Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Just How the Hell Do You Sum Up George W. Bush's Presidency?
Reason Contributing Editor and San Francisco
Chronicle reporter
Carolyn Lochhead tiptoes through the disaster that was the
George W. Bush presidency in a long, comprehensive summary of the
past eight years or thereabouts. Snippets:
Historians will suspend immediate judgment. All modern presidents leave office sullied, yet many, like Harry Truman, Bill Clinton and even Jimmy Carter, have had their reputations restored with time. But from the vista of now, the nation's 43rd president risks joining the likes of Franklin Pierce, his own distant relative, as among the nation's worst presidents, harshly judged in their day and never bathed in the warm afterglow of hindsight.
Bush leaves to his successor two unfinished wars, Osama bin Laden living in an unstable Pakistan, a U.S. reputation soiled by Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and torture, a deep recession and what is sure to be the first $1 trillion-plus deficit. In short, a gigantic mess, all the bigger for the peace, prosperity and black ink he inherited....
Bush both grew the government and gave laissez-faire a bad name, overseeing a rash of corporate scandals in 2002 and the housing meltdown. The financial wreckage has many fathers, but Bush, the first MBA president, stands among them, failing to restrain the liquidity bubble as it ballooned and asking for $700 billion to rescue banks as it burst. The GOP is fractured and adrift....
The plan for a swift victory and quick exit [in Iraq] turned into a bungled and bloody occupation that has left roughly 4,800 U.S. troops dead, 33,000 Americans wounded, as well as thousands of contractors and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lasted longer than World War II and cost 50 percent more than Vietnam: $904 billion since 2001, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. That ultimately could rise above $2 trillion, including decades of care for wounded veterans, estimated as high as $65 billion alone. Bush economic chief Lawrence Lindsay was fired for saying publicly that the Iraq war could cost $200 billion....
Conditions are worse now than when Truman left office, said Sean Theriault, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "The objective standards by which we can evaluate the presidency are just so bad. The economy is truly in tatters, and I don't think any Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, can dispute that. When Bill Clinton left office you could argue that Americans were generally pleased, but people thought he wasn't a beacon of integrity. But we can't have an argument about the success of Bush's economic policies."
The whole story, well worth reading, is online here.
|1.9.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Sadly, there are things named after Franklin Pierce in New
Hampshire.
(He did manage to die in a drunk-driving accident in a horse and
buggy, though, so that's something.)
TallDave|1.9.09 @ 4:56PM|#
25 million people in Iraq free and safe because he didn't bow to the polls in 2006.
|1.9.09 @ 4:58PM|#
You must define free and safe loosely for that to be true. Unless you mean free and safe from Saddam.
TallDave|1.9.09 @ 5:00PM|#
But we can't have an argument about the success of Bush's
economic policies.
Sure we can. The economy was great until Dems took control of
Congress in 2006, and really fell apart when it was clear Obama
would win. And the economy did great under Repub Congresses from
1994-2006.
It's a stupid game, yes, but easy to play either way.
Naturally all we'll hear is how this proves free market economics
doesn't work.
|1.9.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Conditions are worse now than when Truman left
office
And Truman was followed by Eisenhower.
Now it's like LBJ followed by FDR.
Meta-LurkerBold|1.9.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Of course you Cosmotarains hate Bush's Freedom Agenda.
TallDave, you rock!
Paul|1.9.09 @ 5:03PM|#
That's funny, but I don't think he would win a third
term.
Tricky, you feelin' lucky?
TallDave|1.9.09 @ 5:04PM|#
You must define free and safe loosely for that to be
true.
The violent death rate in 2008 was 21/100K, and 14/100K after
Maliki finished wipiing the floor with the Sadrist goons. That's
safer than Jamaica, South Africa, Venezuela or Brazil, to name a
few places generally not considered that bad off.
As for free, they are far freer than any other Arab country,
arguably excepting Lebanon.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.9.09 @ 5:04PM|#
talldave lol all of those great things that gwb did will be fixed by obama before the end of this year. then you can cry about big gvrnmt all you like.
Marco|1.9.09 @ 5:05PM|#
Germans over here hate Bush. Of course, there are reasons enough for that. But they belive Obama is the savior. How could he? He's just another politican. Bush was maybe a moron, but u know what? At least the world had something to laugh ... The president of the world's superpower behaving like a child. Isn't that funny at all? F*ck all politicans!
|1.9.09 @ 5:05PM|#
I'd like to make a prediction. Bush, tired of laying low to avoid a public that despises him, will, in 2011, take his catlike reflexes and superb physical conditioning to a new level, as he and Jackie Chan pair up for a new martial arts buddy pic. Naturally, Bush will do all of his own stunts. The villain's principal henchman will be a guy who throws deadly shoes.
Meta-LurkerBold|1.9.09 @ 5:06PM|#
TallDave is right. Iraq is a paradise, and those of you who don't agree have BDS.
|1.9.09 @ 5:07PM|#
I quote the philosopher, Homer:
He sucked. I mean really sucked. He was the suckiest suck that ever
sucked.
TallDave|1.9.09 @ 5:09PM|#
I can only point out the facts so many times. Read for
yourselves.
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf
GDP has tripled, basic services have doubled, cell phones have gone
from being essentially banned to 14 million in a country of 25M,
there are hundreds of free radio, newspapers, TV stations... I
could go on.
For years the argument I heard here was "Yeah but it's violent."
Well, not it's not violent either. Shrug. I'm sure there's a new
argument now.
Mister DNA|1.9.09 @ 5:10PM|#
Bragging that Iraq is the freest Arab country is sort of like bragging about having a really good case of herpes simplex 2.
ed|1.9.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Warren | January 9, 2009, 4:52pm | #
Just How the Hell Do You Sum Up George W. Bush's Presidency?
In a word: Worst
"Worst" implies worst ever, Warren. We haven't yet given Saint
Obama his chance at the title. Oh, Bush is just the beginning of
worst. Remember when we called Carter "the worst"? Nixon?
LBJ?
Hold on, people. We're in for a bumpy ride.
ktc2|1.9.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Iraq the world's new vacation hot spot!
LOL.
It's current status is really irrelevent. It wasn't our problem to
begin with.
|1.9.09 @ 5:14PM|#
Just How the Hell Do You Sum Up George W. Bush's
Presidency?
Worst president in my lifetime. I go back to Eisenhower.
I just wanted to answer the quwestion as soon as I saw it. I'll
read the article and other comments now.
Ashley Todd|1.9.09 @ 5:15PM|#
TallDave | January 9, 2009, 5:09pm | #
I can only point out the facts so many times
< 3 TallDave. Especially when he draws the facts backwards.
|1.9.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Bush would've definitely ranked in the bottom quarter or worse
before the financial crisis, but he may have moved himself down a
good clip. We'll have to see how all of this government meddling
pans out, to the extent that we'll be able to separate his from
Obama's/Congress'.
I think one thing to think about is that even if Iraq turns out
okay and even if the economy completely recovers, these things may
happen despite Bush, not thanks to him. I'm pretty sure that both
of these crises could've been handled much, much more adroitly,
regardless of ones politics.
