this: as long as it is in the hands of educational bureaucrats and there is a Federal department of education, expect more mediocrity! As long as secondary school teachers are required to take hours of patently nonsensical education courses in order to be certified, and salaries of public school teachers remain below par (as they have been for countless decades), you can't expect any improvement. Many of my ex-teacher friends tell me that they aren't teaching because the culprits are students who don't want to learn and administrations that prize proceudre over practicality.
 
 
+20 # hammermann 2012-06-01 16:58
Wait a minute- in his half assed equivalence scoring system. Bush pulls 2/3 of the troops out of Afghanistan, let's OBL get away, doesn't catch him in 8 years, starts a criminal diversion in Iraq, lets AQ run wild; but Obama, who kills OBL, beefs up our troops in this extremist stronghold, and takes out more terrorist leaders in 2 years than Bush did in 8... loses the comparison. Dumb.

Afghanistan now may be a sinkhole- a graveyard of empires, and we have provoked the fearsome alien immunity reaction from the fierce + primitive Afghan people (who fight for a living), but BO is playing the hand he was dealt. I say, get out within a year- we can't occupy every place bad guys arise.
 
 
+13 # eldoryder 2012-06-01 17:17
I hope people remember that it took President Bill Clinton SIX YEARS to undo the Reagan-Bush1 deficits, and put us back in surplus territory. That, too, was under the greatest peacetime expansion in our country's history.

Obama has neither the economic climate, nor the time to have completely undone the Bush Legacy financially.

But another term will probably do it! Give him that, and he may even get the chance to appoint some Supreme Court Justices, as some on the Right are getting older.

If he was given the chance to do both, then, perhaps, his Presidency will be seen as a success.
 
 
+14 # X Dane 2012-06-01 20:18
eldoryder. You put your finger on it. If Romney wins, he has said that he will give ROBERT BORK the job of choosing judges to be considered for the supreme court??

For those who may not know or remember, Bork was rejected by the senate, when he was suggested for the Supreme Court, because he was simply too reactionary.

He is so full of hate that you can bet we would get some real monsters on the court. We would see 7-2 decisions for decades to come. No chance of recourse for regular Americans.
 
 
+1 # jlstiles 2012-06-01 19:24
That picture of Obama posing buddy buddy with Bush is testament to his complicity in the program of the corporate multi-national elite. This article is complete nonsense. Workers' rights? Obama just sold out the worker with yet more free trade agreements to the dismay of the populace in both Korea and the US. Gay rights? Not an important issue worth noting in the same basket as general civil rights, war, corporate ass-kissing and banker tyranny which have destroyed the fabric of our lives. Iraq is a wash with his ramping up war in many other arenas, such as drones, afghanistan--th is is not a wash for Obama but a negative in that he has continued the Bush war policy even after Bush did it for 8 years and we were even more tired of it. Obama has abandoned any and all opportunity to stand with what america wants and that includes his healthcare bill, which will be a bust and only empower the very companies that have caused the healthcare mess. The fact Obama let Bush off the hook on his blatant crimes along with the banks is testament to the fact he is not one iota different than Bush on any issue of import. His banking regulation did nothing, zero zip and he has protected the banks at all costs, not holding one person accountable for their numerous crimes. And he still tortures, still practices rendition and still supports further erosion of our civil rights through his recent defense auth bill. More like Obama, Bush III.
 
 
+5 # Sweet Pea 2012-06-02 07:32
The film on Current TV of the Obamas and the Clintons in front of the Bilderburg headquarters immediately after Obama's inauguration said it all! We all know that government is always controlled by the wealthy. It's only a choice of the lesser of two evils. Without government-fund ed elections we are stuck with the system of control by the wealthy. Even with that system, I'm sure there are promises of future paybacks if the laws are created in the best interest of the wealthy. Most of us have heard the old saying,"Everyon e has a price." Why would government be any different?
 
