The article probably goes too far, but makes a valid though as yet unproven point. While there probably would have been a recession anyway the severity and length of the economic turmoil is historically very long.

Economists are virtually unanomous that much of this was caused by tax cuts and spending that were badly targetted to stimulate growth. There may be other factors, such as the underlying recession would have been perhaps severe anyway. Also an economy can be damaged by fear and pessimism just as the stock market can.

So the article is making the point that at one stage Bush was in a lot of hot water for talking down the economy and a lot of experts were saying this could bring on a recession by talking like bad things were on the horizon.

Now down the road some people are looking back and are trying to quantify how much damage Bush's statements may have caused. Of course there is the usual partisan knee jerk comment that says there was no damage, but this is far from clear.

The article shows in one stock announcents associated with drops in the price. This should be checked with other stocks to see if it's a real trend. The natural partisan argument is just to say the internet bubble caused everything but there is little real evidence for that according to economists. Some people did lose money but the losses in the stock market came after that and in unrelated stocks.

As to whose recession it is, try finding a consensus opinion of economists as to who think think caused most of the damage. They all seem to be pointing their finger at Bush. Unless you think they are all lying for partisan reasons or are fools compared to Bush's genius it is quite likely they are correct.

The actual recession was quite mild and with the right policies might have been over quickly. What is happening now is not a recession, and it is not a stock market boom. What is happening is a very unusual tail end of a recession in which jobs were quickly lost and are recovering in a historically very weak way. I notice you mentioned this aspect a few times.

Economists seem to be saying that the kind of stimulus Bush gave the economy was good for the wealthy but bad for jobs creation, and that seems to be what is happening. It's really just another version of the old discredited trickle down theory, give enough to the wealthy and the money will trickle down and make the economy prosperous.

It's never worked and it's not working this time. It's a good scam though. Give say Tom Brosz and Ed Nelson a billion dollars each and let the money trickle down and help the economy. The whole idea would be funny except that people keep falling for it.