MAX HATS|1.9.09 @ 5:16PM|#
It's funny, for a free and safe place, I sure heard a lot of
machine gun fire downtown in Ramadi last year. And explosions. We
didn't care, because it wasn't aimed at us. Just Iraqis killing
Iraqis, happens all the time.
Talldave, I am curious as to what you would consider a "violent"
environment if Iraq doesn't qualify. Also: can I have two of
whatever you are smoking? It sounds amazing.
Mike M.|1.9.09 @ 5:16PM|#
Osama bin Laden living in an unstable Pakistan
George W. Bush was an awful President, but as for Osama Bin Laden
being alive, you don't know for a fact that this is really true,
nor do I, and I'm not sure there's a person in America who
does.
|1.9.09 @ 5:16PM|#
My favorite thing about Bush:
During one of those
look-how-stupid-people-on-the-street-are-when-we-ask-them-simple-questions
things in England the question was "who is the prime
minister?".
The twelvish-looking boy answers in a really silly accent "George
Booooosh?"
|1.9.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Huh.
All this time, I've been using the words "free" and "safe"
wrong.
You can tell it's free and safe, because 1/3 of the population are
refugees.
But think about this: the Bushite buttkisser comes on here to
defend him, and what does he come up with?
"Oh, yeah? Well, what about the Iraq War? And the economy effing
ROCKED between 2001 and 2006!"
|1.9.09 @ 5:21PM|#
I think its still too early to rate Bush's foreign policy
legacy. Assuming Obama doesn't screw the pooch in Iraq and does a
decent job winning the war in Afghanistan, I actually think Bush
will come out OK on that front.
Domestically? Pretty close to a total fucking disaster. Even his
accomplishments (mainly, that tax cut and vetoing the 53% tax on
cigars) won't last, and all we'll be left with is the dreck.
BDB|1.9.09 @ 5:22PM|#
He's not the worst.
He's still above Buchanan, both Johnsons, Grant, and Wilson IMHO.
Well, maybe tied with Wilson.
Come to think of it, Wilson and Dubya have a lot of
similarities!
|1.9.09 @ 5:22PM|#
You know, if I were Bush, I'd try to get into the House of Lords. It's an appointed gig now, right?
TallDave|1.9.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Ha, and I thought there would be a better counter-argument than
ad hominems.
Well, the facts are what they are.
|1.9.09 @ 5:23PM|#
TallDave just argued that Bush was a good president because the
economy grew while the housing bubble inflated, then argued that
the Democratic Congress was bad becasue the bubble popped.
That's pretty awesome right there.
|1.9.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Having done as promised,
Talldave, your ideas on
Iraqthe Bush presidency continue to behilariousdelusional.
Fixed that for ya, MM.
|1.9.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Yes, before we say "worst", let's see if Bush turns out to have failed to avert a civil war. In the U.S., that is.
|1.9.09 @ 5:24PM|#
BDB,
Johnson pushed through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights
Act.
What is the Bush equivalent?
tarran|1.9.09 @ 5:26PM|#
One quibble, the U.S. government hasn't been in the black since
midway through Eisenhower's term.
The U.S. government does an Enron style accounting fraud where
money loaned by the social security system is counted as income,
which allowed Bill Clinton to pretend that he was operating the
government in the black.
BDB|1.9.09 @ 5:26PM|#
joe--
Not rounding up Arabs after 9/11, maybe? He could have done that,
easily. There are certain people in his party who even
pushed for it, and he essentially told them to fuck off.
He deserves credit for that.
|1.9.09 @ 5:29PM|#
tarran,
The U.S. government does an Enron style accounting fraud where
money loaned by the social security system is counted as
income But the same amount of money is then counted as debt,
when it isn't actually debt, so the same amount of phoney value is
on both sides of the ledger.
The US paid down a third of a trillion dollars in debt at the end
of Bill Clinton's term. I call that "in the black."
cunnivore|1.9.09 @ 5:29PM|#
You can't really blame Bush for the current financial crisis. If
failing to reign in the credit bubbles is enough to get blamed,
then blame Clinton as well.
Now, in 10 years or so when the comeuppance for bailout-mania
arrives, we can blame him for that.
And everybody says the current president is either "worst" or
"best". There's an awful lot of formidable competition in US
history for the worst, so let's withhold judgement on that
one.
Finally, how does Franklin Pierce get so much grief from this
writer? The only thing I know about him was that he sent Commodore
Peary to Japan to open up their market. Shouldn't open borders free
trade libertarians give him some respect for that alone?
|1.9.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Johnson pushed through the Voting Rights Act and Civil
Rights Act.
And did loads of shitty stuff (Nam, war on poverty) while being a
complete fucktard and I still rate him, hands down,
better less fucked than Bush the retarded
son.
|1.9.09 @ 5:31PM|#
BDB,
You're right, Bush's response to 9/11 was much more restrained than
I expected, and he did work hard to keep Americans from taking out
their anger on Arab-Americans.
When 9/11 happened, I thought tense of thousands of random Afghans
were going to be buried in rubble within a week. He didn't do
that.
The Angry Optimist|1.9.09 @ 5:33PM|#
What is the Bush equivalent?
Uhh...AFRICOM?
I would say that standing-up the Buchananites (and *ahem* Paulites)
on immigration was a plus. And CAFTA (was that him? I think
so).
BDB|1.9.09 @ 5:33PM|#
BTW am I the only one who thinks Al Gore would have invaded
Iraq, too?
When was still an active politician, he was quite the hawk and
there's even a YouTube video of him from 1992 talking about how
Bush Sr. was too soft on Saddam and ignored his "terrorist
ties".
BDB|1.9.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Here's the Gore video for anyone who is interested. He sounds extremely hawkish.
The Angry Optimist|1.9.09 @ 5:37PM|#
BDB - FWIW, when I was 17 and thinking about joining the
military, I had a lot of friends tell me that they were going to
wait to see who won the election because Bush was going to send us
to Iraq.
I think Gore might have done something, but it would have
involved the United Nations and other countries more.
.|1.9.09 @ 5:37PM|#
Real historians know enough to not even think about judging a presidency till at least 10 years out at the very earliest. 20 years is better, 30 approaches a reasonable hindsight, 50 disolves contemporary biases. This violates Blog-Rules, of course, wherein individuals and events are weighed by the minute, if not by the second. Blog-Rules bring forth the ephemeral. It's the task of historians to interpret events as they happened, not how they were spinned at the time by partisans and blog-trolls.
|1.9.09 @ 5:37PM|#
You're right, Bush's response to 9/11 was much more
restrained than I expected,...
Only if you count invading a completely different country under
false pretext restrained.
...and he did work hard to keep Americans from taking out their
anger on Arab-Americans.
