Bush's Legacy

From today's Wall Street Journal:

The Fed's main achievement so far has been to stir a global lack of confidence in the greenback. By every available indicator, investors are fleeing the dollar for other currencies and such traditional safe havens as gold and commodities. Oil has surged to $110 a barrel, up from under $70 as recently as September. Gold is above $1,000 an ounce, up from $700 in September, and food prices are soaring across the board. The euro has hit record heights against the buck, and for the first time the dollar has fallen below the level of the Swiss franc.

Speculators are adding to this commodity boom, betting that the Fed has thrown price stability to the wind in order to ease U.S. housing and credit woes. The problem is that dollar weakness is making both of these problems worse. The flight from the dollar has made U.S.-based investments less attractive, at a time when the U.S. financial system urgently needs to raise capital. And the commodity boom is translating into higher food and energy prices that are robbing American consumers of discretionary income. In the name of avoiding a recession, reckless monetary policy has made one more likely.

John F. Burns from yesterday's NY Times Week in Review:

At the fifth anniversary, the conflict’s staggering burden is a rebuke to any who hoped Mr. Hussein’s removal might be accomplished at acceptable cost. Back in 2003, only the most prescient could have guessed that the current “surge” would raise the American troop commitment above 160,000, the highest level since the invasion, in the war’s fifth year, or that the toll would include tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, as well nearly 4,000 American troops; or that America’s financial costs, by some recent estimates, would rise above $650 billion by 2008, on their way to perhaps $2 trillion if the commitment continues for another five years. Beyond that, there are a million or more Iraqis living as refugees in neighboring Arab countries, and the pitiful toll of fear and deprivation on Iraqi streets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/weekinreview/16jburns.html?ref=worldspecial

Junior's legacy in a nutshell: He tried to outdo his daddy and pulled the rest of the country down with him.

Has there been another two-recession Presidency since the Great Depression? It is a notable Presidency for that fact alone; hopefully, the shorter business cycles won't become an ongoing feature of our economy.

"Normalization" of torture and its effect on U.S. standing abroad. A squandering of cred built up during the Cold War.

A man totally over his head in all areas of governance, but too ignorant to be anything other than arrogant, not knowing the meaning of, much less the wages of hubris.

The Man who Destroyed His Country.

Hey! It's not like he didn't have lots of help!

He's given us a war we can't really win and disaster capitalism as a new definition for our economy.

I don't want to change the topic here, but since the economy is part of the BushCo legacy, let me point this out to those who revere Reaganomics. It seems even Reagan wouldn't follow his own economics.

Just a brief excerpt: "Reagan did the same when he became president. He talked a good game on taxes, and in 1981 he forced through a major tax cut that defined him in the public eye. But the next year he signed two major tax hikes, including the largest peacetime tax hike in American history when measured as a percentage of the national economy. Other large tax increases followed in 1983 and 1984."

Do as I do not as I say seems to be the key to understanding Reaganomics.

Here's another perspective by one who was present at the creation.

At least Reagan wasn't stupid enough to believe what he preached.

Legacy wise--The economy has an outside chance of taking the top billing over Iraq when final assessment time comes around. That's really saying something. The question that I can never make my mind up on--is how much of this is from design?--and how much from just flat out stupidity? My daughter gave me a Bushism's calendar for Christmas and it is really unbelievable to read some of the stuff he's said--even more than that you get the sense that he thinks just saying something makes it so.

Today, George Bush made the claim that 4,000 Americans have died to "lay the foundation for peace" in Iraq. I suppose that sounds better than saying that they have died for one man's lies and ineptitude.

I don't see how this man can look at himself in the mirror. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he just stares at the ceiling and has lame-duck daydreams of "replenishing the ol' coffers" when his tour of duty is over. (He should be worried about whether any of us poor sobs will have any money left to donate to such a worthy cause.)

But who can dispute victory, when Administration officials can visit Iraq under heavy veils of secrecy in the dead of night, or fly into heavily fortified air bases for a few hours visit?

Somewhere in Teheran, a man is laughing his ass off...

"Today, George Bush made the claim that 4,000 Americans have died to "lay the foundation for peace" in Iraq."

So that's where they got the materials to build the fortified mega-embassy in Bagdad...

Bad joke... but I don't think we can expect Bush to have any real empathy towards others. According to Bush on the Couch, this guy would stick fire-crackers up the rear ends of frogs back when he was a kid. I haven't read it myself, but it seems like his parents were very emotionally negligent, especially when Bush's older sister died of cancer.

Bush's legacy (in song):
http://versusplus.com/bushisabush.html

From his happier days:
http://versusplus.com/george.html

Under pressure from Dow Chemical, Bush Administration political appointees force the resignation of EPA Regional Administrator Mary Gade in Chicago over clean up disputes on dioxin contamination downstream from the Dow Midland, MI facility:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-epa-official-resigns_...

***************

January can't come too soon...

A man who is ignorant by design who thinks he can create reality by saying it is so. Reality has bit him in the behind. He will go down in history as an unusually incompetent president. His decisions have shown a consistent disregard for the interests and welfare of the American public. In Iraq he has proved that his father was right not to overthrow Saddam and create a mess that will be a stain on the American people for generations to come. And those are his good qualities.

ref#15"He will go down in history as an unusually incompetent president. His decisions have shown a consistent disregard for the interests and welfare of the American public."

And like Pol Pot, he will die in his sleep.

There are still something a bit over nine months to go, so who knows what glorious things he might do, or what new
opportunities and challenges the world will throw at us between now and then.

Still, ones things for sure, the Supreme Court will feel the influence of the "W" years for many terms to come. Oh lucky us!

One of my life goals, should I live so long, is to make a personal pilgrimage to little plots of land in Wyoming and Texas (Connecticut?). Expect rain.

Bush's Legacy:
After stealing the 2000 election...
Worst 7 1/2 (and eventually 8) years of governance in the history of the United States.
Everything done by for political reasons for rich supporters and industries.
Total disregard for the other two branches of government.
U.S. has lost its moral standing in the world and lost the respect of most nations.
Religion has reared it's ugly little Christian head in matters of state.
IRAQ - illegal, immoral, and unethical war.
Afghanistan - possibly legitimate war underfunded, doomed to failure because of IRAQ war.
Staggering budget deficit (remember he inherited a surplus!)
Lies, lies, lies.
Crackpot neoconservative theories allowed to become policy.
Flagrant disregard for the power of the Congress in use of signing statements.
Authorization of torture. Disregard for Geneva Conventions.

.... enough for the first 10 minutes I think about it.

An absolute disaster.

Sometime in the early 80s I think it was, a Soviet "dissident", I forget which ione right now, wrote an book or essay with a title something like "Can the Soviet Union Survive" in which he very calmly went about showing that the regime had fatal flaws which could well lead to its collapse.

At the time, and from here (the US) it seemed to be the height of wishful thinking. As abominable as political conditions were in the USSR, it seemed the regime was here to stay. It was a world stradeling coillusus, nuclear armed with "Mutual Assured Desctruction". The ruling elite seemed firmly in the saddle, dispensing enough goodies to a crucial support cadre that would be loyal to the regime, or so it seemed for the relative prosperity it acheived in comparison to the lot of the common masses.

Assuming he survived, he's laughing last. The regime went "poof" just like that. Despite its seeming military prowess
and despite its seeming firm control over all of civil society,
it melted away.

