Why is Bush's biggest failure touted as an accomplishment?

It is an old trick in argument.

What you do is you present your biggest vunerablity like it is your biggest strength. You can fool some of the people some of the time by doing this.

If you just keep repeating the lie long enough and loud enough you can convince nineteen percent of the people of the lie all the time.

There is nineteen percent of the population that will never catch on to this kind of tricky.

You can read more about this technique and others on: www.karlrovesiteofdirtytricks.gov

wwwtrickchanery.com

www.foolmeocneiamfooledfoolmetwiceandiuhuhuh.gov

www.bushits.com

www.shaunbillrush.ent

I think Bush's biggest accomplishment will be going down as the worst president in history, and he still stands a very good chance of winning the lowest approval ratings of any president. Bush's biggest failure...the lies and manipulation of intelligence to take us into war, which has depleted our military, weakened our dollar and hurt our economy. Al Qeada is stronger then before 9/11 and still sits unchecked in the mountains of Pakistan. If a serial killer had murdered over 4,000 young white girls, America would be demanding his capture, yet Bin Laden still remains free.

I get what you are saying but the 9/11 attacks would have happened even if Bush was not in office at that time. They were planned out long before Bush got in office and I do not think it matters who was in it would have still occurred. I think Bush has done a fair job of preventing further attacks but Washington still fails to take the threat as real. If they were serious about protecting America we would not be arguing the issue of border security. In all fairness to Bush the pacifism from the Clinton era did not help matters. Was Bush Admin sleeping at the wheel? maybe but one would think 9/11 should have awaken all Americans to the fact that there are people out there that wish to see us dead. Why is it still so easy for them to enter the country?

"It amazes me that Bush miscues failed to avert the 9/11 disaster and yet the fact that he hasn't messed up that badly again is a repeated Bush high point on YA by his supporters."

The Democrats would have failed to avert 9/11 as well. Our country had never faced a terrorist attack of that scale since Pearl Harbour. Not even the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center came close.

The fact that we have had no more terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11 is clear evidence that internal security and terrorist prevention within our own soil are working. I'm not a Bush supporter but I give him full credit in this matter.

well you have to remember, war often carries a a brutal hypocrisy. the politics and yes the plain hypocrisy to it. dealing with terrorism is a very tricky deal. and if not done right can really **** you over. regardless the fact the patriot act was in development before 9/11 conformation was key in this part on the war on terror. I think the main concern with this issue is that the public as a whole all thought that there would be no strings attached during the invasion of iraq and Afghanistan that we could hop to one unstable country to the next with ease. and that we would see limited Resistance from the islamic militants because of their considered primitive tactics. now yes we could of averted 9/11 and then have to deal with the repercussions from them making the government look like more of a circus. take note the over throw of the leader of iran before the shan. it has been 40 years before we have dealt with an urgency like that of the magnitude of the radical jihadist's. none of our leaders other than in the post invasion of iraq have been in vietnam and most of these people leading the security council dont have any experience in combat. so yes unfortunately president bush went through many leaders. dealing with this problem takes time, with the american public didn't want to be patient with. and yes this war isn't and still wont be over. all I can say is that he tried his best.

Well, I'm a paid operative of the Bush Adminstration, so my response is correct -- that's a strength. Personally, though, I'd say it's political double-speak.

Edit: Oh **** -- I can hear a helicoptor landing outside --

The only domestic terrorist attack on US soil that I'm aware of is 9/11.

Now on the other hand, on Clinton's watch, the WTC basement was blown up in a failed attempt to take the twin towers down.

Then some really insane guy blew up the Alfred P. Murrow building in Oklahoma.

Then there was Ruby Ridge.

Yeah and I forgot, then there was that Waco Whacko thing with David Koresh.

Oh yeah, and there was Elian Gonzalez.

There was the USS Cole. Though it happened overseas under international law, a ship is sovereign territory belonging to the nation whose flag it flies, so yeah that one counts.

Then there were the attacks on the US Embassies.

The Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.

Need I say more? The list really goes on dude. I mean the worst that happened with Bush was 9/11. Had it never occurred, his presidency would have been relatively speaking, unremarkable.

The tax cuts that produced a very short period of very moderate growth at the expense of trillions in accumulated deficits before we entered the second recession of the Bush administration, likely the worst in a generation.

Bush was only in office for a brief period of time when the 9/11 attacks took place. The 9/11 attack should be blamed on Clinton, who had the opportunity to take Osama Bin Laden out but Clinton refused to give the military permission.

Bush's remarkable policy decisions averted many terrorist attacks. He gave law enforcement agencies the power and tools they need to stop terrorists before their plans come to fruition.

I think we should look at it like: The worst terrorist attack in U.S. history happened on George Bush's watch.