The Bush Thread

[Prison Mike]

I'm truly interested in seeing what President Bush says in his memoirs. I think I will go out and get it when it comes out Tuesday.

 

[hippie_hunter]

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/05/former_president_bush_i_wont_bash_obama.html

 

[Prison Mike]

That's classy.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Indeed. Oprah seemed less than enthusiastic.

 

[Gamma Ray]

It's kind of comforting seeing Bush in the news again.

 

[Hobgoblin]

It's kind of comforting seeing Bush in the news again.

I dont know about that but it was a nice gesture to Obama.

 

[chaseter]

Bush's approval is percentage is steadily rising. It is up in the 40s now.

 

[Carcharodon]

I personally think the best place for Clinton however, would be as a diplomat, maybe to the UN. Clinton has always been great with foreign relations. I think he could do a lot of good in a diplomatic position.

He reminds me of Benjamin Franklin in that way, honestly.

 

[DACrowe]

I watched Bush's interview with Matt Lauer. It was a pretty even-handed and interesting interview. I feel he made a strong case, or at least documentation, of his decisions throughout his presidency.

Things that crossed my mind while I was watching this was how much promise and potential he displayed in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11. His speech at Ground Zero the week of the attack was truly moving as was his recollection of it. Oh, I find he squandered almost all of it on Iraq. And that in itself is a tragedy.

Another thing I noticed is there were not enough follow-up questions. But when they occurred, President Bush would usually find a way to walk around them. I do not think his young Administration could have prevented 9/11. However, he claims there was no intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to fly planes into buildings. This is untrue, as at the very least Condolezza Rice received a report from Richard Clarke that detailed just that.

However, when Lauer did bring up interesting points, such as how would Bush react to a foreign nation waterboarding American citizens, the president would refuse to answer the question and instead fell back on "I kept America safe." He also used that to justify Iraq. The follow up to that obviously would be, could America have been kept safe without invading Iraq?

On the Iraq invasion itself, he skirted around Cheney's influence in the lead-in to war. Fair enough. He certainly marginalized Cheney in the second term, so he has proven he is his own president. However, I suspect that necessity arose from Cheney pressuring Bush with terrible advice in regards to Iraq.

The most telling point of the interview for me came when Lauer, in so many words, asked the president if he knew now what he knew in 2002/3 about Iraq's involvement with WMDs, would he have invaded. Bush absolutely did not answer the question. I expected, "A yes, because Saddam was a dictator." He did bring up Saddam was a dictator and that million of Iraqis have freedom today. But he would not say "Yes." Which to me, means the answer is no. And I think as much as he talks about his other "accomplishments," that will define his presidency to history.

I will credit him for the surge which I did not support. Replacing Rumsfeld with Gates (which he honestly should have done after abu Grhaib as that was an international disaster and Rumsfeld had successfully mismanaged both wars to near defeat ) and trying out Petraeus's COIN strategy in the surge was a gamble that paid off. Iraq may not be a major victory, but he prevented the war ending in total defeat and waste with that decision.

He also made a great argument for TARP. I loathe that it was necessary, and I feel that some strings should have been attached in relation to bonuses and lending practices...but as President Bush said, he had to break the free market to save the free market. However, his inability to see how the deregulatory policies of his Administration (and the previous three before him, going back to Reagan) contributed to the culture of greed on Wall Street and enabled this disaster is disheartening. If he can see the necessity of TARP, surely he should see the ned for derivative regulation and a separation between investment and commercial banking? If more Republicans thought like that, we could have really put in laws to prevent another 2008 (as FDR and the Democrats made sure in 1932-1934 that 1929 would never happen again). Instead, we must make do with laws that make a collapse less likely...but are still totally unprepared if it does happen again.

And I think he made a very empathetic argument on Katrina. In the five years since that tragedy, I do see his point of view and the failings more and more of the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans. President Bush deserves some of the responsibility, FEMA most espeically. But "George Bush doesn't care about black people" and the hatred that came for him was merely his critics finding a perceived reason to get the whole country to hate Bush. His greatest blunders are Iraq, treatment of our allies, and the use of torture. Katrina he was found inadequate, but so was the whole of the Federal and State system, with more blame falling on the state and local government.