Now we are hearing that its economic success was no such thing, that its seeming proseperity was a "Potemkin Village"
based on lies and drawing down of gold reserves. Perhaps there were other slieghts of hand involved; I've yet to see a
book or extended essay which could be aptly named "How the Soviet Union collapsed in plain English with No Bull"

I wonder though, if we had such a volume, whether we wouldnt see some parallels to our own situation here in the US.

Could the Republic devolve into Empire as has happened to others? Could the seeming world stradling collosus of the US turn out to be the same sort of "paper tiger" that the Soviet Union proved itself to be?

Will future historians say "Nobody knew it at the time, but in the clear light of hindsight it is obvious that the collapse of the American Republic started with the G W Bush administration" ?

Way before Dubya! I'd say Johnson.

So it is a Texas thing?

Well, they did come up with the faux tough-guy "Don't Mess With Texas" litter campaign. I knew a guy in Austin who taped on a little "...or me" to his bumper sticker. Got to appreciate little men with a big chip on their shoulders.

I recall reading endless arguments about the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire, and even one that denied that it ever happened. So if some deep catastrophe unfolds in the next years or decades, ending up with the US reduced to, say, another semi-Third World country, no doubt future historians will debate the causes, and no doubt a case could be made putting the blame on Mr Bush --- or, more precisely, the people who run the Republican Party.

But ... there will be equally compelling cases made for what might be called the ultra-liberalization of the United States, and the West as a whole, in which common sense was replaced by leftist ideology, people lost their sense of patriotism, city councils and school boards could ban the national armed forces from recruitment, and our borders were opened to millions of newcomers who had no reason to love us.

No one knows the future. In fact, the "decline" of the United States to a status of just one among many liberal democracies, in a world overwhelmingly dominated by liberal democracies, would be a good thing.

We now know how to achieve economic prosperity and a decent life for everyone. It is not crazy to foresee the possibility that, within a few more generations, the whole world will share a common liberal democratic political organization, a qualitatively equal standard of living, and a common outlook on the world -- the situation which now obtains among the United States, Europe, and Japan.

In such a situation, wars will become a thing of the past, and the objective desirability of giant nation states will recede into the past as international institutions undertake many of their tasks. We might in those circumstances well see the peaceful distintegration of the United States into several smaller units. (Perhaps we would even see a reborn Confederate States of America -- although one in which Blacks played a leading role.)

Anyone who thinks this is utopian should run the film of history back just one hundred years and ponder on the enormous social advances made by humanity since that time. History has not ended.

Yeah that liberalization thing is horrible. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now Bush jr pushing their liberal agenda on the people. The liberal activist supreme court, the radical congress, not to mention the large number of liberal to radical governors who run the states.

Yes, radicalism is rampant in America! Higher and higher taxes, socialized medicine, new regulations on top of new regulations, Gay marriage legal in every state in the union, and labor unions running the business community.

Why, one dare not even utter "God bless America" this days without reprisal! And I hear the one presidental candidate dares to wear a flag lapel pin! Surely he is raked over the coals for this!

Oh, bring back the good old days!

#24--funny you should bring it up that way Doug--but don't many republican advocates view Bill Clinton the same way?--still going on as if he's running things. Truth is I think Bill did a lot of damage and deserves at least in part a more comprehensive critiquing. That being said Bush2 is the go it alone president even in some respects towards his own party. We've had 7+ years of my way or the highway and not a single president in my lifetime has borrowed and spent so much as the current occupant of the White House--Republicans have always portrayed themselves as guardians of the exchequer, haven't they? What's gone on under his watch has completely undermined our currency and the dollar has devalued about one third while real wages have remained more or less static. That and his Iraq fiasco are his real legacy--one of arrogance, duplicity and ignorance. He's never tried to come clean on what's really gone on. We might get jokes--that's about it. Foreign diplomacy under the Bush regime is ridiculous--making enemies all over the world more often than not for no reason. Taking a look at South America for instance--his failed support of an attempted coup in the end only results in other Latin American countries rallying behind Venezuela. Bush2 has truly been the worst president in my lifetime. I thought Clinton had set the all time standard for lousy presidents but it's not even close. Bush2 makes me almost nostalgic about the period between 1992-2000.

I'm a yellow-dog Democrat and was mostly happy while Clinton was in office, but never liked that he couldn't keep his pants zipped and was in favor of NAFTA. Ross Perot was right - we've heard the sound of sucking - jobs out of the US to Mexico (and elsewhere). I work at a struggling manufacturing company and have seen the pressures of NAFTA and the lower-wage mentality of parent companies in other countries. It's sad that most people where I work have to be grateful for their job.

But Clinton did leave us a surplus and more people were doing okay while he was in office. I don't know if he controlled Greenspan or Greenspan sycophantically followed his lead, but once Bush got to Greenspan and Greenspan agreed to tax cuts and did a 180 on his previous (Clinton-era) policies, we were led to where we are now with the devalued $, the subprime crisis, etc.

Yes, I agree with those who list George W. Bush among our country's least efficient chief executives, but Bush didn't do it all by himself. Our democracy has been in a decline since the coup which eliminated Kennedy & put LBJ in charge. Actually, the "West" has been loosing its idealistic heritage since the slaughter of WW1, the hedonism of the 1920's, the depression of the 1930's & the near breakdown of civilization in WW2. Since then, the West has retreated into an attitude of "every man for himself & the hell with the common good." There have been a few islands of brightness, but the general trend is down. This is the way of thinking (or, rather, non-thinking) that has lead to the rise of the mediocre & the failure to prevent (in some cases) the ascention of the downright evil. One of the biggest lessons learned from the Watergate affair was the importance of controlling the media. It looks like the outcome of the coming elections have already been determined. There is still time, however, for the people to regain control, if we can turn away from problems like the rising cost of essentials & the morgage crisis & unemployment to focus on the people & organizations behind the candidates... maybe we can take back our government....maybe there are enough of us left to give it a try... Lots of Luck.

Gee, I'd like to save western democracy, but I'm much too engrossed in "American Idle". Er, "Idol".

Bread and circuses. Soon we won't even be able to afford the bread.

Doug, in #24 you said this, "people lost their sense of patriotism". People lost the sense for the need to "go along to get along" I find little patriotism in the notion of conformity in the face of injustice. I consider myself far, far more patriotic than BushCo for instance. I think with most of your life experience regarding the left you were too caught up in the political hothouse that was the new left in the sixties. Ninety-nine % of the American people couldn't spell "commonism" back in the fifties, much less tell you their aims beyond world domination.

How funny! I date the beginning of the end of American residence in the first world, if we become a semi-third world country, with the rise of Ronald Reagan and Reaganism in the Republic party. What I find so hard to understand is that after nearly thirty years of Republic control of either the Presidency, or Congress, or as we have seen over the last seven years, the Imperial Presidency, the more Reaganomics we get the faster our economy sinks, the more the right-wing clamours for more Reaganomics. Are they blind to the failure of their own ideologies? This is what brought the Russians down. They couldn't put tires on their trucks because during the process of transporting the tires over the several thousand miles from the tire factory to the truck factory they were all stolen and sold on the black market to replace the flat tires on last years trucks. When they tried to find the tires they couldn't. What's the difference in the way the Communists created their own reality and the way BushCo creates it's own reality? None, and they both end up in the same place. The junk yard of bad dreams.

