Muscatine

I answered your question haysus...why dont u answer mine?....when in haysus' mind does obumbler start to take responsibility for his own messes?

Well, based on the example and record of the recent great presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, I'd say immediately upon taking office.   I can't remember either of them personally blaming their predecessor for anything, like Obama personally has, can you?  Now I can, but they didn't.

But why don't you answer your own question for our enlightenment.   By the way, nice job of side tracking the original point of argument.  You're a real piece of lib. work aren't you.

I'm not side tracking hiroad, I'm trying to figure out where your naive and uninformed way of thinking comes from.

So Bush never blamed Clinton for anything? Really? Bush never claimed to have inherited a recession? Nobody in the Bush administration tried to blame the North Korea problem on the actions of the Clinton Administration? Nobody from the Bush administration ever tried to claim that the previous administration didn't do enough to thwart al Qaeda, like maybe in an interview with the New York Post editorial board?

It's naive to think that any president, regardless of party affiliation, is responsible for the nation's status - economic, diplomatic or otherwise - on day one (excepting those who have ascended to the presidency from the vice president's office such as H.W. Bush and Johnson). Undoubtedly, the situation on January 20th, good or bad, is the direct result of the policies of the previous administration and therefore it's entirely reasonable that the incoming administration would place the blame for whatever they believe to be wrong on the office's previous occupants. In virtually every situation it's these policy differences that prompted the candidate to run for the office in the first place and on which he has based his campaign. To discontinue that line of attack once in office would render their entire campaign illegitimate.

As you can see from the linked video above, George W. Bush, even in his final days in office, blamed Clinton/Gore for the economic recession from the beginning of his own first term. And as much political hay as we Democrats may want to make of that, it's only natural for him to do so. After all, his entire 2000 campaign was run in opposition to the Clinton/Gore economic plan, no? Thus it was with this mindset that the Bush administration then enacted its own economic agenda. And still, once enacted, that didn’t stop him from reminding the public right up until the very end that he believed the Clinton administration was initially to blame. Like Bush before him, Obama wants to make sure the public doesn’t forget what he believes were the economic missteps of the previous administration both to fan the flames of ill will toward the opposition party and as a justification for the actions he has taken since inauguration day. Reminding the public of the previous administration’s shortcomings is part and parcel in the world of politics. After all, what was the phrase “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” but a veiled placing of blame for the public’s economic woes on the Carter administration? All elected officials do it, even Reagan. It’s how they got elected.

That being said, what a president does from January 20th forward and the results of those actions are his responsibility alone. But again it is naive to expect that they will simply ignore the situation that they inherited. And as long as they can tie the present situation to the policies and actions of the previous administration, they will do so. So in answer to your question, gta1 - I’m pretty sure that Obama will continue to blame Bush for as long as Bush blamed Clinton which has been shown to be quite some time.

We can argue the honesty of such claims as to whose fault it actually was for this and that, but to pretend as though blaming the previous administration is an exclusively Democratic or an exclusively Obama trait is either willfully dishonest or simply uninformed.

So to return to the “original point of argument” concerning the terror attacks, I believe your premise is pure bs. 9/11 happened during Bush’s tenure. Eight months in. Blame Clinton, blame Bush, that argument has been hashed and rehashed dozens of times right here on NL and isn't worth dragging out again. But simply sweeping the event under the rug and saying “since 9/11” essentially gives Georgieboy a do-over. If there’s no do-overs for Obama then there shouldn’t be any do-overs for Bush. I say it's 2-2.

Once again, JOS, you are really "stretching" it...

Your link re: the recession was to Bush's "exit" news conference for heavens sake!  He did not personally blame Clinton for any recession during his active administration.  He was smarter than that.  

The North Korea thing was not a personal statement by Bush, and accurately described the situation at the time (ie: the failure of N. Korea to live up to an agreement - not stressing any ineptitude on Clinton's part.....ie: let's learn from our mistakes).   In other words arguing against those who wanted to rely on N. Korea's word again.

The statement by Rice about the fact that the Clinton admin. did not leave Bush a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Islamic terrorists was in direct response to an accusation by Clinton.    Clinton brought this up, in effect blaming the Bush admin. for not following his non-existant strategy.

Look Bush, unlike Obumbler, did not have a MANTRA of "blame the previous president for any and all screwups".

Bush did not "continue to blame Clinton" as you state.   What's the color of the sky in your world?

You still haven't answered our questions have you.  I think it's because you are either afraid to hold Obumbler to any standards, or you have no standards to apply.