With that said, I am sure the MSNBC talking point tomorrow will be when Bush again stated that being insulted by Kanye West was the lowest point of his presidency. When Lauer asked, what about the suffering in the Gulf, Bush replied, "Oh that deeply affected me as well." I don't think it is going to be a fair criticism that "Oh, look how out of touch that comment is," but the hyper-echo chamber of cable news/the Internet is going to rip those choice of words to shreds. Again though, seeing how the Republicans descended on Obama over the Gulf Oil Spill out of context this summer makes me understand more what happened to this presidency in 2005. Albeit, I find Bush's response wholly more inadequate. Neither was the cause or greatest failing in response, however.

....

Anyway, those were my thought. I may read his book. But I feel it will be a more in-depth study of those decisions covered in this interview. A fascinating look inside the man's head. With that said, I still consider him a bad president and that history will decide if he was one of the absolute worst, or just "bottom 10." But studying the men who for 4-8 years were the leaders of the world is always interesting and earns them all some empathy....and more scorn, as well.

 

[Ghostvirus]

The Matt Lauer interviews was interesting. It is always nice to see Bush unhendered by politics.

Just reserved his book. Should be an interesting read.

 

[Matt]

I watched Bush's interview with Matt Lauer. It was a pretty even-handed and interesting interview. I feel he made a strong case, or at least documentation, of his decisions throughout his presidency.

Things that crossed my mind while I was watching this was how much promise and potential he displayed in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11. His speech at Ground Zero the week of the attack was truly moving as was his recollection of it. Oh, I find he squandered almost all of it on Iraq. And that in itself is a tragedy.

Another thing I noticed is there were not enough follow-up questions. But when they occurred, President Bush would usually find a way to walk around them. I do not think his young Administration could have prevented 9/11. However, he claims there was no intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to fly planes into buildings. This is untrue, as at the very least Condolezza Rice received a report from Richard Clarke that detailed just that.

However, when Lauer did bring up interesting points, such as how would Bush react to a foreign nation waterboarding American citizens, the president would refuse to answer the question and instead fell back on "I kept America safe." He also used that to justify Iraq. The follow up to that obviously would be, could America have been kept safe without invading Iraq?

On the Iraq invasion itself, he skirted around Cheney's influence in the lead-in to war. Fair enough. He certainly marginalized Cheney in the second term, so he has proven he is his own president. However, I suspect that necessity arose from Cheney pressuring Bush with terrible advice in regards to Iraq.

The most telling point of the interview for me came when Lauer, in so many words, asked the president if he knew now what he knew in 2002/3 about Iraq's involvement with WMDs, would he have invaded. Bush absolutely did not answer the question. I expected, "A yes, because Saddam was a dictator." He did bring up Saddam was a dictator and that million of Iraqis have freedom today. But he would not say "Yes." Which to me, means the answer is no. And I think as much as he talks about his other "accomplishments," that will define his presidency to history.

I will credit him for the surge which I did not support. Replacing Rumsfeld with Gates (which he honestly should have done after abu Grhaib as that was an international disaster and Rumsfeld had successfully mismanaged both wars to near defeat ) and trying out Petraeus's COIN strategy in the surge was a gamble that paid off. Iraq may not be a major victory, but he prevented the war ending in total defeat and waste with that decision.

He also made a great argument for TARP. I loathe that it was necessary, and I feel that some strings should have been attached in relation to bonuses and lending practices...but as President Bush said, he had to break the free market to save the free market. However, his inability to see how the deregulatory policies of his Administration (and the previous three before him, going back to Reagan) contributed to the culture of greed on Wall Street and enabled this disaster is disheartening. If he can see the necessity of TARP, surely he should see the ned for derivative regulation and a separation between investment and commercial banking? If more Republicans thought like that, we could have really put in laws to prevent another 2008 (as FDR and the Democrats made sure in 1932-1934 that 1929 would never happen again). Instead, we must make do with laws that make a collapse less likely...but are still totally unprepared if it does happen again.

And I think he made a very empathetic argument on Katrina. In the five years since that tragedy, I do see his point of view and the failings more and more of the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans. President Bush deserves some of the responsibility, FEMA most espeically. But "George Bush doesn't care about black people" and the hatred that came for him was merely his critics finding a perceived reason to get the whole country to hate Bush. His greatest blunders are Iraq, treatment of our allies, and the use of torture. Katrina he was found inadequate, but so was the whole of the Federal and State system, with more blame falling on the state and local government.