As to the rest of your vision of the future, I am 100 percent with you on globalization and the future of war, however, I am somewhat more skeptical about it being the end of war.

On the Nafta--the one country maybe not hurt but helped by it was Canada. We made the huge mistake of marginalizing labor and enviromental concerns. What it really turned out to be was a go ahead for the multi-nationals to take jobs out of this country and scour the globe for the cheapest labor markets possible. The idea to maximise corporate profit--taking the american public along only as far as people would invest (gamble) their own money. It's funny that people can be taxed for working but some see being taxed for making money on the market (again gambling) as wrong. In the wake of Nafta all subsequent trade deals have followed more or less the same path. The Nafta is simply the blueprint. Jim Kolbe for many years a republican house member from Arizona was one of the key architects. It was to be one of the main pieces of the Bush1 agenda in his second term. The fast track legislation had already been passed disallowing any amendments to the bill. That was not to be but Clinton pushed it through by hook or crook anyway and I can still see the big hug another republican John Kasich gave Kolbe at the victory celebration the night it passed in the House. 'nuff said.

Mexico devalued the peso two years laters leaving Congress scrambling to protect investors--make that 'big' investors. Mexico has never given a damn about its poor. Real wages there which were already very bad dropped 20% almost overnight. Our bad trade policy is a prime reason for our illegal immigration problems. Canada is luckier in the respect they have only one land based neighbor--us--whose economy is more or less on a par and whose society as a whole is very compatible in terms of language, culture etc. Even so they don't seem to neglect their infastructure, aren't putting their entire economy at the mercy of an investment driven class, control immigration, aren't borrowing and spending so much as to devalue their currency.

I've brought this up before. We reached 300 million population in 2006--within 30 years the Pew Research Center has us hitting 400 million. These kind of projections should not be ignored. It represents either 1) an opportunity that we will take to make our country as strong as it has ever been or 2) maybe the biggest catastrophe that this country has ever seen since its conception. To take the right path we are going to need leaders with real vision. At this point in time energy/transportation is getting away from us. We are bleeding jobs particularly manufacturing/industrial. Health Care is beyond the means of too many--Education is going in the same direction beyond peoples means. Adding 100 million people will mean adding 50-60 million jobs. Adding those jobs might be what saves your retiring baby boom generation. We don't need to be saving Iraqi's--we need to think more about saving ourselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/mcclellan.book/index.html

Yeah, thanks Scotty. Another eyewitness to the Slow Motion Train Wreck who decides to speak up AFTER the fact.

Hope you sell a lot of books, loser.

32>I'm not a fan of Scott McClellan, but wouldn't it have been a lot easier for him to have stayed on board and said nothing? I mean, I wouldn't call this a whistleblower's testimony, but at least he quit the job. It would've been far worse had he hung in there til the end, reaped all the rewards of a high-paying position, then released this book a year from now.

Something I read suggested that he was pushed out. I'm not sure.

As for hanging on until the end, that would have been excruciating! Can you imagine going out day after day and defending the lies and duplicity of this administration? Maybe his clear lack of enthusiasm for doing that led to his early departure.

But I will say that, next to Ari Fleisher, McClellan doesn't look so bad.

He played along while in, now he's still playing while out. Pays well either way.

I always thought Scott McClellan was a basically decent guy in a pool of sharks and was way out of his league.

I place about 80% of the blame for the BushCo catastrophe on the fourth estate in this country. When BushCo began to take a hard line with the press back in early 2001, if the press had been doing it's job, we would have known they were being pressured in unseemly and highly political ways and could have taken the administration on, but the Administration took advantage of the press' earlier perfidy in allowing the right wing to . . .

I just realized that what I have to say about the absolute failure of the press in this country to take on BushCo instead of rolling over dead in the face of these bastards' bullying would fill a book. Maybe it fills Scott's book.

We have the press in this country to thank for BushCo as much as we have anyone else to blame. They are all chicken-sh#t and have served this country not at all by their kowtowing to the demands of BushCo.

Now it's all sweetness and light, "oh we all realize BushCo was a bad thing". It's easy to grow a big pair when everyone else has figured it out without you, but we rely on the press for information and if they are complicit in concealing and distorting information because they may not be invited to the next party is just Bullshit of the worst order. BushCo is not the only failure of the last eight years. the press has been an even greater disaster for the last fourteen years. Blindly running to catch up to the propaganda teat of the Bush administration. I have less respect for the MSM than I do for Fuksnoise. At least Fuksnoise doesn't engage in deception as to who they are, they revel in being the mouthpiece of the far right. the MSM is just a bunch of lilly livered, chicken sh#t sycophants. How can I trust anything they tell me from now on? Thank God for the internets.

"I place about 80% of the blame for the BushCo catastrophe on the fourth estate in this country."

I think the tendency to blame the media is a cop-out to avoid having to blame the people who are supposedly representing our wishes. This latest development with McClellan is a telling example. Scotty's spilling the beans for everyone to see. The media is carrying this, but will the Democratic party do anything about it? Not on your life. Even individual Democrats who honestly want accountability in government, like Conyers or Waxman, aren't getting anywhere. They're just having hearing after fruitless hearing with no way to move beyond that stage. People blame the media because they don't want to blame the voters who support the dysfunctional "opposition" party.

TomClancyFan, I'm starting to get real annoyed at your constant plugging of your wife's book.

Already there are comments about McClellan like, "That's not the Scott we knew". It's such a riot...this is supposedly the guy who knows the story, knew what was going on. That was his job--to report what's going on, to answer questions about what's going on. Then he comes out with a tell-all book and they act like he had no idea what was going on. They can't have it both ways; either he was just a figurehead giving fake answers being fed to him (which makes the whole job of White House Press Secretary completely redundant) or he knew what he says he knew, and thus, his statements are credible.

It's funny--these guys are experts until they undermine Team Silence--then they don't know what they're talking about. (Remember the responses to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies"? He'd worked for different presidents for 3 decades and then suddenly he "didn't know what he was talking about". Wait until the GOP decides what the buzzword will be--when all these random people from Condi Rice to Karl Rove to Dick Cheney say the same things over and over on CNN and MSNBC and of course, Fox. It'll sound like this:

RICE: "Scott wanted to publish this book so fast
he forgot what is true."
ROVE: "In his haste to publish this book he forgot
what the truth actually was."
CHENEY: "I think it's a shame that we live in a
country where people can publish any-
thing...even if it's not true."

Those are the buzzwords I'd put my money on...PUBLISH and TRUE.

Funny thing is McClellan could have written something really nice about all those bygone years but it probably wouldn't have sold. With the media storm now there are going to be a lot of people buying this. So...maximising on a chance to profit on his story or being warm and fuzzy with his ex-boss--McClellan does what most everybody else associated with Bush's administration have done--he takes care of No. 1 and to hell with anyone else.

#41: Can we do without the dogmatic profit-bashing? I know it can be hard to accept something that's contrary to the catechism of anti-propserity, but things like profit, greed and self-interest can actually be forces for progress when they are divorced of government entanglements. Don't make the mistake of putting profit-seeking in the marketplace on the same moral plane as profit-seeking through government. They are worlds apart. Or would it just be better for us all if McClellan didn't have any incentive to come out with this book in spite of government interests?

