Jump to content

Criticism of George W. Bush: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m This is a Redirect page
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[Public image of George W. Bush]]
{{underconstruction|date=March 2009}}
{{r unprintworthy}}
{{Mergeto|Public perception of George W. Bush|Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush#Criticism merge|date=March 2009}}
{{POV|date=March 2009}}
[[Image:Stop bush dublin rally.JPG|thumb|right|250px|A poster for a June 25, 2008 anti-[[George W. Bush]] rally in [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]].]]

'''[[George W. Bush]]''', the 43rd [[President of the United States|President]] of the [[United States]], drew significant domestic and international [[critic]]ism throughout his presidency. [[Public perception of George W. Bush|His level of popular support]] declined from 90 percent (the highest ever recorded by [[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]])<ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html|accessdate=2007-11-28|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=July 10, 2007|title=USAT/Gallup Poll: Bush approval at new low; Republican support eroding}}</ref> immediately after the September 11, 2001 [[September 11, 2001 attacks|attacks]] to 25 percent <ref>
{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/110980/Bush-Job-Approval-25-Lowest-Yet.aspx|title=Bush Job Approval Lowest Yet|date=2008-10-08|accessdate=2009-02-24|publisher=Gallup.com}}</ref> the lowest level for any sitting President in 35 years, rivaling [[Richard Nixon]]'s unpopularity at the time of the [[Watergate scandal]] and his subsequent resignation.

His opponents have criticized his way of fighting the [[War on Terrorism]], his support for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]], among many other acts and issues along the way, and there was even a small-scale [[Movement to impeach George W. Bush|movement to impeach him]]. Former President [[Jimmy Carter]] has called Bush's presidency "the worst in history",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.komotv.com/news/national/7592052.html|title=Carter: Bush's presidency has been 'worst in history'|date=2007-05-19|accessdate=2007-06-12|publisher=KomoTV}}</ref> although he later said that comment was "careless or misinterpreted," and that he "wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history, but just with President Nixon's."<ref>"[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/21/carter.bush.ap/index.html Carter: Anti-Bush remarks 'careless or misinterpreted']", Associated Press, May 21, 2007. Retrieved May 21, 2007</ref> According to an August 2008 poll, 41% of Americans consider Bush to be the worst President of all time, though 50% of Americans disagreed.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/41_say_bush_worst_president_ever_50_disagree</ref>
==Criticisms of administration==
===Foreign policy and national defense===
====Al-Qaeda====
At a [[press conference]] held on July 2007, Bush denied a United States [[National Counterterrorism Center]] report that stated that al-Qaeda has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294526.stm
|title=US concern at al-Qaeda strength
|publisher=BBC News
|date=July 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-07-13
}}</ref> Bush said that was "simply not the case."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6896248.stm
|title=Bush denies al-Qaeda has renewed
|publisher=BBC News
|date=July 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-07-13
}}</ref>

He has also received criticism for publicly using phrases like "bring it on" and "wanted dead or alive," both regarding terrorists. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., called the president's language "irresponsible and inciteful". "I am shaking my head in disbelief," Lautenberg said. "When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander — let alone the commander in chief — invite enemies to attack U.S. troops."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm USA Today, 2003-07-02]</ref> The Iraqi Resistance group known as the "Islamic Jihad Army" put out a video that stated "George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Inauguration/story?id=406639&page=1 ABC News]</ref><ref>[http://ancapistan.typepad.com/message-from-resistance.wmv video]</ref> Bush apologized for these comments in 2006.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/02/regrets_confessions_bring_em_on/
|title=Regrets? Confessions? Bring 'em on!
|author=Leslie Savan
|publisher=The Boston Globe
|date=June 2, 2006
|accessdate=2007-06-11
}}</ref>

However on September 9, 2007, Bush's homeland security adviser again caused a stir when she, in referencing a new tape by Bin Laden, said "''This is about the best he can do. This is a man on a run, from a cave, who's virtually impotent other than these tapes''". "In appearance on two Sunday talk shows, she used the 'virtually impotent' reference both times, suggesting the language was chosen with careful purpose". "Such a comment could prove incendiary to like-minded followers of bin Laden who see themselves as a 'vanguard of a global assault on the United States' ... "A provocation like that is not helpful" said Thomas Sanderson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies .<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPfuhKxWr6wuItnKxaSAXAu3-2wA article]</ref>

====Iraq====
<!-- Deleted image removed: [[Image:SebuscaBush.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Pamphlets given during a protest for Bush visit to [[Bogotá]], [[Colombia]] in March 2007, depicting his image ''a la'' [[wanted poster]]. Translation: "Wanted George W. Bush for crimes against humanity and the planet. Reward: (the right) to live".]] -->
{{main|Opposition to the Iraq War}}