With that said, I am sure the MSNBC talking point tomorrow will be when Bush again stated that being insulted by Kanye West was the lowest point of his presidency. When Lauer asked, what about the suffering in the Gulf, Bush replied, "Oh that deeply affected me as well." I don't think it is going to be a fair criticism that "Oh, look how out of touch that comment is," but the hyper-echo chamber of cable news/the Internet is going to rip those choice of words to shreds. Again though, seeing how the Republicans descended on Obama over the Gulf Oil Spill out of context this summer makes me understand more what happened to this presidency in 2005. Albeit, I find Bush's response wholly more inadequate. Neither was the cause or greatest failing in response, however.

....

Anyway, those were my thought. I may read his book. But I feel it will be a more in-depth study of those decisions covered in this interview. A fascinating look inside the man's head. With that said, I still consider him a bad president and that history will decide if he was one of the absolute worst, or just "bottom 10." But studying the men who for 4-8 years were the leaders of the world is always interesting and earns them all some empathy....and more scorn, as well.

I see Bush as a fundamentally good, yet ultimately arrogant and out of touch man who took very bad advice from advisors who are not good (particularly Rove, Rice, and Rumsfeld. I think that Cheney's influence is overestimated). His arrogance and being out of touch made him easy to manipulate. That said, I think 2005-2006, is when his presidency started to catch up with him, and he really began to see what people thought of him (I'm guessing the 2004 and 2006 campaigns really showed him this) as well as when the Iraqi War really started to get out of hand. I think that was a very humbling experience for Bush and resulted in his far more somber, down to Earth, last two years and post-presidency.

 

[Kelly]

Bush's approval is percentage is steadily rising. It is up in the 40s now.

That happens every time they come out with their books....and usually stays up there, only Carter can manage to **** on his retirement.

 

[Kelly]

I see Bush as a fundamentally good, yet ultimately arrogant and out of touch man who took very bad advice from advisors who are not good (particularly Rove, Rice, and Rumsfeld. I think that Cheney's influence is overestimated). His arrogance and being out of touch made him easy to manipulate. That said, I think 2005-2006, is when his presidency started to catch up with him, and he really began to see what people thought of him (I'm guessing the 2004 and 2006 campaigns really showed him this) as well as when the Iraqi War really started to get out of hand. I think that was a very humbling experience for Bush and resulted in his far more somber, down to Earth, last two years and post-presidency.

I agree with the good, and taking bad advise, I don't agree with the arrogant and out of touch. I had the chance to talk with him as governor of Texas, and one thing that was very evident is that he listens (so out of touch, doesn't seem to resonate with me), BUT, he listened to the wrong people. Arrogant? I have never gotten that vibe from him. I have spoken with other Texas governors in the past, our present one included.....PERRY IS AN ARROGANT MAN, OUT OF TOUCH AND LISTENS TO NO ONE......Bush is nothing like him. I also see Obama as a good man, but arrogant, out of touch, and listens to someone....not sure who, but I wish he would stop.

 

[Kelly]

I watched Bush's interview with Matt Lauer. It was a pretty even-handed and interesting interview. I feel he made a strong case, or at least documentation, of his decisions throughout his presidency.

Things that crossed my mind while I was watching this was how much promise and potential he displayed in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11. His speech at Ground Zero the week of the attack was truly moving as was his recollection of it. Oh, I find he squandered almost all of it on Iraq. And that in itself is a tragedy.

Another thing I noticed is there were not enough follow-up questions. But when they occurred, President Bush would usually find a way to walk around them. I do not think his young Administration could have prevented 9/11. However, he claims there was no intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to fly planes into buildings. This is untrue, as at the very least Condolezza Rice received a report from Richard Clarke that detailed just that.

However, when Lauer did bring up interesting points, such as how would Bush react to a foreign nation waterboarding American citizens, the president would refuse to answer the question and instead fell back on "I kept America safe." He also used that to justify Iraq. The follow up to that obviously would be, could America have been kept safe without invading Iraq?