#43--Don't be so testy Lunar. I mean someone has to bring these possibilities up. Some of Bush's own acolytes are pushing the theory themselves along with the idea that he's been possessed by some alien life force--possibly even a demon. I'm not in McClellan's brain--I really have no idea what's going on in there. Controversy does sell though like it or not. It actually makes me happy as I was never into this Iraq adventure and am not now. McClellan is really not saying anything that lot's of Americans have already discussed, concluded or suspected anyway. We just never expected that someone so close to the whole scenario was going to confirm all those discussions, conclusions and suspicions.

John Stewart had a great line on The Daily Show tonight. Making fun of the already overdone line "that's not the Scott we knew", Stewart added, "The real Scott lied his f***ing ass off."

The sad thing here is that McClellan didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. Those of us who paid attention to Bush as governor of Texas are not surprised by any of this. BushCo is now, was then, and always will be without a single redeeming quality, moral or otherwise.

I sure would be pissed if I lost a son or daughter, or my son or daughter was seriously wounded in this mess because George W. Bush wanted his legacy to be that of a wartime president, rather than having a real reason for this war.

God, how did we get such stupid people as leaders?

as to the profit motive, Salon recenly ran a piece on how little his publisher pays for manuscripts. He could have made a lot more money elsewhere.

#36 Geneg
Remember "Watergate"? A couple reporters caused Nixon to resign? A lesson was learned there & it was learned by "Those who have the power & want to keep it." Watergate's lesson was the importance of controlling the media. No more nosey "investigative reporters" spoiling the game. TV networks are now safely in the hand of the Repugs. (Disney, GE ect.) Newspaperchains have been bought by those with the "Right" idea. Independent radio stations have been taken over by companies like Clear Channel. The days of an independent media are gone. Crusading reporters are fired. So are editors who don't toe the "party line." Ever skip around the dial on the evening news hours? Notice that they all seem to be covering the same stories & saying the same thing? Even PBS more & more depends on the support of multi-nationals & won't report anything too offensive about them. Our once independent small town newspaper is now owned by Gannett. Freedom of the press exists in memory, not in today's world.

However--newspapers are on the decline and television media only have so much control over information. Blogs like these--even if LT is not a political site allow anyone to be interactive with their viewpoints--as for news--there are any number of political sites and no way to control them all. It's a mistake to think that everything is locked up--there is a lot of alternatives out here.

A brief story about "the media":

I live near the Delaware River which divides New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Two summers ago we had our 3rd "big" flood in 18 months. I was driving in New Jersey and I got stuck in traffic because roads were being closed as they prepared for the river's crest. While sitting in this traffic I looked to my left and saw many news vans gathered down near the river; since I was practically 'parked', I pulled onto the side of the road to see what was going on.

As it turned out, NJ's governor Corzine was addressing the media about what the state was doing over the next 5/8/24 hours. After maybe 5 minutes he said he had to take an important call and that he'd resume talking in about 10 minutes.

So while everyone just stood there and waited, I went up to one of the reporters. "Could I ask you something?" I asked. "Has anyone talked about which state holds greater responsibility for these floods?"
"What do you mean?" she asked.
"Well, these floods are not a result of heavy rain," I said. "Most of this is because of runoff--the heavy buildup of housing projects, shopping centers, parking lots. All this buildup causes rainwater to get diverted into pipes and sewers--and ultimately, the river. Without this heavy buildup, the water would sink into the soil at its regular pace, evaporate at its regular pace, and this sudden burst of floods would not actually be happening."

"So what I'm wondering," I said to her. "Is which state's buildup has been bigger over the last 20-30 years. Perhaps when the governor comes back, you could ask whether there are any statistics about that. Perhaps he could call (PA governor) Rendell and see if a study could be done to determine whether NJ deserves compensation due to Pennsylvania's negligence".
"That's very interesting," she said, if only to comfort me.

When Corzine returned, the questions--hers included--were soft at best. "Will people be asked to evacuate their homes?" "Will the federal government be assisting us?" "What's the latest on how bad this could actually get?" etc.

Until that day, I had never really thought about the concept of what WASN'T being asked by the media. I wasn't actually convinced that one state was more negligent than another, but I thought having "no one really responsible for the cause" indirectly meant no one was really responsible for any solution.

But a friend of mine put it better: "You're asking that reporter to challenge the governor, to confront him almost. That's fine, but in doing so she might ruin her ties with him. She needs that contact... she needs access to him for future questions at future press conferences. Why would she risk hurting that relationship by asking him something he can't or doesn't want to answer?"

So MarianV is right: we no longer have "nosy investigative reporters" like Woodward and Bernstein who only want to get to the truth. Instead, we have people who, when it snows for example, ask kids if they like snow and if they're happy that school was cancelled. That's fine, but when real news and real issues are being sidestepped because it's easier for the reporter to just stay away from any and all controversy, well, that fills time, but it's not really news. And it's not really honest, in the end.

That's when my perception of the news really changed. And I agree with MarianV and Iriley--freedom of the press is a distant memory.

What I want to know is if there's an example of the media becoming lax that doesn't involve the government. If Vioxx goes bad, the press is all over it. But if government goes bad, are we supposed to blame the media and think we can solve the problem by creating more laws, more regulation, and more government and expect it will make the press more "fair and balanced"? No. The media is left just as much at the capricious mercy of the government as the rest of us are, and in that kind of pressure you'll see the media hiring lobbyists to make sure the next batch of regulations blows their way so that they can be comfortable instead of competitive. The media cannot be blamed for its self-interest any more than any of us as individuals can. They're people just like us, and just like us they can become corrupted by the force of government. You don't blame the patient for acquiring a disease as infectious as government.

If I were that reporter, I wouldn't ask such a question based on something I had just been told by a stranger. I'd want to do my own research first.

And it's dollars to donuts that the Governor hasn't a clue about the answer to that question. And the question itself seems designed to provoke an argument between the states. The reporter probably knows that the answer she would get would be something like "both of our states are victims here and there is no reason to try to place blame." Perhaps the reporter knows better than you what kind of questions are likely to get a useful response.

"Pave paradise, put up a parking lot". I suppose the only solution is to knock down all the buildings and remove all the ground cover to allow the rain to seep into the ground again. A tough political sell at best. It smacks of the same solution as saving the earth by wiping out the entire human population. As if the earth is what needs "saving" the earth doesn't need saving, our environment needs saving. I don't get it.

Any way, we have the same problem here in north Texas. Sometimes it rains so hard that intersections flood and people drive into them anyway and each year two or three people drown because they and their vehicles are swept away.

The press failed us by not walking out en masse on BushCo press conferences when it became apparent you either played the game as BushCo relayers of misinformation or the game for you was up.

As far as the press just being human like everyone else and looking out for their own interest, if they don't deliver a complete and accurate picture of events, ideas, etc. I would contend they are not looking out for their best interests and that is one reason why readership is off and why print media is suffering financially. One thing is coming clear to me: cynicism in search of a dollar seldom finds it. If the print and television news want to be successful and relevant again they need to start fulfilling their mission of keeping us informed with regard to actual events, rather than ignoring what's important for bleeding leads, otherwise they will continue to deserve the lack of attention and sense of gravitas that they get.

When BushCo ignored Helen Thomas in order to prove a point, the entire press corps should have got up and walked out. There are obviously enough sources of real information out there, after all, I've been able to keep up with the stupidity of BushCo from day one, but that's because I have access to real news (not a secret, just requires more than turning on a television). Many don't have the time or interest and go along with whatever they are told. In such circumstances it is important that what they are told at least has some passing resemblance to reality.