He also didn't rape any girl scouts while in office. If your best
accomplishment is not violating the human rights of a million
people or so, that says a whole lot, doesn't it.
|1.9.09 @ 5:38PM|#
I've said here a number of times that I'm not sure we wouldn't have invaded two countries under a Gore administration. Maybe Iran instead of Iraq, just to mix it up a little, but I suspect the usual Democratic need to look "tough". Pointless to speculate, of course.
|1.9.09 @ 5:39PM|#
Pierce is the trendy shit-talk object for presidential
historians lately, because you don't know anything about him. Using
him as a negative example is a rhetorical credential-flash.
He, like Bush, didn't do anything unprecedented or even atypical.
But there's no social value in calling either of them "nothing
special," so no one does.
They will, someday.
The Angry Optimist|1.9.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Using him as a negative example is a rhetorical
credential-flash.
Ha! Kind of like when people hate on merlot after watching
Sideways.
BDB|1.9.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Um, Pierce did do something. He signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act,
which repealed the Missouri Compromise and ribbed off the scab of
the slavery in the territories issue which precipitated the Civil
War.
That's why people hate Pierce.
|1.9.09 @ 5:41PM|#
The worst president (with the possible exception of Bush the retarded son) is James Buchanan. I won't even deign to debate that.
cunnivore|1.9.09 @ 5:42PM|#
The Wikipedia compilation of scholarly presidential rankings has Pierce pretty low actually, but the subsequent president Buchanan is even lower. Of course in the surveys they quote, the worst ranking Wilson gets is 11th, the worst FDR gets is 3rd best (?!) and the worst ranking LBJ gets is 17th best, still in the top half; while Calvin Coolidge is ranked in the bottom quartile in most of them. So I think they're full of it.
|1.9.09 @ 5:43PM|#
Best president we ever had. Or at least since the previous one, who was also the best president we ever had. Now this new guy...he's gonna be the best president we ever had. I'm an optimus, er, I mean realistic.
cunnivore|1.9.09 @ 5:46PM|#
BDB, the Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in the Dred Scott decision. Blaming Pierce for the regime of popular sovereignty that was instituted in Kansas and Nebraska is silly, almost as silly as blaming Bush for the current financial crisis when 99% of politicians at the federal level had no problems at all with the mortgage industry until a few months ago.
|1.9.09 @ 5:48PM|#
ed sez "Worst" implies worst ever, Warren.
I've often said "the republic has survived worse" about recent
political leaders.
Now I'm not so sure.
Tacos mmm...|1.9.09 @ 5:48PM|#
That's safer than Jamaica, South Africa, Venezuela or Brazil, to name a few places generally not considered that bad off.
Violence in Jamaica, Venezuala and Brazil is strongly associated
with the narcotics industry, and if you aren't growing,
trafficking, distributing or trying to interfere with any of the
three, you're not likely to be involved. Violence in South Africa
is poverty-related crime. Violence in Iraq, by contrast, has been
largely sectarian. Would you rather live in a society where a dozen
narcothugs showed up dead in alleys every day, or one where a dozen
people were blown up every day because they espoused mainstream
religous beliefs?
BDB|1.9.09 @ 5:52PM|#
Dred Scott came after Kansas-Nebraska, cunnivore.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a really, really, really fucking stupid
thing for Pierce to sign but he was a "doughface" (a northerner who
sucked up to slave owners), just like Buchanan.
TallDave|1.9.09 @ 5:58PM|#
Would you rather live in a society where a dozen narcothugs
showed up dead in alleys every day, or one where a dozen people
were blown up every day because they espoused mainstream religous
beliefs?
Heh. I'm not sure why I would care which irrational ideology,
prohibition or radical Islam, was getting people killed.
|1.9.09 @ 6:00PM|#
juris imprudent,
Where is your doubt? That W was the worst political leader, or that
the republic will survive?
ed,
I claim no prescience. Things can always get worse.
冉爽慷|1.9.09 @ 6:00PM|#
25 million people in Iraq free and safe because he didn't
bow to the polls in 2006.
Even assuming that's true, the point is nobody elected him to look
after the interests of Iraq. The president's job is looking after
the interests of the United States. In that respect, he failed
miserably.
TallDave|1.9.09 @ 6:04PM|#
Iraq will be his legacy, though.
FDR wasn't elected to save Britain and France, either, but people
generally don't remember him for making the economy even worse and
trying to stack the Supreme Court.
BDB|1.9.09 @ 6:06PM|#
We didn't go to war to save Britain or France in 1941. We went to war because Germany declared war on us after their ally committed a sneak attack.
ed|1.9.09 @ 6:06PM|#
FDR wasn't elected to save Britain and France
Which election? 1932? '36? '40? '44?
Mad Max|1.9.09 @ 6:09PM|#
Pierce was on the wrong side of the great moral issue of slavery
- otherwise, he would rank as a great President. Obama is on the
wrong side of the great moral issue of abortion - unless and until
he changes course (no sign of this so far, but I believe in Hope
and Change), then there's no way Obama can be an improvement on
Bush.
Not that Bush was all that great on abortion. His anti-abortion
efforts were mostly flaccid rhetoric - he didn't seem to give it a
high priority, and he never used the bully pulpit of the Presidency
to point out, again and again, the immorality of abortion and the
*Roe* decision. If his Supreme Court justices vote anti-Roe, that
will be something, but remember that his first impulse was to put
Harriet Miers on the Court, and Miers seemed *very* wobbly.
I'm sure you won't want me to ride my hobby-horse like this, but
Bush is disappointing on so many levels - economically, in foreign
policy, and morally - that it's hard to summon up much nostalgia
for him on any level.
Unlike Pierce, Bush made at least a few rhetorical nods in the
direction of the right answer in the great moral issue of the day,
but he gave the impression of not caring much. At least Pierce
cared about slavery. He cared about defending it.
MAX HATS|1.9.09 @ 6:12PM|#
Great legacy, Talldave. We've replaced dictatorial strongman
rule with strongman rule with a very thin veneer of democracy. Oh,
and tribalism. Who could forget the tribalism. Sure, that's worth
bankrupting America for.
I do find it hilarious that guys like you who pretend to be paining
in your heart of heart for the dear little Iraqis are always so
insult their religion, be ignorant of their culture and handwave
away their sufferings if it doesn't suit your political worldview.
Tens of thousands of deaths by Saddam? Tragic! Tens of thousdands
of deaths by anarchy? Meaningless.
MAX HATS|1.9.09 @ 6:15PM|#
Wow, I really massacred the language in that last post. I wrote one thing, did some editing to change the content a bit, and in the process apparently forgot several crucial words and conjugations. I really don't know how that happens. My apologies to any and all who tried to read it.
|1.9.09 @ 6:16PM|#
Just How the Hell Do You Sum Up George W. Bush's
Presidency?
"In the news today:
Charged with multiple counts of Treason for repeatedly violating
the Presidential oath to '...Protect & Defend the Constitution
of the United States.', George Bush was tried and found guilty on
all counts by a duly selected Jury of his Peers last week.
As with all current convictions for Treason, the sentence of
"Hanged by the Neck until Dead" was carried out today on the
scafolding erected at the base of the Reflecting Pool."