President Bush has taken a significant amount of criticism for his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 and his handling of the situation afterwards. As President Bush organized the effort, made the case, and ordered the invasion himself, he has borne the brunt of the criticism for the undeclared war.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/090606HICKMAN.html
|title=Bush, Not Iraq War Critics, "Could Not Be More Wrong"
|author=John Hickman
|publisher=Baltimore Chronicle
|date=September 6, 2006
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref> A Newsweek poll taken in June 2007 showed a record 73% of respondents disapproving of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19352087/site/newsweek|title=How Low Can Bush Go?|date=2007-06-21|accessdate=2007-06-22|publisher=Newsweek}}</ref>

Critics of the invasion claimed that it would lead to the deaths of thousands of Coalition soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and that it would moreover damage peace and stability throughout the Middle East. When this later turned out to be the case, public support for Bush and his policies dropped sharply.

Another oft-stated reason for opposition is the [[Peace of Westphalia|Westphalian]] concept that foreign governments should never possess a right to intervene in another sovereign nation's internal affairs. [[Giorgio Agamben]], the Italian philosopher, has also offered a critique of the logic of such pre-emptive war.

[[Anti-war]] sentiment has led to a number of large [[protests]] in the US, among the most visible being the one led by [[Cindy Sheehan]], the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, and some reflection in electoral politics. A significant minority of mostly [[Democratic Party (US)|Democratic]] politicians, such as former Vice President [[Al Gore]] and [[Barack Obama]], opposed the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, voted to authorize the invasion. Howard Dean, a rival for the nomination, ran on an anti-war position, but did not favor quick troop withdrawal. Dennis Kucinich, another candidate for the Democratic nomination, favored replacement of the U.S. occupation force with one sponsored by the [[United Nations|UN]], as did [[Ralph Nader]]'s independent presidential candidacy.

====Torture====
{{main|Guantánamo Bay detainment camp|Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse}}
Another point of discussion has been whether the detainment and treatment of prisoners in the [[Abu Ghraib prison]] and the [[Guantánamo Bay detainment camp]] constitutes [[torture]] or not. Although a [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=15160&pg=1 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll] "found that sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics ranging from leaving prisoners naked and chained in uncomfortable positions for hours, to trying to make a prisoner think he was being drowned.<ref>{{cite news
| first = Toni
| last = Locy
| title = Poll: Most object to extreme interrogation tactics
| url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-12-poll-interrogation_x.htm
| work = USA TODAY
| publisher = USA TODAY
| date = [[2005-01-13]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
| quote = sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics
}}</ref>

President Bush has stated that "We do not torture."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9956644/
|title=Bush: ‘We do not torture’ terror suspects
|publisher=Associated Press
|date=November 7, 2005
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref> Yet, many people and governments<ref>{{cite news
| first = Darren
| last = Carlson
| author = Darren K. Carlson
| title = Public Believes U.S. Government Has Tortured Prisoners
| url = http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=20170&pg=1
| format = fee required
| work = The Gallup Poll
| publisher = The Gallup Organization
| date = [[2005-11-29]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
| quote = [...]denying his agency tortures prisoners. But most Americans think otherwise.
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| first = Darren
| last = Carlson
| author = Darren K. Carlson
| coauthors = CNN, USA Today
| title = Americans Frown on Interrogation Techniques
| url = http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=15160&pg=1
| format = fee required
| work = The Gallup Poll
| publisher = The Gallup Organization
| date = [[2005-03-08]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
| quote = a majority of Americans think it's wrong for the government to use any of these methods
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| first = Edward
| last = Cody
| author = Edward Cody
| title = China, Others Criticize U.S. Report on Rights
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3840-2005Mar3.html
| work = Washington Post Foreign Service
| publisher = The Washington Post Company
| date = [[2005-03-04]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
| quote = No country should exclude itself from the international human rights development process
}}</ref> and [[non-governmental organization]]s disagree and have staged several protests.<ref>{{cite news
| title = Guantanamo protest at US embassy
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6250669.stm
| work = UK BBC NEWS
| publisher = British Broadcasting Corporation
| date = [[2007-01-11]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
| quote = More than 300 protesters gathered outside the US embassy for the hour-long demonstration.
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| first = Lena
| last = Sun
| author = Lena H. Sun
| title = As Torture Survivors Watch, Activists Stage Arrests Near White House
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062600955_pf.html
| work = Washington Post News
| publisher = The Washington Post Company
| date = [[2005-06-27]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
| quote = The men and women who survived imprisonment, beatings and rapes knew ahead of time that yesterday's arrest of a group of their supporters in front of the White House was a symbolic protest to spotlight the continuing use of torture by governments around the world, including the United States.
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| first = Esteban
| last = Israel
| author = Esteban Israel
| title = Guantanamo prison draws protests worldwide
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101177_pf.html
| format = Reprint
| work = Washington Post News
| publisher = Reuters
| date = [[2007-01-11]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| first = Carol
| last = Leonnig
| author = Carol D. Leonnig
| title = 80 Arrested Protesting Guantanamo Detentions
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100964.html
| work = Washington Post Nation News
| publisher = The Washington Post Company
| date = [[2007-01-12]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-20
| language = Eng
}}</ref> These sentiments are partly a result of the Pentagon's suggestion that the president can legally torture anyone he deems to be a threat to security,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm
|title=US 'not bound by torture laws'
|publisher=BBC News
|date=June 7, 2004
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref> and because the Bush administration has repeatedly tried to stop attempts at limiting torture,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4530494.stm
|title=Congress presses for torture ban
|publisher=BBC News
|date=December 15, 2005
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref> including [[signing statement]]s by President Bush to exclude himself from the laws created by the [[Detainee Treatment Act of 2005#Signing statement by President Bush|Detainee Treatment Act of 2005]] as well as [[veto]]ing legislation that would have made [[waterboarding]] and other coercive interrogation methods illegal.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture ]{{Dead link|date=November 2008}}</ref> Furthermore, many people<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/exporting-torture-us-rendition-and.php
|title=Exporting Torture: US Rendition and European Outrage
|author=Chandra Lekha Sriram
|publisher=[[JURIST]]
|date=December 13, 2005
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=189&catid=27&Itemid=41
|title=US Consul's gaffe provokes outrage in Scotland
|publisher=SACC
|date=January 16, 2006
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.cfr.org/publication/9350/
|title=U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects and U.S.-EU Relations
|author=Mary Crane
|publisher=[[Council on Foreign Relations]]
|date=December 6, 2005
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref> are concerned by the Bush Administration's use of [[Extraordinary rendition by the United States|Extraordinary rendition]], where individuals are sent to other countries where torture can easily occur without any form of oversight. Bush defends this practice on the basis that:<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html
|title=Press Conference of the President
|author=[[George W. Bush]]
|publisher=[[The White House]]
|date=April 28, 2005
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm
|title=US suspects 'face torture overseas'
|author=Dan Isaacs
|publisher=BBC News
|date= June 14, 2005
|accessdate=2007-01-11
}}</ref> <blockquote>[...] the United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that.</blockquote>

A Pentagon memo lists many interrogation techniques which were requested and approved during the presidency of George W. Bush on the basis that "The current guidelines for interrogation procedures at GTMO limit the ability of interrogators to counter advanced resistance".<ref name="CRT_PENTAGON">{{cite paper
| author = William J. Haynes II, General Counsel
| title = Counter-Resistance Techniques
| publisher = DEFENCE PENTAGON
| date = [[2002-11-27]]
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dodmemos.pdf
| format = PDF Reprint ACTION MEMO FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
| accessdate = 2007-01-21
}}</ref> The Bush administration's connection to torture has been one of the main considerations in the [[movement to impeach George W. Bush#Geneva Conventions controversy|movement to impeach George W. Bush]].

Torture has in several cases become military policy<ref name="CRT_PENTAGON"/><ref>{{cite news|author=R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White|title=General Granted Latitude At Prison|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35612-2004Jun11.html|work=Abu Ghraib Prison|publisher=The Washington Post Company|date=[[2004-06-12]]|accessdate=2007-07-30|language=Eng|quote=sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse}}</ref> and several high ranking US officials are being charged with war crimes in Germany.<ref>{{cite news|author=ADAM ZAGORIN|title=Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html|work=U.S.|publisher=Time Inc.|date=[[2006-11-10]]|accessdate=2007-07-30|language=Eng|quote=The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer,[...]}}</ref>

=== Domestic policy ===

Domestic criticism of Bush has waxed and waned throughout his administration. Before 9/11, Bush was reviled by the bulk of the American left, mostly for his role in the controversial 2000 election, and for perceived shortcomings in his [[No Child Left Behind]] program for education.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/05/elec04.prez.bush.no.child.ap/
|title=Bush stumps for 'No Child Left Behind'
|publisher=CNN
|date=January 6, 2004
|accessdate=2007-11-01
}}{{Dead link|date=March 2009}}</ref> The next major domestic item which Bush faced significant opposition to was his program of [[tax cuts]], codified in the [[Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001]] and the [[Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003]]. Both acts ultimately passed, but calls for their repeal lasted until the end of the [[2004 US Presidential election|2004 campaign]]. Democratic candidate [[Howard Dean]] in particular called for a repeal of the part of the tax cuts which affected the wealthiest Americans in order to fund public health care programs and reduce the federal deficit.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.trendmacro.com/a/talkingpoints/2004_01_01_tparchives.asp
|title=Tax Reform
|author=Bruce Bartlett
|publisher=TrendMacrolytics
|date=January 6, 2004
|accessdate=2007-11-01
}}</ref>

After Bush was re-elected, he made [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] reform a top priority. He proposed options to permit Americans to divert a portion of their Social Security tax (FICA) into secured investments, creating a "nest egg" that he claimed would enjoy steady growth. This led Democrats to label the program a "privatization" of Social Security. Bush embarked on a 60-day tour to shore up public support for the plan, attacking the political reaction against reforms. Ultimately, however, no consensus on a plan could be reached within the congressional Republican party, and Bush was left without any political will to pass his reforms. The issue was dropped, and the status quo maintained.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701865.html
|title=Bush's Social Security Sleight of Hand
|author=Allan Sloan
|publisher=Washington Post
|date=February 8, 2006
|accessdate=2007-11-01
}}</ref>

Bush has been increasingly forced to defend his actions on many fronts and has been unable to generate widespread support in the nation as a whole.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
|title=Bush Approval Ratings
|publisher=Polling Report.com
|accessdate=2007-11-01}}</ref> An example of the general displeasure and extent to which many Americans have lost respect and confidence in the President lies in his recent election as the "Biggest Tool of 2006" in an online poll created by Comedy Central.

The Republican Party's defeat in the [[2006 US midterm elections]] is taken as another sign of plummeting public support for President Bush. After the Democratic Party's victory, [[MSNBC]] reported that "The war in Iraq, scandals in Congress and declining support for Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill defined the battle for House and Senate control".<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15620405/
|title=Democrats win control of Senate
|publisher=MSNBC
|date=November 9, 2006
|accessdate=2007-11-01}}</ref>

====Economy and fiscal policies====
The Bush administration had also come under attack from the American right-wing, particularly with regard to its economic policies.{{Fact|date=January 2009}} The American Conservative laments "Bush doesn’t know how to stop. Like a credit-card thief, the President of the United States is going on a shopping binge and making other people pay. If history gives Bush a nickname, it will be Deadbeat Dubya".{{Fact|date=January 2009}}

Calling Bush "The Mother of All Big Spenders", the libertarian think-tank [[Cato Institute]] writes that "Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency".<ref>[http://www.cato.org/research/articles/dehaven-030728.html CATO Institute article]</ref> Yet when Democrats want to increase spending on domestic issues such as health care for the poor, Bush suddenly becomes a "fiscal conservative" accusing them of "working to bring back the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past" and vowing to fight them. But says Cato's Chris Edwards, "When he gives speeches now, you hear him bashing the Democrats on overspending. It sounds ridiculous, because we know he's a big spender."<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/asia/prexy.php IHT.com article]</ref> "After running up $3 trillion in [[United States public debt|new debt]] - including more than half a trillion dollars for what some have called his flawed Iraq policy - some people find it astounding that the president is once again lecturing Congress about fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities," stated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev).<ref>[http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18850815&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6 The Bulletin]</ref>

[[Alan Greenspan]], chairman of the Federal Reserve for 18 years, serving under six Presidents and who describes himself as "a lifelong Libertarian Republican", writes in his book ''[http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594201315 The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World]'' that Bush and the congressional Republicans "swapped principle for power". "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences". Interestingly he writes that former President Bill Clinton had "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth [which] became a hallmark of his presidency" and says that Clinton was "by far" one of the two "smartest presidents I've worked with".

Greenspan, again promoting his book, also says "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil"<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070915/bs_nm/greenspan_book_rates_dc;_ylt=As481BiXgYNjj3GmxG7EUNxREhkF Yahoo News article]</ref> and "getting Saddam out of there was very important, but had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it had to do with oil."<ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/09/17/qa-greenspan-on-bubbles-saddam-cheney-and-bernanke/ Wall Street Journal Blogs]</ref><ref>[http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/greenspans-shock-oil-behind-iraq-invasion/2007/09/16/1189881340375.html TheAge.com]</ref> With regards to the costs of the war in Iraq, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will come to between one and one and a half trillion dollars by 2010.

<blockquote>"Those costs -- both to sustain the current mission in Iraq and to pay longer-term 'hidden' expenses like troop healthcare and replacement equipment -- are far more than US officials advertised when Congress gave President Bush the authority to launch the invasion in March 2003. At the time, the White House and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted a quick, decisive victory and counted on Iraqi oil revenues to pay for the war. And when Lawrence Lindsey, one of Bush's top budget advisers, estimated in 2003 that the entire undertaking could cost as much as $200 billion, he was fired ... McGovern said he is worried about the long-term financial impact of the war, adding that his primary concern is that the United States is borrowing money to pay for it. Some leading economists have predicted that, depending on how long troops remain in Iraq, the endeavor could reach several trillion dollars as a result of more 'hidden' costs -- including recruiting expenses to replenish the ranks and the lifelong benefits the government pays to veterans. 'It is being paid for on the national credit card,' McGovern said. 'It is being put on the backs of our kids and grandkids. That is indefensible.'"<ref>[http://boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis_says_war_could_cost_1_trillion/ Boston.com article]</ref></blockquote>

In fact, according to the former World Bank vice-president, Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and now a professor at the Columbia Business School, when other factors, like medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen are added in, the cost just to date is closer to $3.3 trillion.<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html TheAustralian.news.com article]</ref> However, continues Stiglitz, "Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that". "The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world ... Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered," he said.

The relaxed regulation under the Bush presidency are regarded to have been a major contributing factor to the [[subprime mortgage crisis]], and there are fears that the United States and the world economy could slide into another [[Economic crisis of 2008|Great Depression]].<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSGOR27660220080212?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 Reuters article]</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=918803 Intelligencer.ca article]</ref><ref>[http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Economy/10201180.html GulfNews.com article]</ref>

A Harper's magazine column by Linda Bilmes, a lecturer in Public Finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and Joseph Stiglitz titled ''The $10 trillion hangover: Paying the price for eight years of Bush'', "estimate that the cost of undoing the Bush administration’s economic choices, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the collapse of the financial system, soaring debt and new commitments to interest payments and Medicare, all add up to over $10 trillion" a monumental amount[http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/linda_bilmes_the_10_trillion_hangover][http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/01/0082337][http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/15/big-spender-debt-heads-home-to-texas/ Eight years in office, a $10.6 trillion debt]. See also [http://zfacts.com/p/318.html National Debt Graph: Bush Sets 50-Year Record]. The National debt from George Washington to the beginning of Ronald Reagan's term totaled about one trillion dollars.

====Response to Hurricane Katrina====
{{main|Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina}}

The President came under more criticism when the powerful [[Hurricane Katrina]] slammed into the Gulf Coast region during the early hours of August 30, 2005. In the wake of the hurricane, two levees protecting [[New Orleans]] from [[Lake Pontchartrain]] collapsed, leading to widespread flooding. In the aftermath of this [[NOLA#21st century .28Hurricane Katrina.29|disaster]], thousands of city residents, unable or unwilling to evacuate prior to the hurricane, became stranded with little or no relief for several days, resulting in lawless and unsanitary conditions in some areas. Blame for inadequate disaster response was partially attributed to state and local authorities, but public outcry in the disaster's early hours was largely directed at the Bush administration, mainly [[FEMA]]<ref name="FEMA">{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/14/fema.ig/index.html|title=Report: Criticism of FEMA's Katrina response deserved|author=Ahlers, Mike M.|publisher=''[[CNN]]''|date=April 14, 2006|accessdate=2006-11-01}}</ref> and the [[Department of Homeland Security]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/|title=Chertoff: Katrina scenario did not exist|publisher=''[[CNN]]''|date=September 5, 2005|accessdate=2007-11-01}}</ref> alleging weak crisis management and coordination. In fact a Canadian search-and-rescue team actually made it to a New Orleans suburb 5 days before U.S. aid arrived.<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0908-02.htm CommonDreams.org article]</ref>

Others have identified political [[conservatism]] as the overriding cause of problems in the way the disaster was handled.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Lakoff
| first = George
| authorlink = George Lakoff
| coauthors = Halpin, John
| title = Framing Katrina
| publisher = [[The American Prospect]]
|date=2005-10-07
| url = http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=framing_katrina
| accessdate = 2007-07-01 }}
</ref> These critics argue that the alleged unreadiness of the [[United States National Guard]], negligence of federal authorities, and haplessness of officials such as [[Michael D. Brown|Michael Brown]] did not represent incompetence on the part of the federal authorities, but were instead natural and deliberate consequences of the [[conservatism|conservative philosophy]] embraced by the Bush administration, especially "sink or swim" policies to [[starve the beast|force reductions in government expenditure]] and [[privatization|privatize]] key government responsibilities such as [[disaster preparedness]],<ref>{{cite web
| last = Scahill
| first = Jeremy
| title = In the Black(Water)
| publisher = [[The Nation]]
|date=2006-06-05
| url = http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060605/scahill
| accessdate = 2007-07-05 }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web
| title = Halliburton gets another $33 Million for Hurricane Katrina clean-up
| publisher = Halliburton Watch
|date=2005-10-12
| url = http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/katrina2.html
| accessdate = 2007-07-05 }}
</ref> both of which resulted in the systematic dismantling of FEMA by the [[U.S. Department of Homeland Security]].<ref>{{cite web
| last = Holdeman
| first = Eric
| title = Destroying FEMA
| publisher = Washington Post
|date=2005-08-30
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html
| accessdate = 2007-07-05 }}</ref>

Criticism led to the resignation of FEMA director [[Michael D. Brown|Michael Brown]], and eventually, Bush himself accepted personal responsibility for what he deemed "serious problems in the federal government's response" in a September 15, 2005 press conference. Currently, the administration is investigating itself, yet several politicians have called for either congressional or independent investigations, claiming that the Executive Branch cannot satisfactorily investigate itself.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090802165.html|title=Leaders Lacking Disaster Experience|publisher=''[[Washington Post]]''|author=Hsu, Spencer S. |accessdate=2006-11-01|date=2005-09-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1109304,00.html|title=CRONYISM in the Bush Administration|publisher=''[[Time]]''|author=Pearson, Diana |accessdate=2006-11-01|date=2005-09-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1109345,00.html|title=How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?|publisher=''[[Time]]''|accessdate=2006-11-01|date=2005-09-25}}</ref> Some critics {{Who|date=March 2009}} point out that Democrats [[Kathleen Blanco]] (Governor of Louisiana) and [[Ray Nagin]] (Mayor of New Orleans) were given a "hall pass" due to the focus on President Bush's mistakes.{{cite}}

====Environment====
{{POV-section|date=December 2008}}
Bush has been criticized by national and international environmental groups for his administration's rollbacks of environmental protections going back more than three decades. These are in areas ranging from the attacks on the [[Endangered Species Act]] and the [[Clean Air Act|Clean Air]] and [[Clean Water Act|Clean Water]] Acts to [[climate change]]. For a comprehensive (to date of the report) list see the National Resources defense Council's report ''[http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2005.asp The Bush Record],'' NRDC's comprehensive account of the Bush administration's environmental policies from 2001 through 2005. More up-to-date information can be found [http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-1 on the U.S. Senate website]. According to [[MSNBC]]:

<blockquote>After four years in office, the George W. Bush administration has compiled an environmental record that is taking our nation in a new and dangerous direction. Last year alone, Bush administration agencies made more than 150 actions that weakened our environmental laws. Over the course of the first term, this administration led the most thorough and destructive campaign against America's environmental safeguards in the past 40 years.''<ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/execsum.asp NRDC.org]</ref></blockquote>

In ''[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/revolvingdoor200705 Texas Chainsaw Management]'' (2007) [[Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.]] argues that "The verdict on George W. Bush as the nation's environmental steward has already been written in stone. No president has mounted a more sustained and deliberate assault on the nation's environment. No president has acted with more solicitude toward [[pollution|polluting]] industries. Assaulting the environment across a broad front, the Bush administration has promoted and implemented more than 400 measures that eviscerate 30 years of environmental policy." Kennedy has also written a book ''[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060746882/ Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy].'' See also the website [http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/ BushGreenWatch].

George W. Bush has also been criticized by the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]], representing over 20 Nobel Laureates, who accuse him of failing to acknowledge basic science on environmental issues. The group says that the Bush administration has engaged in intentional suppression and distortion of facts regarding the environment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339 |title=Scientists: Bush Distorts Science |publisher=Wired.com |date= |accessdate=2008-11-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/1.html |title=Bush's Misuse of Science : Introduction |publisher=Webexhibits.org |date= |accessdate=2008-11-24}}</ref>

In the waning days of his administration, Bush sought rule changes which would negatively impact a wide range of environmental issues. <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16105-bush-takes-aim-at-the-environment-with-late-rule-changes.html</ref>

<blockquote>George Bush is behaving like a furious defaulter whose home is about to be repossessed. Smashing the porcelain, ripping the doors off their hinges, he is determined that there will be nothing worth owning by the time the bastards kick him out. His midnight regulations, opening America's wilderness to logging and mining, trashing pollution controls, tearing up conservation laws, will do almost as much damage in the last 60 days of his presidency as he achieved in the foregoing 3,000. His backers - among them the nastiest pollutocrats in America - are calling in their favours. But this last binge of vandalism is also the Bush presidency reduced to its essentials. Destruction is not an accidental product of its ideology. Destruction is the ideology. [[Neoconservatism]] is power expressed by showing that you can reduce any part of the world to rubble.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/25/climate-change-carbon-emissions</ref></blockquote>

====Dismissal of U.S. attorneys====

The [[dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy]] is an ongoing political dispute initiated by the
unprecedented dismissal of seven [[United States Attorney]]s by the Bush administration's [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] (DOJ) in 2006, and their replacement by interim appointees under provisions of the 2005 [[USA PATRIOT Act|Patriot Act]] reauthorization.<ref name='Newsweek-Sceifo-2007-03-15'>
{{cite news | first=Julie | last=Scelfo | coauthors= | title='Quite Unprecedented': Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White explains why the firing of eight federal prosecutors could threaten the historic independence of federal law-enforcement officials. |date=2007-03-15 | publisher= | url =http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17627519/site/newsweek/page/0/ | work =Newsweek | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }}
</ref><ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-03-14'>
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= Paul Kane | title=Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made': But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys |date=2007-03-14 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776.html | work =Washington Post | page =A01 | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }}
</ref><ref name='WP-Graphic-2007-03-06'>
{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Fired U.S. Attorneys |date=2007-03-06 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/03/06/GR2007030600062.html | work =Washington Post | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }}
</ref><ref name='CBS-Public-Eye-2007-03-14'>
{{cite news | first=Brian | last=Montopoli | coauthors= | title=So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not? |date=2007-03-14 | publisher=CBS News | url =http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml | work =Public Eye | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-29 | language = }}
</ref>

[[United States Congress|Congressional]] investigations have focused on whether the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] and the [[Executive Office of the President|White House]] were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.<ref>
{{cite news
|title=Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys
|first=David
|last=Bowermaster
|publisher=The Seattle Times
|date=2007-05-09
|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html
|accessdate=2007-05-16}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite news
|title=Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals
|first=Dan
|last=Eggen
|coauthors=Amy Goldstein
|publisher=The Washington Post
|date=2007-05-14
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html
|accessdate=2007-05-18}}</ref>
Clear explanations for the dismissals remain elusive, however, with several administration officials providing contradictory testimony or testimony contradicted by documents subpoened by Congress.<ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-02-18'>
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= | title=6 of 7 Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Had Positive Job Evaluations |date=2007-02-18 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701509_pf.html | work =Washington Post | page =A11 | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }}
</ref><ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-03-30'>
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= Paul Kane | title=Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings |date=2007-03-30 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032900352_pf.html | work =Washington Post | page =A01 | accessdate = 2007-05-27 | language = }}
</ref><ref>
{{cite news | work= CNN.com | publisher= Cable News Network |date=2007-05-28 | accessdate = 2007-05-28
| url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/goodling.testimony/index.html|date=May 23, 2007
| title=Deputy AG 'not fully candid,' ex-Justice aide testifies|publisher=CNN}}
</ref> On July 25, 2007 the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary]] voted along party lines 22-17 to issue citations of [[Contempt of Congress]] to [[White House Chief of Staff]] [[Joshua Bolten]] and former [[White House Counsel]] [[Harriet Miers]] for their failure to respond to Congressional subpoenas.<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25">{{cite news|title=Bush Aides in Contempt; Will They Be Prosecuted?|author=Ari Shapiro|date=2007-07-25|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12234115|work=All Things Considered |publisher=National Public Radio}}</ref>

Critics argue that the scandal has undermined both the integrity of the Department of Justice and the non-partisan tradition of U.S. Attorneys.<ref>
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-05-21 |url= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9977681 |title=Ex-U.S. Official: Fired Prosecutors Were 'Smeared' |author= Ari Shapiro |date=May 3, 2007 |publisher= [[National Public Radio]]}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-05-21 |url= http://www.coxwashington.com/news/content/reporters/stories/2007/05/08/BC_FIRED_PROSECUTORS04_COX.html
|title=Former Justice Official: Fired U.S. Attorneys Among the Best |author= Rebecca Carr |date=May 8, 2007 |publisher= Cox Newspapers}}
</ref><ref name='McClatchy-Taylor-2007-05-16'>
{{cite news | first=Marisa | last=Taylor | coauthors= Margaret Talev | title=U. S. Attorneys: 2 additional prosecutors were considered for ouster |date=2007-05-16 | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url =http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/margaret_talev/story/16195.html | work =McClatchy Washington Bureau | pages = | accessdate = 2007-06-20 | language = }}
</ref><ref>
{{cite web |accessdate=2007-05-29 |url= http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200703/031907.html |title=Statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy: On S. 214, Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act Of 2007 |author= Patrick Leahy
|date=March 19, 2007 |publisher= Senator Patrick Leahy}}
</ref>
Others have gone so far as to liken the event to [[Watergate]], referring to it as ''Gonzales-gate''.<ref>
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-06-15 |url= http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/06/15/segments/80679
|title= Gonzales-gate |first = Bob |last = Garfield |date=June 15, 2007 |work = [[On the Media]] | publisher = National Public Radio {[[NPR]] }}
</ref>
Many members of Congress from both parties called for the resignation of [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Alberto Gonzales]].<ref>See references on [[Alberto Gonzales#Calls for resignation.2C firing.2C and no-confidence resolution]]</ref>
As of June 25, 2007, six senior staff of the Department of Justice had resigned, including the Deputy Attorney General, the Acting Associate Attorney General, the Chief of Staff for the Attorney General, the Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General, the Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the DOJ's White House Liaison.<ref>
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-06-15 |url= http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top11jun15,0,837360.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines
|title= Official Close to Attorney Firings Quits |first = Lara Jakes |last = Jordan |date=June 15, 2007 |publisher= Los Angeles Times}}
</ref><ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-06-23'>
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= | title=Third-in-Command at Justice Dept. Resigns: Mercer to Leave Washington Job but Keep U.S. Attorney's Position in Montana | date= June 23, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201291.html?nav=rss_print/asection | work =Washington Post | page =A04 | accessdate = 2007-06-25 | language = }}
</ref>
By September 17, 2007 Attorney General, [[Alberto Gonzales]], and several additional senior Department of Justice officers had departed from office. His successor, [[Michael Mukasey]] after a controversy over his Senate testimony regarding the legality of torture and [[waterboarding]], was confirmed to office by a vote of the Senate on November 8, 2007, and was sworn in on November 9, 2007.

====Economic Policies====
{{POV-section|date=December 2008}}
{{Synthesis|date=February 2009}}
Moral and ethical questions have been raised over the billions of dollars Bush has requested for the Iraq war,<ref name="IraqPlan2007">{{cite journal | author=Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray| title=Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats' Iraq Plan| journal=Washington Post| date=March 9, 2007| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030800206.html| page=A01}}</ref> which Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] ([[U.S. Democratic Party|D]]-[[Nevada]]) has said ensures that less money is made available to help children and the poor in the United States.<ref name="ReidPBS">{{Cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/reid_12-21.html|title=Senate Majority Leader Reid Weighs Partisan Divides, Security in Iraq|accessdate=2008-02-13|publisher=PBS|date=December 21, 2007 |author=Online NewsHour}} Senator Harry Reid ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]] - [[Nevada|NV]]): "The Leave No Child Behind Act is leaving children behind. We need money to take care of that; there isn't enough money because of the war in Iraq." and "How much longer are we going to be asked to spend $12 billion a month on this war, when we don't have money for health care? We tried to get 10,000 poor children health insurance. The president said there's not enough money to do that."</ref> Critics have accused him of stinginess toward poor children with regards to health care in a time when it is increasingly unaffordable.<ref name="ReidPBS" /><ref name="Bloomberg2007">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aebqrhyfmn7w&refer=home|title=Bush Adds Restrictions to U.S. Children's Health Plan (Update3) |accessdate=2008-02-13|publisher=bloomberg.com|date=August 21, 2007|author=Catherine Larkin and Edwin Chen}} "The Bush administration, fighting efforts by states and Congress to expand a popular health insurance program for children in low-income families, is making it more difficult for families to sign up ... 'The ultimate effect of this new policy is that tens of thousands of children who have health insurance will effectively lose that insurance,' said Rachel Klein, deputy director of health policy for Families USA, a Washington-based consumer group".</ref> Another example is Bush's effort to cut [[food stamps]] for the poor. In 2005, Bush called for "billions of dollars in cuts that will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under [[Medicaid]] and adults in [[public housing]]."<ref name="LAT2005">{{cite journal | author=Joel Havemann and Mary Curtius| title=Bush to Propose Billions in Cuts| journal=Los Angeles Times| date=February 6, 2005| url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0206-03.htm}}</ref> While passed by the Republican Congress, initially the "White House proposed the restriction".<ref name="SMH2005">{{cite journal | author=AP| authorlink=Associated Press| title=US poor set to lose food stamps| journal=Sydney Morning Herald| date=October 29, 2005| url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-poor-set-to-lose-food-stamps/2005/10/29/1130400390006.html}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Movement to impeach George W. Bush]]
*[[Proposition R]]

==References==
<!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history/page/1 "The Worst President in History?"], 2006, ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' article by [[Princeton University]] historian [[Sean Wilentz]]
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html "He's the Worst Ever"], Dec. 3, 2006, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' column by [[Columbia University]] historian [[Eric Foner]]
*[[David Halberstam|Halberstam, David]], [http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/08/halberstam200708 "The History Boys",] ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]'', August 2007; Halberstam's final essay ("debunks the Bush administration's wild distortion of history")
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps"]: ''[[The Guardian]]'' argues that Bush is destroying constitutional freedoms.
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20030316082322/http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm "Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap"], produced by the [[House Appropriations Committee]]
<div style="clear:both"></div>
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}

{{George W. Bush}}

[[Category:George W. Bush]]
[[Category:Criticisms of living persons articles|Bush, George W.]]

[[ar:انتقادات ضد جورج دبليو بوش]]

Latest revision as of 20:35, 30 October 2014

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=631798938"