The press fell down the rabbit hole with their eyes wide open, hence my lack of respect for all but the few who had the cojones to tell us what was going on, and that came in books rather than media reportage.

The press is every bit as culpable for the mess we are in as BushCo. BushCo actually believed their bushwa, the press knew better, but for financial reasons chose to play the game.

There's one thing that maybe I didn't make clear: since this was the third big flood in 18 months, we had all heard the "how bad do you think it's gonna be?" type questions already. And this was the top story for days--both before and after flood #3. My point is that these reporters were literally LOOKING for something to ask, something that had not yet been asked. I guess my thought at that time was "Why hasn't anyone brought this up?" It seemed like the natural course of events would cause someone in the media to shift from the "How wet are we talkin?"type softball questions to something like "If this is going to be a perpetual problem all of a sudden shouldn't we start asking some deeper questions about cause/effect?

In hindsight, maybe my question was argumentative, but again, this was not a thought I just had right then. This was me saying, after days and days of the same viewpoints, are we going to take advantage of the moment and give viewers something else to think about?

# 49--I don't know if I would say that I was speaking to the issue of freedom of the press all that much. People can do their own research now--they can besides go all around the world for opinion. They can hook up with like (or unlike for that matter) people and share information. Situations like where the press became a propaganda tool for our Iraq adventure have boomeranged back on the media in the United States--they certainly aren't trusted nearly as much anymore and like I've said more and more people have found that there were other alternatives--maybe it's only my opinion but I think the American press and/or media since 9-11 having gradually become more and more irrelevant.

Bush's legacy will constantly be changing. Like today, he's the 43rd best president of all time, but by this time next year he'll be 44th...

Very good way of looking at him, jasonseidner!

The only sad thing about Bush's leaving office is that my Impeach Bush button will be moot.

Oh, but then maybe we'll be able just to try him in a court of law, although I doubt that we would actually send an ex-president to jail.

Robert

God, how did we get such stupid people as leaders?

In the land of the one-eyed king...

#58: I think that would still stand a better chance of happening than him being impeached while in office. If you impeach Bush, it becomes a political matter. But if he were prosecuted somehow once he had left political office, the political consequences of doing so are less... "gruesome."

And if you impeached him now, it would be a rally towel for the Republican party. You don't want those Republicans who are luke warm about McCain to suddenly have a second wind against the Democrats.

At one time the Administration seemed concerned that CIA employees would be subject to foreign prosecution for waterboarding, unlawful rendition, etc. I have wondered if Bush and/or Cheney, having authorized such questionable activities, could likewise be sought by foreign governments. At the least, the threat of foreign prosecution would limit their future travel--and embarrass.

I wonder, too, what President Bush will do after January 2009. Board member of big companies? Key speaker at their annual meetings? Maybe something in Africa, where he has done some good? Maybe Laura can fashion some role for him here at home championing education?

#62--it happened to Pinochet. The potential is there for someone to grab Kissinger some day as well for numerous activities promoting regime changes through coups including Pinochet's Chile. Christopher Hitchens would certainly like to see that. Bush may well have to be careful in his travels--though I'm not sure he's much of a traveller anyway. Pre-emptive strike may not necessarily be without cause--but it's without concrete provocation--it is a very dangerous concept and in my point of view it's a criminal act. It is what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor--in their estimation we'd provoked them with certain economic sanctions. Hitler's armies also invaded numerous countries under specious pretexts. They were very weak justifications for throwing the globe into conflict.

Posthumous trials then for all other Presidents who invaded or sent our troops to fight in foreign countries that had not attacked us.

Let's see ... actually, are there any who didn't?

Carter, perhaps. Although his very public support and praise for the dictator of Iran might merit prosecution, in the eyes of some.

And surely people who want us to get involved in military interventions in places like Darfur should receive fines.

Not to mention those who propose invading Pakistan.

Doug, I think even you can see the difference between the fiasco and traitorous action in Iraq and, say Clinton's support of the UN in Bosnia. I mean...this makes Reagan selling arms to the Iranians look postively patriotic!

I agree with Doug at least in this respect that most of our post World War II military interventions were not necessary and have had a harmful net effect. The closest comparable to Iraq is Vietnam.

Interestingly enough on C-span yesterday I saw one Stephen Kinzer give a talk--perhaps his major theme being how our meddling in the internal affairs of other countries has hurt how other countries look at us, may delay the course these nations may be on but inevitably lead them to the same place with oftentimes much unnecessary bloodshed. He pointed to our intervention in Vietnam to stop a popular Ho (I think he used the figure 80% popular) from uniting the country under a communist govt. 58,000 soldiers dead later and that's exactly what happened and in the time since we have an embassy there, trade with them etc. etc.--the question being how necessary it all was. Kinzer pointed out that historical events will never follow the plot lines of those who project them. He pointed out in the case of Iran that Iranian memories of us go back to 1948 and the regime change initiated through Eisenhower, Dulles leading to the Shah and his tyrannical and paranoid state that was overthrown during the Carter years which is where our convenient memories on Iran--about the hostage crisis tend to start.

Whatever the case refusing to engage with Iran under the current circumstances we find ourselves in is just stupid. The foreign policy of pre-emptive strike. Step 1. Identify your enemy by name. Step 2. Refuse to engage them diplomatically. Step 3. After the prerequisite time of ginning up propaganda to gain public support--attack them militarily. McCain seems to be arguing for the same trajectory of steps so as to keep us 'safe and secure' as the Bush administration did. That is how I see it anyway.

I began this yesterday (Sunday, 6/8) morning, so if it makes sense, great. If not I apologize.

Two points I'd like to make. Early on in BushCo's term, in that short period prior to 9/11 when our biggest worry was making the Russkies angry with us by cranking up Star Wars again, they passed legislation that essentially kept every American while acting in their official capacity as an American could not be held accountable by any "World" court, as if they were preparing the groundwork of self-protection before they started out doing the stuff they did. So by American Law they are not liable under International Law. Being the Daddy-State to the world we sometimes have to do unsavory things, but it is part of our responsibility to see that the world runs smoothly, and keep everyone (at least those like children, small enough that we can easily push them around) in line.

Second point: Cheney and Rumsfeld are the real culprits as far as the war is concerned. I'm back to my central belief that Bush was just plain too stupid to see how he was being manipulated and maneuvered into the positions he took. That and his belief that War Time Presidents leave the best Legacy and he wanted to be a war time president.

Saddam Hussein, if you will recall, was a bad man, after all, he gassed his own people. For this, he must be punished. Time for the Daddy-State to step in and administer the appropriate punishment. Now Iran is acting up - do they need a good spanking? Apparently the Israeli's think so. Are we going to help the Israeli's take on Iran? Possibly. Is this the upshot of all those speeches by Obama and Clinton the other day to AIPAC? Were they read as tacit approval of a military strike against Iran by Israel? We'll have to wait and see.