SIV|1.9.09 @ 6:17PM|#
BTW am I the only one who thinks Al Gore would have invaded
Iraq, too?
No you're not.
We'll never know but everything indicates he would have.
|1.9.09 @ 6:17PM|#
"25 million people free in Iraq"
"No controlling authority"
"I am not a crook"
"One's a born liar, the other is convicted"
Which one of the above does not belong?
BDB|1.9.09 @ 6:19PM|#
"We'll never know but everything indicates he would have."
Yeah, I think the only thing you could argue is whether he would
have done it more competently or not. But he didn't go peacenik
until he had no political future left. There's a reason Nader got
3% of the vote.
cunnivore|1.9.09 @ 6:28PM|#
Right on, TallDave. Nearly 4000 US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, tens of thousands of wounded US troops, and $2 trillion later, Iraq has the same number of WMDs and is slightly safer than Jamaica (?!). Thank God we didn't listen to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
|1.9.09 @ 6:29PM|#
cunnivore-
Even worse-did you scroll furhter down and read the survey where
the historians were classified as either liberal or
conservative?
Both conservatives and liberals ranked Dishonest Abe, The Great
Dictator, number 1. IMO, I can't see how a libertarian could rate
Lincoln's presidency any better than, say, 40th. I think I am on
solid ground in proclaiming that if an anarcho-free
enterprise-individualist ranked Lincoln any higher than 40th, he
would have to be batshit in LurkerBoldian proportions.
|1.9.09 @ 6:33PM|#
BDB-
That statement fits with three of the statements I posted. A little
old school sports knowledge in play-one of the statements actually
refers to the fellow who made one of the other statements, only the
reference is to another vice.
|1.9.09 @ 6:38PM|#
Shadow of the Past-
No. I have never, ever posted as anybody but me. I have never, ever
spoofed or trolled.
However, I have said some inflammatory things and I have engaged in
mischief.
|1.9.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Bin Laden is dead, dead, not living, liquidated, vaporized,
greased, dusted, knocked off...DEAD.
What is so hard to grasp about that?
|1.9.09 @ 6:48PM|#
The US paid down a third of a trillion dollars in debt at the end of Bill Clinton's term.
Not according to
this table sowing debt from 1950 to 1999.
It shows the debt increasing every single year.
I agree that under Clinton we saw the closest thing to fiscal
responsibility from anyone in years, but tarran's correct. It was
mostly sleight of hand accounting.
As i've tried to say in the past, joe, this is not a simple
kneejerk 'pox on both..". I happen to believe that Clinton was a
generally successful president and that Bush has at almost every
turn come up short.
|1.9.09 @ 6:53PM|#
And
this table shows debt from 2000 to 2008.
Wouldn't a paydown of "third of a trillion dollars in debt" show up
as a reduction somewhere?
|1.9.09 @ 6:54PM|#
What is so hard to grasp about that?
Uhh,...because there's...like...zero evidence.
B|1.9.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Osama bin Laden has not put out a new video in 3 or so years and doesn't even bother to comment on the major issues of the day, such as the goings-on in Gaza right now, yet the fact that he is still "alive" is considered a failure of the Bush Administration? Elvis and John Lennon are as alive as Bin Laden is.
|1.9.09 @ 7:01PM|#
I agree that it is highly likely that OBL is dead. He was a very
sick man already and it is unlikely that he has gotten the best
threatment in wazirastan (or wherever).
But likelihood is not the same thing as established fact.
BDB|1.9.09 @ 7:05PM|#
Regardless, Ayman Al-Zawahiri is still alive, and he is generally believed to be the Dick Cheney to bin Laden's George W.
Jerry|1.9.09 @ 7:06PM|#
I think Bush will be remembered as the president who put fail in the word fail.
Syd|1.9.09 @ 7:20PM|#
Mad Max | January 9, 2009, 6:09pm | #
Pierce was on the wrong side of the great moral issue of slavery -
otherwise, he would rank as a great President.
No, Pierce was pretty mediocre from top to bottom. His greatest
achievement was the creation of the Republican party in opposition
to his policies. His second greatest was being the only elected
president to be denied renomination by his own party.
Either he or Buchanan's at the bottom, not just for failure to deal
with a crisis but actually exacerbating it.
|1.9.09 @ 7:46PM|#
hmm...Mmhmhmmm...hehehhum..hahHAHAHA..HAHAHAHAHAHham
Ahem...OMGLMFAO!!! STFUYSF!!! LOLS...
Sorry... been drinkin... but I think that about sums it up without
crying about it.
cunnivore|1.9.09 @ 8:04PM|#
yet the fact that he is still "alive" is considered a
failure of the Bush Administration?
The fact that he died without a single molecule of American made
ammunition/shrapnel lodged in his body is damn well a failure. I
don't think it is just for him to die of kidney disease as a free
man 5-7 years after 9/11.
That's assuming he is dead, which is not necessarily true.
cunnivore|1.9.09 @ 8:06PM|#
Syd, what about opening trade relations with Japan? I don't mean to shill for Franklin Pierce, but let's not be overly harsh with him!
Bingo|1.9.09 @ 8:23PM|#
hmm...Mmhmhmmm...hehehhum..hahHAHAHA..HAHAHAHAHAHham
Ahem...OMGLMFAO!!! STFUYSF!!! LOLS...
Sorry... been drinkin... but I think that about sums it up without crying about it.
Pretty much what strangel said! only not the crying bit, damn
dude man up.
We need to have a libertarian intervention for talldave. He's
pretty critical of a lot of government behavior, but he slurps on
the federal cock when it comes to foreign interventionism.
BakedPenguin|1.9.09 @ 9:27PM|#
The fact that he died without a single molecule of American made ammunition/shrapnel lodged in his body is damn well a failure.
There was a National Lampoon (IIRC) joke about how the CIA really
killed Francisco Franco - with a slow acting poison that took 35
years.
However, I have said some inflammatory things...
Libertymike, master of the understatement.
alan|1.9.09 @ 9:34PM|#
I don't get Tall Dave's argument in the least. Even if what he
says is true about Iraq, so what?
Put it another way, suppose Obama decides to clean up Sudan, and
after eight years, its GDP grows by a million percent, there is a
vibrant and active press, 75 percent of its students are going to
college, and on his death bed Fidel Castro proclaims
Sudan's health care system the best in the world. Even if all that
occurred, what would it matter to Obama's presidential ranking if
the American economy was tanking and our boys were dying daily in
Sudan? Not a wit.
There is only one objective way to judge the Bush presidency. I
know exactly how much was in my wallet two weeks to the day Bill
Clinton left office, and I will just reach in my wallet right now,
and take a peak . . .
Aw, shit, can any one lend me twenty until next Thursday? I'm good
for it . .
|1.9.09 @ 10:03PM|#
I don't know how succesful Iraq can be as I don't see many of the Iraqi refugees, the majority of which went to Syria and Jordan, in a kind of rush to return.
The Bearded Hobbit|1.9.09 @ 10:07PM|#
For the first time in my fifty-odd years of life I was ashamed
to be an American in March of 2003 when Bush The Lesser started a
war with Iraq. For that one, simple fact I will hate that SOB for
the rest of my life.
I look forward to his War Crimes Trial.
... Hobbit
BDB|1.9.09 @ 10:08PM|#
Alan, so you have nothing on January 9th, 2009. How much did you have in your wallet on January 9th, 2001?
subzero|1.9.09 @ 10:16PM|#
In a word: Worst
What about Wilson?
Wilson created the Federal Reserve. If it wasn't created we
wouldn't have the economic crisis.
He also entered WWI. If the US didn't participate Iraq might not
have been ever created.
There is no doubt Wilson deserves more blame for both the financial
crisis and the Iraq war than Bush. Wilson made them possible.
alan|1.9.09 @ 10:31PM|#
two hundred forty six dollars and two primo joints hidden beneath my social security card.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.9.09 @ 10:34PM|#
bearded hobbit man, do you have like an 8-track hooked to your computer nto rip old tapes? just curious about that. wood be so groovy to rip 8tracks and shit.
The Bearded Hobbit|1.9.09 @ 10:45PM|#
nobody u no and a big fan of joe p boyle and mng and jennifer
asked:
.. negatory .. I'm slowly but surely burning my vinyl LPs to
digital..
.. someday vinyl and tube amps will re-establish their superior
position!!
.. Hobbit
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.9.09 @ 10:46PM|#
talldave you are like what is so wrong about the libertarian
scene man. you are so focused on not and not on what and shit
doode.
so what if bush did not open detainment camps for americans like
fdr. fdr was the shit and it was needed. bush is shit and it was
not needed. good thing the cali congress chick stopped him from
doing it too man.
he did not open the borders for like freedom for mexicans and shit
either. happy about that man?
what about that enron shit that went down, huh? that was like
totally wrong and cheney should hang for it if i was for killing
doodes for shit.
he did not even help with global warming or the homeless. does he
have an organic car like obama? i don't think so man.
you are just such a tool for the establishment man.
Meta-nobody u no|1.9.09 @ 10:47PM|#
I bet "nobody u no" is an objective supporter of saddam
hussein..
why dont we start a war with iran and syria for a real jobs
programe?
Meta-nobody u no|1.9.09 @ 10:52PM|#
and hang harry reed and pulosi! hang em! for being progressive
traitors and disloyal!
not like those über-loyal Palintrüppen SIV and TallDave.
meta-nobody u no|1.9.09 @ 10:53PM|#
you must join the Palintrüppen or be an anti-american progressive cosmotarian who doesnt like malkin...
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.9.09 @ 10:56PM|#
only if they try some sort of fascist shit non obama.
meta-nobody u no|1.9.09 @ 10:57PM|#
why shouldnt we round up them anti-american foreigners?
HEIL PALIN!
meta-nobody u no|1.9.09 @ 10:58PM|#
everybody who doesnt drink the obamamessiah kool-aid knows ACORN, the homosexuals, atheists, and bill klinton stole the election...
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.9.09 @ 11:04PM|#
why are you so afraid of the gays? hiding something man? gay
people are cool. so are athiests when they are not like so totally
angry at shit.
what is wrong with ACORN? they just try to get people to vote and
realllly uncool people try to poison their voting stuff with like
bad applications. it is not like ACORN made up the apps by themself
and shit, doode.
just chill man, we need more peace.
The Bearded Hobbit|1.9.09 @ 11:06PM|#
Meta-nobody u no quoth
i bet u r a deodorant wearing cosmotarian
hobbit...
.. bet you lose .
.. Hobbit
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.9.09 @ 11:08PM|#
deoderant is bad for mother earch. it is like stepping on kittens.
Meta-nobody u no|1.9.09 @ 11:11PM|#
i like stepping on kittens. only cosmotarians think animals have more rights than frozen embryos!
alan|1.9.09 @ 11:23PM|#
who doesnt like malkin
I remember years ago my daily fishwrap carried her syndicated
column and she was at the time complaining that Sarah Jessica
Parker was back at work a few months after giving birth to a child
and she even managed to slim back down to her cute little figure
(whatever you say about her face, that body is TIGHT).
Malkin was incensed by this fact. Bitching something about real
mothers need to take their time to be real mothers.
You know who was the real loser in that deal. Malkin's
husband.
Bet he was thinking, 'the baby is cute, the baby is adorable. It
also sleeps half the day. Now get your fat ass on the stair master
bitch, or I'm out of here.'
JStrauss|1.9.09 @ 11:37PM|#
All this talk about bin Laden, and whether he's dead or not, has
me thinking: Who cares?
A bin Laden capture or proof of his death would be a political
victory for Bush (or Obama) but not much else.
I think he is neutralized and has been for a long time. So let's
stop making him out to be a super-villain with magical powers. He
doesn't wield any real power and he doesn't scare me a whit.
gmatts|1.9.09 @ 11:48PM|#
Bush's legacy to the people of Earth is immaterial. He will be
dead at some point.
So the question is moot.
gmatts|1.9.09 @ 11:52PM|#
The question of Bush's legacy has me thinking about a report
that came out involving a talk between Obama and Bush. After the
election, Bush and Obama spoke and Bush told Obama, regarding the
presidency, "You're about to embark on an awesome journey."
If that's all Bush was looking for, couldn't he just have gone on a
fuckin' roller coaster?
Or maybe whitewater rafting?
|1.10.09 @ 12:35AM|#
Opposite is the case: Presidency so disturbing that all persuasions are rebuilding their very foundations. Nobody has anything to say anymore.
|1.10.09 @ 3:53AM|#
Taking a cue from Douglas Adams and "Mostly Harmless", I present
a two word description of the Bush years:
"Endless Jackassery"
Actually, that applies to just about everything in the world since
Ogg banged two rocks together and that precocious scamp Ogg Junior
invented fire, but this time it's in boldface
because the Bush-assery was simply off the hook.
|1.10.09 @ 4:00AM|#
as he and Jackie Chan pair up for a new martial arts buddy
pic. Naturally, Bush will do all of his own stunts. The villain's
principal henchman will be a guy who throws deadly
shoes.
I would totally go see that.
The Angry Optimist|1.10.09 @ 4:21AM|#
There was a National Lampoon (IIRC) joke about how the CIA
really killed Francisco Franco - with a slow acting poison that
took 35 years.
BP - It wasn't National Lampoon, it was Doonesbury!
Bill S. Preston, Esq.|1.10.09 @ 8:51AM|#
After the election, Bush and Obama spoke and Bush told
Obama, regarding the presidency, "You're about to embark on an
awesome journey."
Excellent!
gmatts|1.10.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Mr. Preston,
I believe that Bush said, upon him hanging up with Obama, "San
Dimas High School Football Rules!".
webXL|1.10.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Two words: Katrina and Capitulation
A natural disaster was turned into a government failure and it
became the tipping point of public opinion. That was a major
problem for everyone with high expectations of government.
