Economists largely agree that the 2001 recession lasted eight months, from March to November 2001. However, in the press, Bush remained the scapegoat for a recession whose genesis predated his first term as president.
To follow logic--something generally foreign to our liberal mainstream media--Barack Obama should be answering for the current economic collapse, one that dwarfs the 2001 troubles almost to insignificance. But somehow, although President Obama's grab for government power has cost America trillions of dollars in the midst of widespread economic agony, the blame still sits on Bush. Obama has only to mention this "mess" he "inherited" to quiet MSM questions before they are asked--and he does so at every opportunity.
So how is it that the same hapless president, George W. Bush, can be responsible for the both the recession caused by events that predated him as well as the current recession, ever deepening as a result of actions taken after he has left office? It seems an obvious question, one that deserves an honest answer. Sadly, such queries don't receive much air time these days.