Daddy's don't get punished for doing what they have to do in terms of handing out punishment. Our leaders shouldn't be vilified for doing the tough love, daddy thing, whipping the pants off those international bad boys, at least the ones with something to offer the US other than just a bruised backside. We don't go into Darfur because it is one of the poorest places on the planet. We don't go into Burma because while they have some oil it is too little to make it worthwhile for us. We don't attack North Korea because they have nukes and would create a big mess for us on the Korean peninsula and with China. (They're bully is bigger than we are). So, it's our job to keep the Cubas, and the Grenadas and Panamas and all the other threats to world stability in line and if those European Mommy States don't like it they can go jump in the ocean. We've gotta do what we've gotta do.

In mid-1990s, it took a new government to deal with a shameful action by Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia.* People were arrested/fired, the elite Canadian Airborne was disbanded, hazing disallowed, and new training introduced for the entire military.

I wonder if the new US Administration will require accountability? It seem that only little guys, if them, are held accountable, if victims are non-Americans. But if nuclear switches are shipped to Taiwan or bombs are transported over the US, then by gar, heads will roll!

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair

another aspect of bush's legacy is the institution of affirmative action for conservatives in the justice department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25justice.html?ref=us

Snort.

Another measure of the Bush legacy is lost opportunity. In the 1990s both the US (Clinton) and the Canadian (Chretien) leadership worked to balance the budget. Here in the US, debt is back, but Canada is on track to eliminate public debt by 2012. Partly as a result Canadians' net wealth has increased c.f. Americans:
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113&...

Sure hope that as we approach the upcoming US election voters will focus on such bread and butter issues as the budget (and universal healthcare)--not gay marriage or Michelle Obama!

>71 margd:

What are you talking about??? The really important issue is flag pins!

#72 I heard that this morning on NPR and couldn't believe it. We're faced with the worst president ever and more problems than grains of sand on the beach, and people bitch about his wearing/not wearing a flag pin. Give me a break.

Oh, my, why didn't he wear a flag pin? Is he ashamed of our good country??? THE NERVE! I hope he has his flag pin on tomorrow. *wags finger*

You guys joke, but people who make minimum wage and who are paying $4.50 for gas and can't afford health insurance will be swayed by things like the flag pin issue. Not kidding.

>75 jasonseidner:

...people who make minimum wage and who are paying $4.50 for gas and can't afford health insurance will be swayed by things like the flag pin issue

It's worse than that. Many of them also think it would be a good idea to get rid of the "death tax" - as if they will ever accumulate enough to be subject to estate tax.

Okay. So, as I understand the liberal view here, we should:

(1) Turn our current national leaderhip over to a World Court.

(2) Be like those nice Canadians and disband any of our elite military formations if any of their members have engaged in bad behavior -- the Marines and Airborne and Special Forces?

(3) Make sure only liberals are employed by the Justice Department.

And, historically, if you could reverse history, we should:

Reverse our getting involved in the affairs of other nations, especially those facing Communist insurgencies, such as Vietnam.

So, no support for the anti-Communist forces in the Greek civil war, no intervention in Korea, no troops stationed in Japan or Germany, no support for the Chinese Nationalists, no Marshall Plan and support for anti-Communist parties in Europe.

But if the UN, that is, other governments (which is all the UN is, just other governments, albeit ones that are nice and kind and not wicked and self-interested like ours) says that intervening somewhere is okay, that that's all right.

It's not necessary (or appropriate) to make sure only liberals are employed by the Justice Department.

MargD: Of course I am just being curmudgeonly and sarcastic. The prospect of being bombarded for eight years, if I live that long, by those kill-whitey rays shooting out of Michelle Obama's eyes depresses me.

But there is a serious issue here, which liberals will soon have to face, since I think you will soon be in charge of the USA.

The invasion of Iraq was a real departure in American foreign policy. I cannot conceive of any previous President, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, doing such a thing. (I do not speak of invading countries and overthrowing governments here, which American governments have done fairly frequently, under both Democrats and Republicans, but of doing so under such risky circumstances, with such bold aims, and with so little knowledge of the reality on the ground.)

Nor can I conceive of any future President, liberal or conservative, doing such a thing.

Liberals tend to think that the invasion was basically just an evil act by Bush and his advisors, motivated by short-term selfish material interests: basically, the mugging of a whole country.

In fact -- regardless of anything else that is true about it -- it came about because the United States, and the whole world, are rushing headlong into a new era -- when barbarians who throw acid into the faces of unveiled women will have nuclear weapons, plus a worldwide network of ideologically-motivated committed supporters.

We don't really understand this new world, and it is a moving target anyway because things are changing fast.

Illiberal societies like Russia and China are growing stronger. Liberal democracies are experiencing profound internal problems.

And at the same time, the popularity of liberal democracy as a way of running things continues to grow, decade on decade.

The invasion of Iraq -- despite the mendacious nonsense about an immediate threat of "weapons of mass destruction" from the Saddam Hussein regime -- was an attempt to speed up history, by establishing overnight a democratic regime in the Middle East which would trigger a reverse "domino effect" among the various autocracies and dictatorships in the region, whose existence is the ultimate "root cause" of terrorism.

It was a reckless gamble, and implemented with the utmost incompetence, by people who are constitutionally incapable of understanding that we must wage a version of "Peoples' War" against our Islamist enemies.

The ancient Greeks would have tried and executed generals who fought like that. They would have considered it a "war crime" to have behaved in such a stupid manner.

However, the situation it was addressing remains, and will remain for a President Obama.

Because I think he is an intelligent, non-dogmatic, and well-meaning man, I strongly suspect that he will do things, in the field of foreign policy, that will cause great angst to dogmatic anti-war anti-American Leftists, and which will surprise those conservatives who think -- God, must we always act like moronic caricatures of what liberals think we are? -- that he is a crypto-Marxist-Muslim.

In particular, if there is real evidence that serious progress towards a stable society, broadly democratic in nature, is being made in Iraq -- then I don't think we will see the precipitate withdrawal -- not even in sixteen months -- of American troops from that country, regardless of who is President.

Conservatives -- assuming Obama wins -- must not prejudge him, and must be prepared to give him our support when he does the right thing.

History is full of surprises and ironies.

Democratic administrations who (unwisely) declared Korea outside our defense perimeter end up fighting a bloody war to defend it. A "Red-baiting" Republican anti-Communist ended up recognizing Red China. Both were good decisions, which advanced the interests of world democracy.

Be prepared for some more surprises, and keep your sense of irony sharpened.

79>
When you say the invasion of Iraq was a "real departure in American foreign policy" that makes no sense when you then tack on a comment like, "I do not speak of invading countries and overthrowing governments." That's like trying to compare stealing with taking something that doesn't belong to you.

The truth is, whether it be Guatemala in 1954 or Iran that same year or Chile in 73 or Grenada in the early 80's or Iraq today, they're all the same: The United States wasn't getting what it wanted out of who was running their country, so we took matters into our own hands. That's it. You can say that we meant well or that it helped a greater number of people, etc. etc. We still did it. If another country came in here, overthrew the government, killed the president, created a new system and said, "Trust us... we know what we're doing, this is all being done to benefit YOU", what would you call it? Would you call it okay? Would you say it was justified?

My guess is you'd call it terrorism. Why is it any different when WE do it?

#53 Geneg

I'm not sure you could have picked this up from the description given by #49 (Jason), but what happened here in the summer of 2006 was a little more drastic than intersections flooding and stupid people driving their cars into floodwaters. Many counties in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had significant flooding; in my town, 40 percent of homes had some flood damage and I myself experienced the joy of living in a FEMA trailer for almost a year.