The problem for me is that he capitulated to everything after that
(excluding the prescription drug benefit and steel tariffs) and
that just made him very weak and ineffective.
But, I don't think he can go down as one of the worst because the
other 42 presidents didn't have to deal with the shit he had to
deal with. First was Florida: virtually no mandate to govern. Next
9-11: pretty tough to prevent all the big brother types in the
administration from increasing/abusing powers in the name of
safety. A Gore administration would have been expected to do the
same thing, especially with a Republican Congress aiding and
abetting. Maybe not war with Iraq, but it was Clinton afterall who
promoted regime change in Iraq. Next was a small recession from the
boom and bust of the late 90s and Enron/Worldcom. Then the absolute
fuck up in the CIA and faulty WMD intel. Then some hardups in
military intel decide to "torture" (humiliate) some Iraqi POWs.
Meanwhile, the economy is just fine at this point. The GSEs are
continuing to buy up and promote low-income bad-credit mortgages,
because everyone deserves a couple guest rooms and a swimming pool,
no matter how many times they fail to pay something back.
But then a frickin hurricane nails a below-sea-level city that
should have called New Poorleans, and everyone, every one, freaks
out because a republican is in the white house, and a bunch of
people who probably didn't vote for him were let down by the local
officials they did vote for.
Then there's the credit crunch and global financial meltdown, which
can hardly be blamed on him. The bailouts piss me off, but then
again, going off the gold standard pissed me off, so which is
worse?
Bush was popular from 9-12-01 until about 9-15-01, give or take a
few hours.
Of course anyone with a heartbeat is going to blame him for a lot
of stuff, but how can you objectively make a case that Gore or
Kerry would have done a lot better?
|1.10.09 @ 12:57PM|#
OBL is more valuable to us if he is still alive, which I doubt. He's poison to his movement, nobody can get near him without being exposed. That's why the terrorists have been pretty much shut down everywhere. Calling this a Bush failure is nothing but partisan hackery.
|1.10.09 @ 1:04PM|#
I mean, OBLs friends can't even pull off a simple kidnapping in the phillipines these days.
Guy Montag|1.10.09 @ 1:08PM|#
Katrina?
Yea, that is another negative for the Bush administration. Using
federal resources on a State issue.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.10.09 @ 1:35PM|#
"During one of those
look-how-stupid-people-on-the-street-are-when-we-ask-them-simple-questions
things in England the question was "who is the prime
minister?".
The twelvish-looking boy answers in a really silly accent "George
Booooosh?""
Are we to assume you think that answer was a wrong one?
|1.10.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Of course anyone with a heartbeat is going to blame him for
a lot of stuff, but how can you objectively make a case that Gore
or Kerry would have done a lot better?
A baked potato, without the sour cream and chives, would have done
no worse. I am amazed that anybody, Democrat, Republican,
Libertarian or Socialist* could describe the Bush presidency as
anything other than a complete failure from start to finish.
* I guess Halliburton, Blackwater and other corporations who got no
bid, no oversight contracts were happy with it.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.10.09 @ 1:45PM|#
I would agree a baked potato would have done no worse because a baked potato would have done nothing (except perhaps be eaten or rot) but another politician might have done worse. I do not know if Obama will be worse but he might be. I am no Bush fan by the way, I am just saying it is not wise to dare the fates.
BDB|1.10.09 @ 1:54PM|#
All I can say is I think Bill Clinton getting a third and fourth
term* would have been better than this. And we do know how he
governed.
*With a Republican Congress
|1.10.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Isaac B.,
The charts you link to include the accounting gimmick that counts
Social Security surplus money as debt, even though it's a "debt"
that the government owes to itself. Absent that gimmick, the
national debt dropped by a third of a trillion dollars during the
surplus years at the end of the 1990s.
|1.10.09 @ 2:00PM|#
We don't have to speculate on whether Al Gore would have invaded
Iraq; he can't out very strongly against the invasion before it
happened.
There's quite a bit of room between "peacenik" and "Dick
Cheney."
BDB|1.10.09 @ 2:03PM|#
joe | January 10, 2009, 2:00pm | #
We don't have to speculate on whether Al Gore would have invaded Iraq; he can't out very strongly against the invasion before it happened.
Yes, of course he did. His political future was over and he could
ingratiate himself to the left wing of the Democratic Party by
opposing a (then) popular war.
Did you watch that video from 1992? He was uber-hawkish when he
still held political office. He thought George Sr. was too soft. He
sounded more like Dick Cheney than Howard Dean then.
BDB|1.10.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Remember the foreign policy "debate" in 2000 with Dubya, too? It was a love fest. They agreed on every military action taken by the U.S. since Vietnam!
|1.10.09 @ 2:08PM|#
BDB,
His political future was over and he could ingratiate himself
to the left wing of the Democratic Party...
Um...do you see a problem with that statement?
His political career was over, so now he could ingratiate himself
with a political faction?
He was a hawk, no question. There's no doubt he would have invaded
Afghanistan. He probably would have carried out one or more
"Operation Desert Foxes" against Iraq.
But, once again, there's a lot of room between "hippie pacifist"
and Dick Cheney. There were myriad reasons not to invade Iraq, even
from a hawkish point of view. In addition to liberal and
anti-interventionist ideas, it was a just plain idiotic thing to do
even from a realist perspective, and even from a
conservative-hawkish perspective to do so while we were busy
fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
BDB|1.10.09 @ 2:10PM|#
"His political career was over, so now he could ingratiate
himself with a political faction?"
Yes, so he could collect speaking fees from groups like MoveOn etc.
There are other reasons to suck up to a political faction than
public office.
|1.10.09 @ 2:10PM|#
If Osama bin Laden is alive, it means he has access to an
underground network capable of getting the equipment, and
specialists with the medical expertise to use it, necessary to keep
someone with kidney failure alive, to the mountainous hinterlands
of northwest Pakistan.
If his network is capable of that, what does it mean for their
chem-bio aspirations?
BDB|1.10.09 @ 2:11PM|#
And wasn't "regime change" also a stated goal of the Clinton-Gore administration?
|1.10.09 @ 2:11PM|#
BDB,
We're talking about Al Gore, the man who won the popular vote in
2000. MoveOn dot org? You think he needed to suck up to MoveOn dot
org to get speaking fees?
BDB|1.10.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"If Osama bin Laden is alive, it means he has access to an
underground network capable of getting the equipment, and
specialists with the medical expertise to use it, necessary to keep
someone with kidney failure alive, to the mountainous hinterlands
of northwest Pakistan."
Or it means he isn't in the mountains at all.
Notice how every major Al Qaeda guy we've captured (KSM, for
example) is hiding in urban areas? Yeah. I think the cave stuff is
propaganda for his videos more than reality.
|1.10.09 @ 2:14PM|#
And wasn't "regime change" also a stated goal of the
Clinton-Gore administration??
Yes, and to that end, they sponsored all sorts of covert actions
intended to destablize the regime, kept the blockade in place,
defended the Kurds, and launched several bombing missions.
None of which constitute a policy of invading, overthrowing, taking
over, and permanently occupying the country.
You're buying into 2002-vintage neocon thinking - if you don't like
Saddam, it means you have to support OIF. Not true.
|1.10.09 @ 2:19PM|#
Al Gore's words in 1992, when he was running for vice-president,
eleven years before anyone dreamed up the idea of reinvading and
occupying Iraq, should be taken as a reliable indication of his
position.
His words on the eve of the invasion itself, when he had no
political career, should be taken as purely political.
And also, too: in that speech, he most certainly did not echo the
MoveOn line. He stated that there was a strong case the Saddam had
WMDs, for example.
crapula|1.10.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Osama is almost certainly dead, or at least gravely ill. Otherwise, why would his deputy be putting out videos instead of him? How long has it been since he put out a video?
BDB|1.10.09 @ 2:21PM|#
I'm saying his 1992 speech (and the 2000 foreign policy debate) is a more reliable indicator of how he would have governed than what he said in 2002, yes. Why? Because the former tells us how he acts in situations where he has to play politics.
BDB|1.10.09 @ 2:27PM|#
Al Gore saying he is against the war in 2002 is about as worth as much as when Clinton came out for marijuana decrim. in January 2001. It tells us nothing about the policies they pursue.
|1.10.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Actually, I think TallDave is correct that iraq is better off
NOW than it was under Saddam.
The question is, are WE better off as a result.
Not so clear.
We've blown a lot of cash. The Iraqi government doesn't really like
us that much. We stirred up a lot of shit, and the ME doesn't seem
to be getting any more peaceful. Our military is tied down,
Afghanistan is falling apart, and Pakistan is tettering on the
brink of an implosion.
Not all of that is a direct result of the Iraq war, but it didn't
help any of it, for sure.
Still, lets not begrudge the fact that Iraqi is gradually emerging
into something, really, not half bad.
|1.10.09 @ 2:59PM|#
I don't think the money in your wallet says anything about the
current vs. previous president or even the economy in general. I
have $828 in my wallet right now. I can't say exactly what I had on
Jan 9, 2001, but it was probably considerably less since I think I
made around 42K at the time. I in no way credit Bush for one penny
of my increased earnings. And the economy isn't better, but I
am.
You know how hard it was to get by on 42K per year in 2001? After
you pay the rent, insurance, gas, electric, phone, and child
support, there's hardly anything left for booze, cocaine, tobacco,
marijuana, skiing, strip clubs, fishing trips, guns, and cunting.
But just as I can't credit George Bush, I don't blame Bill Clinton
for the sad life of squalor I had in 2001.
Minus the Democrat/Republican war on drugs, I'd probably have an
extra 50 grand in my pocket today. I try not to think about it too
much, but when I do, I'm blown away by the amount I've spent on
partying over 20 years of "adult" life. I didn't want that Mercedes
anyway.
Hey, it's snowing outside. Gonna go play.
Guy Montag|1.10.09 @ 3:22PM|#
If Osama bin Laden is alive, it means he has access to an
underground network
You forgot his access to the secret underground DHMO distribution
network. Why he is keeping that one in his robe still puzzles
me.
|1.10.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Still, lets not begrudge the fact that Iraqi is gradually
emerging into something, really, not half bad.
Yeah, with a hundred thousand US troops on the ground the elected
democratic government in Iraq still holds power. Whoop de fuckin'
do!
Talk to me about success six months after our troops get
out of there. Ya think it will be before 2012? I don't.
Kolohe|1.10.09 @ 4:40PM|#
I never understood why Gore didn't run again in '04. He likely would have won.
|1.10.09 @ 6:25PM|#
BDB,
Without a strong presidential push, there would have been no
political pressure to invade Iraq over the past eight years. It's
fine to say that Al Gore would have bent to the political winds,
but the political winds were blowing towards an invasion of Iraq
until Bush set them off.
Also, think about how he two parties looked at the threat of
terrorism. It was a much bigger deal to Clinton/Gore before 9/11 -
they made the Chief of Counterterrorism a cabinet level post, Bush
demoted him back to sub-cabinet. Clinton said that the threat of an
al Qaeda attack kept him up and night; Bush said that Saddam would
have to be confronted during the 2000 campaign.
There's a significant partisan split on the issue of the terrorism
and national security in general, one that goes beyond hawk/dove
divisions. Republicans still look at those issues in terms of
competitions between states, while Democrats are much more focused
on the issue of stateless terrorists. This is why we had 30,000
troops garrisoned in Kabul while the Talibuddies we hired escorted
bin Laden out of Tora Bora. This is why Bush considered the Afghan
War over once the Taliban military was routed and Karzai installed
in Kabul. This is why they bought into the idea that fundie fanatic
bin Laden was somehow tied in with Saddam. This is why they thought
that installing a friendly government in Iraq was the solution to
al Qaeda-style terrorism. This is why they thought that major
military operations in Iraq would be over once the government was
toppled and the Iraqi military had surrendered. This, to a large
extent, explains why Republicans lean towards main-force military
options to fight terrorism, while Democrats lean towards
intel/special forces/law enforcement type of work.
Deciding to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11 is a the most
dramatic example of this state-based vision of 21st century
security challenges. Nothing Gore did during his stint as VP or
since leads me to think that he looks at the issue the way the
Republicans do, rather than the way the Democrats do.
|1.10.09 @ 6:27PM|#
For God's sake, he picked Joe Lieberman as his VP,
joe!
Because terrorism and how to fight it was not a top-tier issue
before 9/11, I don't think the distinction I described above was as
apparent when Gore picked Lieberman.
|1.10.09 @ 6:33PM|#
Actually, I think TallDave is correct that iraq is better
off NOW than it was under Saddam.
Look closely at how TallDave set up this comparison: he compares
the death rate in Iraq averaged over the entirety of Saddam's
tenure to the death rate there at the end of 2008.
He doesn't compare the situation there in 2002 to the situation
today.
Nor does he compare the average death rate between 1979 and 2003 to
the average from 2003 to 2009. He cherry-picks.
Yes, it is far better in Iraq now than it was during the Anfal
campaign.
However, talking about the death rate over the entirety of Saddam's
reign, and ignoring how restricted he was in the last five or so
years of of the Saddam era, is like saying that the Germans
murdered an average of 1 million people per year in concentration
camps between 1939 and 1951. True, but highly misleading.
Xmas|1.10.09 @ 6:35PM|#
Can I play the "What if Al Gore was President" game?
Al Gore would have kept up the Iraqi embargo and no-fly zones. This
would have kept US troops in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. There would
have been numerous attacks on US soldiers and civilians in both
countries. The Saudi Government would have been destabilized to the
point of toppling. SA would now be the home seat of the growing
Caliphate and oil would be $80 to $100 dollars a barrel.
BDB|1.10.09 @ 7:20PM|#
"Because terrorism and how to fight it was not a top-tier issue
before 9/11"
But you just said the Clinton/Gore administration was very worried
about OBL and terrorism. So wasn't Gore thinking that when he
picked the Liebertool?