On the Iraq invasion itself, he skirted around Cheney's influence in the lead-in to war. Fair enough. He certainly marginalized Cheney in the second term, so he has proven he is his own president. However, I suspect that necessity arose from Cheney pressuring Bush with terrible advice in regards to Iraq.

The most telling point of the interview for me came when Lauer, in so many words, asked the president if he knew now what he knew in 2002/3 about Iraq's involvement with WMDs, would he have invaded. Bush absolutely did not answer the question. I expected, "A yes, because Saddam was a dictator." He did bring up Saddam was a dictator and that million of Iraqis have freedom today. But he would not say "Yes." Which to me, means the answer is no. And I think as much as he talks about his other "accomplishments," that will define his presidency to history.

I will credit him for the surge which I did not support. Replacing Rumsfeld with Gates (which he honestly should have done after abu Grhaib as that was an international disaster and Rumsfeld had successfully mismanaged both wars to near defeat ) and trying out Petraeus's COIN strategy in the surge was a gamble that paid off. Iraq may not be a major victory, but he prevented the war ending in total defeat and waste with that decision.

He also made a great argument for TARP. I loathe that it was necessary, and I feel that some strings should have been attached in relation to bonuses and lending practices...but as President Bush said, he had to break the free market to save the free market. However, his inability to see how the deregulatory policies of his Administration (and the previous three before him, going back to Reagan) contributed to the culture of greed on Wall Street and enabled this disaster is disheartening. If he can see the necessity of TARP, surely he should see the ned for derivative regulation and a separation between investment and commercial banking? If more Republicans thought like that, we could have really put in laws to prevent another 2008 (as FDR and the Democrats made sure in 1932-1934 that 1929 would never happen again). Instead, we must make do with laws that make a collapse less likely...but are still totally unprepared if it does happen again.

And I think he made a very empathetic argument on Katrina. In the five years since that tragedy, I do see his point of view and the failings more and more of the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans. President Bush deserves some of the responsibility, FEMA most espeically. But "George Bush doesn't care about black people" and the hatred that came for him was merely his critics finding a perceived reason to get the whole country to hate Bush. His greatest blunders are Iraq, treatment of our allies, and the use of torture. Katrina he was found inadequate, but so was the whole of the Federal and State system, with more blame falling on the state and local government.

With that said, I am sure the MSNBC talking point tomorrow will be when Bush again stated that being insulted by Kanye West was the lowest point of his presidency. When Lauer asked, what about the suffering in the Gulf, Bush replied, "Oh that deeply affected me as well." I don't think it is going to be a fair criticism that "Oh, look how out of touch that comment is," but the hyper-echo chamber of cable news/the Internet is going to rip those choice of words to shreds. Again though, seeing how the Republicans descended on Obama over the Gulf Oil Spill out of context this summer makes me understand more what happened to this presidency in 2005. Albeit, I find Bush's response wholly more inadequate. Neither was the cause or greatest failing in response, however.

....

Anyway, those were my thought. I may read his book. But I feel it will be a more in-depth study of those decisions covered in this interview. A fascinating look inside the man's head. With that said, I still consider him a bad president and that history will decide if he was one of the absolute worst, or just "bottom 10." But studying the men who for 4-8 years were the leaders of the world is always interesting and earns them all some empathy....and more scorn, as well.

Damn good read D.A.

My only thing to comment on is the waterboarding...

It is such a hard, hard debate....

As most no on here I am very much against war, that is the one thing that I have very little patience for.... so waterboarding really fits right into that way of thinking. BUT, if someone in my family, were in danger....and the only way I could get information to help keep them safe was to waterboard someone that had already shown an immense amount of violence toward them? Oh hell yeah, I'd be pouring the water.....

That is just a tough, tough....BUT GOOD......question.

 

[Prison Mike]

My favorite part of the interview was at the end when Lauer asked President Bush if his administration will be considered a success or a failure in the future. President Bush's response was basically, (I'm paraphrasing here) "I'll be dead by the time they consider it as a success or failure". I loved that part. I will definitely pick up his book and read it.