The FEMA inspector who looked at my house compared the damage here to that caused by Katrina, but as far as I could tell, the story was hardly covered in the press (other than locally); without wanting to sound insensitive, it got to the point that I couldn't hear a story about Katrina victims without wanting to scream, "what about US?"

I guess there just wasn't anything new to say--and, for what it's worth, FEMA was a lot quicker to respond here than in New Orleans.

All this is an aside; as far as Bush is concerned, my one comfort is that it's almost impossible that I'll ever have to live through a worse president.

Jasonseidner: You raise interesting points, to which I will reply later.

But for the time being: I might agree with you, somewhat, regarding Iran, Chile and Guatemala.

But what exactly is/was your objection to our invasion of Grenada?

We were in and out quickly -- no quagmire.

We overthrow a horrible socialist government, and installed a free one.

The Grenadans are free, and much better off than they would be in a Stalinist tyranny.

What's not to like?

The question becomes "Whose decision is it?" Again, go back to what I asked before: imagine if another country came in, overthrew our government and installed a new one. And imagine they said, "Hey, you're better off for it. The old government violated your Constitution (true) and tapped your phone conversations (also true). Therefore, they were an unfair regime. This is for your own good."

Even if all of that were true, would it be that other country's decision to make? Does merely knowing "what's better" for someone justify taking things into your own hands and implementing it?

The fact is, if we did things simply because it was what was best for THEM we'd have gone to North Korea, Sudan, Libya, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, and probably Indonesia by now, not to mention Cuba (again) Colombia, The Philippines, China, and a few other countries who would be "better off" with our help.

Grenada probably is better off than they would have been; it just wasn't our decision to make.

#83

Could not agree more.

So, you would be against any outside force intervening in Zimbabwe or Darfur?

And you were against the intervention in the Balkans?

Your method is: whoever has the most guns and power within a given region gets to do whatever he likes to the inhabitants, provided he calls his gang of killers a "government". While the rest of us watch American Idol.

What does Darfur, or N. Korea, or Burma (f--k Myanmar), or Zimbabwe, or the Congo, or Cuba, or Grenada have to offer the US? If you look at each of the Thievery Wars like Iraq, Hawaii, Central America (pick a country, any country), Iran: they all had/have something we desperately want, Darfur, Zimbabwe, N.korea, Burma, etc. have bupkiss. That's why we aren't wasting lives and treasure in those places. These wars over "ideologies" need some currency behind them to make them spring to life. Why did the Republics resent Clinton for cleaning up their mess in the Balkans, because no matter what happened, we weren't going to materially benefit. Morals are for fools and fish, moral victory is the fodder you feed the sheep to cover your thievery. Without some material benefit, who cares? But woe unto he who's ground bursts forth into flame beneath his feet. The smoke attracts the US like stink on stuff.

That, in a nutshell, is why we aren't militarily engaged in wars of morality.

What does Darfur, or N. Korea, or Burma (f--k Myanmar), or Zimbabwe, or the Congo, or Cuba, or Grenada have to offer the US? If you look at each of the Thievery Wars like Iraq, Hawaii, Central America (pick a country, any country), Iran: they all had/have something we desperately want, Darfur, Zimbabwe, N. Korea, Burma, etc. have bupkiss (at least as far as we know now). That's why we aren't wasting lives and treasure in those places. These wars over "ideologies" need some currency behind them to make them spring to life. Why did the Republics resent Clinton for cleaning up their mess in the Balkans, because no matter what happened, we weren't going to materially benefit. Morals are for fools and fish, the hope of moral victory is the fodder you feed the sheep to cover your thievery. Without some material benefit, who cares? But woe unto he who's ground bursts forth into flame beneath his feet. The smoke attracts the US like stink on stuff.

That, in a nutshell, is why we aren't militarily engaged in wars of morality.

#85

I'm not going to suggest that the UN is without flaws, but I'm a lot happier when the US is intervening as part of a true multinational force after the UN has voted to do so. Not exactly what happened with Iraq.

So, with all the criticism for the US failure to intervene in Darfur--how come the UN hasn't done anything either?

Yes indeed. It is much better to have allies when doing dangerous things. And UN sanction for something, despite the fact that the UN is just a collection of sinful governments like our own -- some of them much worse than ours by a million miles -- is also worth something.

So can we agree that "whose decision it is" to invade a country and topple a government is not so simple. The argument that we must never, ever, under any conditions, invade a sovereign state is a very bad one.

Gene: I start from the assumption that all human action is self-interested. But there is such a thing as enlightened self-interest, too. It is actually not in our interest to allow failed states to exist in this world where Pakistanis can build and sell nuclear weapons.

And in any case, human motivations are often mixed and impossible to trace.

We stole Texas and the rest of the Southwest and West from Mexico for the same reasons a mugger takes your wallet. Same for Hawaii. I have no idea what they wanted from the Phillippines .. is there anything there worth stealing? But I don't think this was the motivation for our (very brutal, indeed shameful) intervention there.

And did we invervene in WWI in order to get a piece of the Ottoman Empire? No. I don't really know why we did, but it probably had something to do with a dim realization on the part of our rulers then that we could positively shape the Old World if we got involved, and this would be a good thing for us.

And then our rulers changed their mind, we walked away, and Mr Hitler demonstrated to us what a terrible mistake we made in doing so.

I will trade moral war for "not in our interest to allow failed states to exist in this world . . .". I would consider cleaning up failed states as a moral initiative. It is the selection of which states to go after that makes me think having something we need trumps consideration of those who live in failed states. Iraq was in no sense a failed state. It may have had a tyrant running it, but it was definitely NOT a failed state, nor is Iran. Nor were any of the others we got into with the exception of the Balkans, a war the Republics would not fight and Afghanistan, a war the Republics don't want to fight. So if you are a Republic, don't talk to me about wars with failed states. I haven't seen the Republics interested in having a war with a "failed state", yet. So just don't.

I agree, failed states should not be allowed to persist. When you guys find one you want to save out of the goodness of your hearts, let me know.

WWI and WWII are the same war. It took twenty years for everyone (except America and Japan) to rearm in the middle. Something about how long it takes to replace a dead soldier with another, living one. At bottom, it was the final nail in the coffin of Colonialism.

BTW, the lack of living bodies to rebuild Europe with is why there is such a large non-European population there, now. Another thing to think about when you ravage the entire world for pride, covetousness, and envy.

Why does today's world sound so all-fired Biblical?

Doug>
You still didn't answer my question: If another country came here, proceeded to overthrow THE U.S. government, killed many civilians in an effort to put a new system in place, (but did so by pointing out how the old government had violated the Constitution and tapped our phone calls, wasted our tax money on a war we weren't allowed to vote on, etc, etc) would that be acceptable? After all, they pointed out reasons that overthrowing our government was IN OUR BEST INTEREST (and therefore justified) so wouldn't that in and of itself make it okay?

As soon as you can answer that, you'll understand, at least to some degree, how much of the world sees us.

AND BY THE WAY, so as not to lose sight of the original title of this thread:

GEORGE W. BUSH WILL GO DOWN AS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY.

"Because I think he is an intelligent, non-dogmatic, and well-meaning man, I strongly suspect that he will do things, in the field of foreign policy, that will cause great angst to dogmatic anti-war anti-American Leftists."