 
+3 # futhark 2012-06-02 08:26
No one has ever made me more cynical about politics, has ever eroded my faith in the American political system, has ever disillusioned me about the possibility that I could have "hope" for a "change" or that we could ever achieve a society dedicated to peace, real security, liberty, and justice more than Barack Obama. While the article may be a fair inventory of his accomplishments , it cannot begin to communicate the bitterness many of his former supporters must feel at the recollection of how he pushed for extensions of the Cheney/Bush PATRIOT ACT, how he accepted the Nobel Peace prize with a speech justifying the use of militarism as an instrument of national policy, how he abandoned the public option in his medical insurance plan from the get-go in negotiating for legislation, how he has escalated the use of drones to assassinate political enemies and innocent bystanders. One could go on and on about how many of his moves have been straight out of the neocon playbook. With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

Bill Clinton pretty much drove me out of the Democratic Party, but I thought Obama might tempt me back in. However, I find myself in the wilderness of minor parties, voting for any candidate who will stand firm against militarism, corporate greed, and environmental degradation. I wish more of them would be Democrats, but I no longer use party labels as my sole guides to selecting candidates. I have voted in every election in the last 40 years.
 
 
-5 # forparity 2012-06-02 10:43
". .1. Iraq: To a large extent, it was Obama’s anti-war stance that won him the Democratic nomination. A month after taking office, he said the combat mission would end by August 31, 2010, with a transitional force of up to fifty thousand soldiers remaining in Iraq until the end of 2011 at the latest. This timetable was carried out successfully: the last U.S. combat brigades rolled into Kuwait in August, 2010, and the final members of the transitional force left on December 18th of last year, following a breakdown in negotiations about maintaining a U.S. presence."

Score one for Obama?

OK - he did keep to the agreement signed by the Bush administration, before Bush left office - The so-called "status of forces agreement."

That was something else Obama inherited. And, he did stick to the Bush timetable for pulling out the troops.

It just is, what it is.
 
 
-8 # forparity 2012-06-02 10:47
7.) Dick Cheney's daughter (one) is gay. Cheney did come out recently supporting gay marriage.

Score one for Cheney - he beat Obama to the punch.
 
 
-3 # AshamedAmerican 2012-06-02 13:41
1) Obama left Iraq on Bush's timetable only after doing everything possible to avoid leaving. And of course he left enough people there to assure that Iraq remains unstable and in ruins. He helped wreck Libya and is currently doing so to Syria. ETC. He is every bit as much a war criminal as Bush.
4) Those that wrecked the economy are wealthier than ever.
5) Our health care system is more broken than ever.
7) Does anyone really think it is good that gay people can now openly admit their sexual preference and take part in the slaughter of anyone standing in the way of increased profit, power and control of our wealthy few? If this is really progress, it is nothing compared to his signing of NDAA etc.
8) He signed three more trade agreements that will cost US workers even more jobs. Like nearly all politicians,he speaks in terms of the "unemployment rate" which indicates that he only wishes to obscure the issue. The "unemployment rate" is not indicative of the rate of unemployment. BO only cares about the numbers as they reflect on him. He doesn't give a damn about the people falling by the wayside.
The environment: Let us look at the Gulf spill. He took his daughter swimming to cover up for Big Oil there. And he has done nothing to address the Fukushima disaster waiting for another earthquake to spew radiation across the globe. BO/GB: equally enemies of the people.
 
 
-3 # forparity 2012-06-02 14:55
Tis true. Obama's response to the BP Oil Spill made Bush look like a saint. Just ask anyone on the Gulf Coast. They understood what the problem was with the Katrina response/prep, and they understood why Obama stood down as the crisis in the BP spill spread.
 
 
+5 # RMDC 2012-06-03 07:54
This article misses the point. The Bush family is one of a very few families who run the CIA. In fact, the headquarters of the CIA is officially named "The George Bush Center for Intelligence." Prescott Bush was in on the founding of the CIA.

Obama is a CIA asset. He was recruited at Columbia Univ., trained in Business International Corporation. Both of this parents were CIA. His career has been promoted and developed by the CIA.

So it is not "score one for Bush" or "score one for Obama." It is score all for the CIA.

The CIA does not get 100% of what it wants. It has to work at its agenda as "Capitalism's Invisible Army." But in the last 24 years of CIA presidents -- Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama -- the CIA has gotten its way about 90% of the time.

The US needs a real regime change, one that totally throws the CIA out of power. I am afraid this will not come via the ballot box. It will come only after a complete economic collapse or a real revolution.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN