What grade would you give President Bush?

Very good response. I thought of it the same way, not giving him an F because of the country is still alive and the health care has somewhat improved, but other than that, he has really been horrible as President.

OK, to both of you - HOW has he improved health care? the last time I looked the number without health insurance had increased to nearly 50 million so I don't see any improvement there. There have been improvements in children's health care but Bush didn't even want that besides in many cases it's the individual states that have provided coverage for lower income children. Annie

Humm, let's see - what did this administration achieve in 8-years other than a war in Iraq and now Afghanistan? Has the economy improved or has America, and by extension the rest of the world become a better place? Well, I suppose this President would get an A+ if the classes the rest of us were conducting included criminal incompetence, disregard for his soldiers, anti-semitic prejudices when dealing with the Middle East and economic mismanagement. We start of with the war. I think he had no choice in going after Osama Bin Ladin after 9/11. The American public wanted a President who would punish the man who had struck America on American soil. It was good that he got rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the cynical might suggest that it was clever to let the Northern Alliance do the ground work while the US provided them with air support. But instead of trying to secure Afghanistan, the man decided to goto war in Iraq based on the flimsiest of evidence. Anyone who is educated knows that Saddam and Osama could never form an alliance (Saddam being secular and Osama being a religious nut case), but Bush exploited the ignorance Americans have about the outside world to goto war - that is of course being charitable to assume he and his gang were manipulative exploiters rather than ignorant about the Arab World, themselves. Yes, the men and women who become soldiers have to expect they may have to die in a war one day, but it is the duty of the civilian leadership to ensure that they're chances of dying are minimal. For example, you don't go into war without understanding the full consequences - Bush obviously didn't - yes the Iraqi's didn't like Saddam but they didn't like the idea of American troops running over their soil either - but Bush was under the illusion that American troops would be welcomed with open arms. Then, we have Generals telling Rumsfeld that he was going in with too little troops who were not terribly well equipped for a long war - but Rummy and Bush decided the people who actually fight wars didn't know anything about fighting war and decided to humiliate the generals and send the troops into a mission with no clear objectives. I may be strange, but I think doing that is called criminal incompetence. It took a major defeat in the 2006 Congressional Elections for Rumsfeld to have his resignation accepted. Yes, the President needs to get Congressional approval to do anything - and that's precisely what the Republicans in Congress did - they allowed them to run the war in an incompetent manner. Then let's look at Civil Liberties. Allot of people who would keep Bush and the neoCONS in power have said that since Bush went into Iraq, there have been no terrorist attacks against the USA. Well, why should the terrorist waste their time - Bush is doing a good enough job of ensuring American values are trashed. Magdalene Albright, former Secratery of State points out that before Bush, when the Americans talked about human rights to the Chinese, they would get angry and leave the room. Now, the Chinese smile politely and reply that the nation that gave us Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib should look at its own house before lecturing. Shows you how much the world thinks about America. I guess it would not be so bad if the economy was prospering. Clinton may have done naughty things but at least he was smart enough to look like he was taking ownership of the economy and an economy that was doing well. Bush by contrast has no economic policy or no idea of an economic policy. America has a trade deficit - blame the Chinese for making the things that Americans want to buy. Gas prices are high, so blame the Arabs for not giving him oil. In the mean time, the real problem of the US economy has always been high levels of debt and a lack of risk assessment by the banks when they were lending money. Look at Sub-Prime, an example of how banks were making dubious loans by the billions. When the natural result of reckless lending comes to an obvious conclusion happens, what does Bush do......he arranges for these guys to be bailed out rather than go bankrupt and to jail as they should be. But that's ok, I suppose if you run a school that teaches pushing away personal responsibility and sticking by your corrupt cronies. I suppose if you did, you should give him an A+. For me, I wouldn't bother with grading him - I'd have him expelled.