Perfect Summation of the Bush |1.10.09 @ 7:24PM|#
2001-2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2NISOb-Brs
2005-2007:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LezWcPDXd60&feature=related
2008-2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtFWLI9AfXc&feature=related
(think of Samuel L. Jackson as Obama in the last one).
|1.10.09 @ 8:28PM|#
BDB,
But you just said the Clinton/Gore administration was very
worried about OBL and terrorism.
I said they were more worried about it than the Bush
administration.
I think we can pretty confidently say that, in hindsight, terrorism
wasn't a terribly high priority for anyone. It didn't register at
all as an issue in the 2000 elections.
There was certainly more of a focus on the issue by the Clinton
administration than the first eight months of the Bush
administration, but it was still a pretty small-potatoes issue. I
just brought that up by way of pointing out that stateless
terrorism, distinct from foreign policy and security issues
involving politics and conflicts between nations, has long gotten
more attention from the Democrats than Republicans.
|1.10.09 @ 10:29PM|#
Gee Bush was terrible, but compared to Clinton he shines.
Compared to what Obama will deliver (trillion dollar deficits
forever) he will be a saint.
On an intregity basis he was holy, not having to define is or
commit impeachable offensives before even entering the WH the
author reveals both his lack of a moral compass and a unique set of
double standards.
In four years we will pine for the good old Bush years after
witnessing the horror of the Obama politburo.
Fluffy|1.11.09 @ 8:56AM|#
We cannot evaluate Bush's presidency based on TallDave's
statement that Iraq is "safe and free".
We can only do so by also answering the questions:
1. Did Iraq's safety and freedom cost us what we were told in
advance it would cost?
2. Are Iraq's safety and freedom worth the direct costs borne by
the US?
3. Could the direct costs experienced by the US in making Iraq
"safe and free" have done more to enhance US security, prestige and
prosperity if they were spent on something else?
Since the answers to these questions are No, No and No, the Bush
presidency is still a failure, if we are to consider ONLY the Iraq
adventure when evaluating it.
Naturally, the Bush administration is associated with lots of other
policy disasters, but we can leave those aside for the
moment.
Also, I don't think we can determine whether or not Iraq is "safe
and free" now until they elect a government that we don't like.
Then we'll see how "safe and free" they are. I suspect that if a
pro-Iran party or coalition of parties were to take power in Iraq,
we would undermine that government either by direct attack or by
encouraging Maliki or some other potential puppet to usurp
authority in Iraq. Just like we did when Hamas beat Fatah in
elections. Even now you aren't "free" in Iraq if you want to form a
Sunni political party.
Johnny Nowhere|1.11.09 @ 9:56AM|#
My sincere hope is that George Bush lives the rest of his life a
pariah, and unable to leave his crappy scrub-brush "ranch."
Unable to leave due to the hateful, murderous stares he receives
from his countrymen, and the threat of war crimes trials in other
nations.
I also wish genial warts upon him, if he hasn't got them
already.
Mad Max|1.11.09 @ 11:08AM|#
'On an intregity basis he was holy, not having to define is or
commit impeachable offensives before even entering the WH the
author reveals both his lack of a moral compass and a unique set of
double standards.'
Bush's curious definition of 'torture' and his interpretation of
such laws as the Non-Detention Act, made Clinton's definition of
'is' look like integrity itself.
(Of ocurse, Clinton did worse things than define 'is,' but I'm
using the example you cited.)
Tsu Dho Nihm|1.11.09 @ 11:13AM|#
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmiserablefailure.htm
|1.11.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Surpisingly, even to me, I rate Clinton in the upper tier of
prsidents in my lifetime. With LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush the 1st,
and Bush the retarded son for competition, making the top 50%* is
not that great of an achievement, but still ...
* Over any 50 year stretch in US history, you'll probably find more
screwed up chief executives than not.
Neu Mejican|1.11.09 @ 1:25PM|#
The Bearded Hobbit | January 9, 2009, 10:07pm | #
For the first time in my fifty-odd years of life I was ashamed to
be an American in March of 2003 when Bush The Lesser started a war
with Iraq. For that one, simple fact I will hate that SOB for the
rest of my life.
I look forward to his War Crimes Trial.
... Hobbit
Well said.
At least you live in Jemez...beautiful things to look at as you
recover.
;^)
BDB|1.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#
J sub D, the least worst Presidents since World War II were Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. Why? Because for whatever mistakes all of them made, none of them left the country in a ditch when they left office.
Neu Mejican|1.11.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Regarding Iraq,
I believe Fluffy sums up nicely.
I believe there is a meaningful reason it is called the "Department
of Defense" now, no longer the "Department of War."
Iraq was a failure to see the distinction.
Neu Mejican|1.11.09 @ 3:29PM|#
;^)
I also wish genial warts upon him, if he hasn't got them
already.
gen⋅ial: /ˈdʒinyəl, ˈdʒiniəl/ [jeen-yuhl, jee-nee-uhl]
-adjective
1. warmly and pleasantly cheerful; cordial: a genial disposition; a genial host.
2. favorable for life, growth, or comfort; pleasantly warm; comfortably mild: the genial climate of Hawaii.
3. characterized by genius.
|1.11.09 @ 8:45PM|#
you are so enthused about bad mouthing bush you have ignored one very important thing. thier have been no sucessfull attacks since 9-11. and it is not because they have not tried. we can onley hope and pray obama can do as well.unlike bush hateing leftists, most conserviives want obama to do well for the sake of our country.
AFLAC Duck|1.11.09 @ 9:09PM|#
"you are so enthused about bad mouthing bush you have ignored
one very important thing. thier have been no sucessfull attacks
since 9-11."
ANNNNNTHRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX!
zoltan|1.11.09 @ 9:20PM|#
Hey John, it looks like there have been terrorist attacks since 9/11...on your grammar and critical thinking.
BakedPenguin|1.11.09 @ 9:22PM|#
thier [sic] have been no sucessfull attacks since 9-11...
I have a magic rock that keeps away tigers...
The Angry Optimist|1.11.09 @ 11:23PM|#
FWIW, vociferous critic of the outgoing Administration though I am, talk of "war crimes" trials is dumb-blonde-lefty tripe.
|1.12.09 @ 2:32PM|#
thier have been no sucessfull attacks since 9-11.
Thier haven't?
Of course, terror attacks have shot through the roof over the past
seven years, globally. On recent study I saw put the number of
terrorist attacks in 2008 at 5X what they were in 2001.
I remember that one of the favorite Europe-bashing lines in the
neocon rags shortly after 9/11 was to look at their supposed
"appeasement" of terrorists as selling out the United States. "If
we're being chased by a bear, I don't have to outrun the bear. I
just have to outrun you." Oh, those terrible, terrible
Europeans.
Now, of course, we frequently see the fact that terror attacks have
gone through the roof, but mainly been concentrated in other
countries, presented as evidence by these same rags as evidence of
George Bush's brilliance.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245