 

[Matt]

I agree with the good, and taking bad advise, I don't agree with the arrogant and out of touch. I had the chance to talk with him as governor of Texas, and one thing that was very evident is that he listens (so out of touch, doesn't seem to resonate with me), BUT, he listened to the wrong people. Arrogant? I have never gotten that vibe from him. I have spoken with other Texas governors in the past, our present one included.....PERRY IS AN ARROGANT MAN, OUT OF TOUCH AND LISTENS TO NO ONE......Bush is nothing like him. I also see Obama as a good man, but arrogant, out of touch, and listens to someone....not sure who, but I wish he would stop.

I dunno, I draw back to things like him calling a reporter who questioned him a "major league *******," (without realizing the mic was on), saying things like "I can't think of one thing I did wrong as president," etc. That leads me to the arrogant conclusion.

 

[Matt]

Damn good read D.A.

My only thing to comment on is the waterboarding...

It is such a hard, hard debate....

As most no on here I am very much against war, that is the one thing that I have very little patience for.... so waterboarding really fits right into that way of thinking. BUT, if someone in my family, were in danger....and the only way I could get information to help keep them safe was to waterboard someone that had already shown an immense amount of violence toward them? Oh hell yeah, I'd be pouring the water.....

That is just a tough, tough....BUT GOOD......question.

I don't consider waterboarding torture. It is the simulation of drowning. Lets put that in comparrison to some REAL torture methods (nails being driven under finger and toe nails, the Judas cradle, etc). I just don't see how one can hold waterboarding in league with REAL torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques is a better term. Now should enhanced interrogation be considered legal? That's a whole different question.

 

[Prison Mike]

What is the Judas Cradle?

 

[DACrowe]

I see Bush as a fundamentally good, yet ultimately arrogant and out of touch man who took very bad advice from advisors who are not good (particularly Rove, Rice, and Rumsfeld. I think that Cheney's influence is overestimated). His arrogance and being out of touch made him easy to manipulate. That said, I think 2005-2006, is when his presidency started to catch up with him, and he really began to see what people thought of him (I'm guessing the 2004 and 2006 campaigns really showed him this) as well as when the Iraqi War really started to get out of hand. I think that was a very humbling experience for Bush and resulted in his far more somber, down to Earth, last two years and post-presidency.

He does seem a bit humbled. And I understand he needs to defend his legacy and decisions. But his inability to answer questions about would it be acceptable for other countries to waterboard US citizens or if he would have invaded knowing there were no WMDs tells me he cannot reconcile his principles with what he did.

I think he was a very likable and narrow-minded man who came into power thinking the dogma he was taught about America, government's duty, God, and "good vs. evil" was all he needed to know. He assumed it was divine providence that he was president (he has said as much), so surely as America is all good, the Good Lord would not allow him to make terrible decisions.

His intellectual incuriosity allowed him to be manipulated by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney. Rove's job was to spin whatever Bush did and get him reelected and Rove was a master at that (if dirty and sleazy in the means to that end, so be it). The ones beating the war drum were Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Rice was too sychophantic in the first two years (at least according to Woodward's books) to oppose the neocons that had Bush's ear. That changed in the second term where she was a much closer counsel to the president than the marginalized VP.

In any case, he ignored the caution and skepticism of Powell and threw his lot in the idea of nation building and that everyone would love democracy. Rumsfeld promised a small war that would be over in a year with less than a thousand casualties. And no matter how much Bush can talk about the success of the surge four years later, the war led to over 4,000 dead Americans, over $1 trillion in deficit spending, our international image shattered for the ensuing decade, and a weakening of foreign clout when other crises have since arisen (Darfur, Iran, etc.).

And no matter what that is his ultimate legacy. I can like the man and understand the pressure he was under after 9/11, but he still goes down as a bad president and he will not have some historical vindication like Harry Truman did. And he still seems unable to come to grips with that.

 

[DACrowe]

Damn good read D.A.

My only thing to comment on is the waterboarding...

It is such a hard, hard debate....

As most no on here I am very much against war, that is the one thing that I have very little patience for.... so waterboarding really fits right into that way of thinking. BUT, if someone in my family, were in danger....and the only way I could get information to help keep them safe was to waterboard someone that had already shown an immense amount of violence toward them? Oh hell yeah, I'd be pouring the water.....

That is just a tough, tough....BUT GOOD......question.

Thanks!

