On the domestic front the Bush administration calls outsourcing of jobs globalization of the economy and states that it is positive for American trade. Manufacturing jobs are replaced with lower paying jobs. Tell me again why Bush is a great President?

One word....No.

Dr. Guy is absolutely right.

I can't remember the name of the study right now, but a group of statisticians once compiled a list of all the variables that they used to measure the "greatness" of an American president. On this list, FDR and Lincoln both ranked very near the top, Reagan was ranked as good to great, and Clinton came in just average.

What Bush has now is an oppurtunity to become at least as great a President as Teddy Roosevelt (who also ranked very high). The world right now is in a state of tremondous flux, and the world does need strong leadership to get through it, and at the present moment in time, America is the only entity that can provide the strong leadership needed.

Now Bush does have the character traits necessary to become a strong leader. In the past though, he has mainly channeled his strengths toward only one group of Americans. Let us hope that in his second term he channels those strengths toward all Americans and the world as well.

Roosevelt won WW2. If Iraq becomes another Vietnam, he could be remebered as one of the worst Presidents in history. And so far it looks like he is going about the whole war on terror wrong.

Which just proves my point. Check out the press reports of 1946 where they decried the fact we were losing the peace and the people. Yet today, does anyone even given short shrift to that yellow journalism?

many site the yellow journalism of today to justify their hatred of the current president and his failures. in 60 years, what will be said?

We will not judge Bush as great or bad. Our children's children will.

Great presidents dont do what you want.  They do what is needed at the time it is needed that corrects a great problem.  Clintonistas would call that luck since he was never tested in office and will be looked at a mediocre to bad president.  Reagan had the opportunity and took it.

Great presidents do not worry about tax reform (your precious loopholes that must be saved are not the same as mine).  But they do handle great domsestic or international issues with the right solution at the right time.

I dare say that many anti-bush people of today would be are are anti-Roosevelt people of 1941.  But such is the price that great leaders must bear.  history will decide their greatness, not polls or any tests that we put to them.  And History will not be influenced by any of the nastiness that goes on today.  That is why we dont judge current or recent presidents as great. There are still too many people with chips on their shoulders.

And they'll still be paying of the interest from his debt

That has been said since our grand and great grand parents.  Are we paying for Mr Roosevelts debts?  Would you roll back the great society, and our contributions in WWII?  WOuld you say he was a bad president because of the debts he rolled up? (which in current dollars is higher)

See what I mean?  Another chip keeper.

Yes, thank God the problem of not being attacked by Iraq was handled so correctly. I mean, not only do we not capture the guy that took down our towers, we send troops to not capture him with insufficient equipment. We then tell them that "that's the army we have, so tough, we can use you for whatever we want, regardless of how little or undesirable your hardware is." Yeah, Bush should have a statue.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and forgotten as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.  I guess you, being Karnac, have all the answers, but for the rest of man kind, I guess we will have to muddle through just being human.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and forgotten as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Not forgotten enough to be ignored apparantly.

One does not have to be Karnac to know that when Bobby punches you, you don't hit Billy back for it.

Flinging oneself blindly into an unnecessary war that one's resources are not prepared to handle is an argument against

That is your Karnac again,as you simply dont know, but must presume to know.  Like I said, read the reports from 1946, and then tell me this in another 30 years.  WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.  We could have let Europe go to the Nazis, and ceded the western pacific to the japanese.  Why should we risk our lives for such insiginificant things?

Why?  for the reason I stated, and you fail to comprehend.  Neither you nor I will judge Bush, but the future will.,  I care not of your opinionated assessment.  It matters not since it has no basis in facts, just your opinion.

sure, the greatest president in history killed thousands of innocent iraqis and americans, went to iraq for something that didnt even exist, declared mission accomplished when we hadn't even accomplished our mission, is still there even a year after declaring mission accomplished, ruined the environment, created a huge budget deficit, caused the dollar's value to plunge, lost jobs, won't admit he's wrong, has two whole 365 day calendars of stupid things he's said, choked on a pretzel, fell off a segway, didnt catch osama when he had no way of escape, and sat in a 1st grade classroom reading "the little white goat" while he knew that two planes were hitting the world trade centers?

Again, you dont know this. That is your opinion. And you are welcome to it. But since you dont know, you must love being wrong. I dont say I know. So I cant be said to be wrong.

Not my assumption, there were no troops available to serve as a police force in the conquered territories. Looting was rampant and led directly to popularization of the insurgency.

WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.

So now Pearl Harbor never happened? Man you're good at this revisionist history. Japan never threatened us but Iraq did.

Please show me where I said Pearl Harbor never happened. It slipped my mind that I would ever say that. Also, show me where I said Japan never threatened us. I missed that statement as well.

WWII was unnessary as well since we were not directly threatened.

There you go