On the issue of waterboarding, I think we really should not torture. If it was a 24-type situation and a nuclear bomb was about to go off or some type of major terrorist attack, I believe the government, more specifically branches like the CIA, NSA, etc., may bend the rules out of emergency.

but to regularly torture prisoners for information? I'm sure some intel was obtained but I have to ask could we not have gotten that information without betraying our founding principles?

 

[DACrowe]

I don't consider waterboarding torture. It is the simulation of drowning. Lets put that in comparrison to some REAL torture methods (nails being driven under finger and toe nails, the Judas cradle, etc). I just don't see how one can hold waterboarding in league with REAL torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques is a better term. Now should enhanced interrogation be considered legal? That's a whole different question.

But is it, "cruel and unusual." Would we allow it to be done to our own citizens?

Look at it this way, after WWII ended, we executed Japanese officers who had waterboarded American prisoners. That to me sets a pretty strong precedent.

 

[Kelly]

Thanks!

On the issue of waterboarding, I think we really should not torture. If it was a 24-type situation and a nuclear bomb was about to go off or some type of major terrorist attack, I believe the government, more specifically branches like the CIA, NSA, etc., may bend the rules out of emergency.

but to regularly torture prisoners for information? I'm sure some intel was obtained but I have to ask could we not have gotten that information without betraying our founding principles?

I totally agree, but I have to be honest that if I were put into the situation that I posed....well................

I think Presidents have a HUGE burden to live with.....and I think the reason that Obama has kind of swept this under the rug, is the fact that he is living that reality.

 

[Kelly]

Whoa Kelly...... it is "know" not "no"....

don't mind me, I'm talking to myself...

 

[Matt]

He does seem a bit humbled. And I understand he needs to defend his legacy and decisions. But his inability to answer questions about would it be acceptable for other countries to waterboard US citizens or if he would have invaded knowing there were no WMDs tells me he cannot reconcile his principles with what he did.

I think he was a very likable and narrow-minded man who came into power thinking the dogma he was taught about America, government's duty, God, and "good vs. evil" was all he needed to know. He assumed it was divine providence that he was president (he has said as much), so surely as America is all good, the Good Lord would not allow him to make terrible decisions.

His intellectual incuriosity allowed him to be manipulated by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney. Rove's job was to spin whatever Bush did and get him reelected and Rove was a master at that (if dirty and sleazy in the means to that end, so be it). The ones beating the war drum were Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Rice was too sychophantic in the first two years (at least according to Woodward's books) to oppose the neocons that had Bush's ear. That changed in the second term where she was a much closer counsel to the president than the marginalized VP.

In any case, he ignored the caution and skepticism of Powell and threw his lot in the idea of nation building and that everyone would love democracy. Rumsfeld promised a small war that would be over in a year with less than a thousand casualties. And no matter how much Bush can talk about the success of the surge four years later, the war led to over 4,000 dead Americans, over $1 trillion in deficit spending, our international image shattered for the ensuing decade, and a weakening of foreign clout when other crises have since arisen (Darfur, Iran, etc.).

And no matter what that is his ultimate legacy. I can like the man and understand the pressure he was under after 9/11, but he still goes down as a bad president and he will not have some historical vindication like Harry Truman did. And he still seems unable to come to grips with that.

I agree. If by some miracle Iraq turns out to be a successful democracy that sets a precedent for the Middle East reigion and heralds in democracy, I think Bush's legacy may be saved. That said, I'm really not holding my breath for this:



As for Cheney, the reason I am unwilling to believe he was one of the mastermind's of Bush's poor decisions is simple. It doesn't fit Dick Cheney. Study Cheney's career prior to the vice-presidency. He was one of the driving forces behind H.W.'s choice not to occupy Iraq and remove Saddam's regime in the first Gulf War. Cheney is a smart man, from a foreign policy and military perspective. I just have a very hard time believing that he masterminded all of this stuff that so greatly contradicts everything that Cheney did in his career leading up to the vice-presidency. I think Cheney realized his role as front man was to take pressure off of Bush and thus created this persona of an evil genius mastermind who pulled all of Bush's strings.

 

[Kelly]

I think Rumsfeld was the one that gave the worst advice IMO....he was a ****ing idiot.