I think Obama will be little different from Bush as well, but not because he's "well-meaning." He's just a scummy politician like all the rest of them. He will definitely disappoint the hard left, but with the way Gene talks so favorably about imperial warfare and racial authoritarianism, I'm sure his demographic would be glad if Obama turned out to be Bush-lite.

Lunar>
Just curious: If Bush were allowed to run again, and he were the nominee for the GOP, who would you vote for in November, Bush or Obama?

You're asking me if I'd choose the lesser evil. If Obama ran and carried out his own brand of evil, he would be justified in pointing at all the people that voted for him and saying "But you voted for me!" This is what the Democrats are doing now. The "people" voted against the Republicans and now the Democrats in office think the voters voted for themselves. There was a great clip of the Randi Rhodes Show in which one of her guests talked about an experience they had with oneof the Democrats in Congress. The person had challenged the congress member over something (it might have been the new FISA law) and the comgress member responded by saying "Gee, I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that. The people voted for us!" Democracy is a trap. Don't fall for it.

You evaded the question. Who would you vote for?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Don't evade the question.

But really, that's how absurd the question is. Obama vs. Bush/McCain is not a real choice, so why ask what someone would choose? You think I should choose Obama because he'll kill only half the people Bush would? What kind of Swiftian system of government is that?

By the way, do you have any thoughts about the example I mentioned in #94? Because I find people tell themselves all sorts of twisted logic to justify the choice they made at the polls (usually something stupid like "at least they're not as bad as the Republicans"). Do you think the Democrats are doing a good thing? Or do you have some special excuse to convince yourself to keep voting for them?

Jason: If the United States were ruled by a horrible dictator, and we were invaded by people intent on allowing us to have free elections, and who would also dump billions of dollars into our country to help us rebuild, I would feel deep gratitude.

But then I am not an American nationalist (or any other kind), and not really even a patriot in the old-fashioned my-country-right-or-wrong sense. I know that even a well-meaning invasion would evoke intense nationalist feelings from many people, regardless of the circumstances. (Enoch Powell, a great British politician who was an intense English patriot, once famously said that even if England had a Communist government, he would still support her in any war.)

Robespierre said that people do not love missionaries with bayonets. That is why I thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. But that is just a tactical question. Grenada was wonderful. In and out, leaving behind a grateful population and a capitalist democracy.

With Afghanistan, a very unpromising place to try to construct a working national government, we had little choice. We tried walking away from the mess we had helped create and this turned out to be a bad idea.

With Iraq -- we are there. We might be able to salvage something out of the mess we helped create: recent reports from there suggest this is a possibility. (Liberals: I suggest you read a recent report from Iraq by one of your own, here. It is still anti-war, etc but it may help explain why Barak Obama -- bless him! -- is becoming less insistent on a quick withdrawal.)

At a high enough level of abstraction, all human actions are equal. The policeman shooting a criminal, the criminal shooting a policeman. But so what?

We invaded Germany and left behind a prosperous liberal democracy (in our part). The Soviets invaded Germany and left behind a totalitarian socialist state in their part.

Not the same thing.

#53 geneg

"Pave paradise, put up a parking lot". I suppose the only solution is to knock down all the buildings and remove all the ground cover to allow the rain to seep into the ground again. A tough political sell at best.

I'm one of those "stupid/crazy" people who lives in a flood zone in NJ. Some floods are just a nuisance in having to move our cars to high ground, some mean getting the hell out for awhile. The government is slowly buying us out, but that won't stop the flooding, even after all our houses are torn down and the roads removed.

At the best, the water level will drop an inch or two during floods as the water has more room to spread out. Even removing/limiting non-porus ground cover upstream wouldn't help very much. There's just too much of it already, and things that would really help like river dredging gets too expensive and just has to be done again eventually.

Short of banning development in any area that has any history of flooding, it's something that will keep happening.

Doug>
What I guess I didn't make clear is if another country saw what THEY determined was justification for overthrowing our government would that make it okay? You go back to the extreme of "if we were ruled by a horrible dictator"; that's well and good, but again, if that's the characteristic we use to justify going into Iraq, then we have no excuse for not going into North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc.

Again, WE determined that Hussein was a horrible dictator and WE DECIDED that that in and of itself justified our actions. This isn't like a Disney film where the enemy is pure pure evil--WE decided that Iraq needed our "help", and we then acted on our decision.

If another country (or group of countries) decided that the actions of the Bush administration constituted a dictatorship (after all--they DID violate the Constitution, something the previous 42 presidents did NOT do) then you could say that overthrowing the U.S. government was GOOD FOR US and therefore justified. That's the whole point I'm making here: WE determined that Iraq's political system needed to be overthrown (just like we decided for Chile, Guatemala, Iran, and Grenada. Even if it's "obvious" to you that it was justified, that doesn't make it true that it's justified--it's still just an opinion. There are people who look at our government system and say it's wrong for the people--does that make it true, the fact that SOME feel it's wrong for the people? Where does that line get drawn? As long as WE decide it's justified then it is?

LUNAR>
As for you, you just argue because that's all you know how to do. If I asked you what you did this weekend you would probably shoot back something like "What makes you think I DID something this weekend? It's who you are.

The question I asked in #93 was not loaded at all--it wasn't in the "do you always get as drunk as you are now?" variety. It was what is called a HYPOTHETICAL question. That word is in the DICTIONARY.

I know I can't speak for Lunar, but my guess is his answer would sound something like this:

Why should I "vote" for either. They both represent government and voting is an activity designed to determine which government we will have. Since ALL problems stem from government, and until government has been drowned in Grover Nordquist's bathtub I will not participate in "elections" until a decent no-government candidate runs for office. I am an anarcho-capitalist (Lunar's own self-description, not mine). No government and totally free markets. That's the ticket I'm voting for and when the government has been abolished and the markets are all set free, then there won't be any more "votes". So, Not only do I decline to vote for governo-capitalists, but I decline to vote at all. Voting is an activity designed to make you think you are free, but it is a government trick and until government divorces itself from actual governance, I'm staying home. If people were free, there wouldn't be any need to "vote". When you finally get around to abolishing government altogether, wake me up. Until then, don't bother me with voting and other "government sponsored" ideas.

Does that sound about right, Lunar?

Jason: I think your argument is: there is no such thing as objective reality.

I argue that some states are so bad that it is morally justified, if not always tactically wise, to overthrow them.

By "bad" I mean with reference to a set of objective criteria: these include: do they murder their own citizens in great numbers with impunity, and is there no practical means of democratically changing the government from within?

Now if the American government met these criteria, then I would have no moral objection to the Europeans, for example, invading us and helping us overturn our dictatorial rulers and re-establishing democracy.

I don't say anyone is justified in invading if they think it would give a good outcome. I say they are justified in invading if they are overturning a murdersous dictatorship and establishing democratic self-government. (Morally justified -- in practice it may be unwise.)

Now, if you think that all morals are equal, that there is nothing to choose between backward savagery such as we find in much of the Third World, and the sort of rule-of-law based civilizations we find in the advanced countries, then of course my argument will not hold.

In that case, the policeman and the rapist are equal. The rapist can argue that he is fulfilling his victims' unspoken desires, or whatever.

But surely you see the difference?

This does not seem to me to be a real difference between Left and Right, by the way. I would expect most liberals to agree with me, in principle. (In fact, I think you will find more justifications for indifference to human suffering in the Third World on the Right.)

I'm steering clear of this discussion, but I wanted to interject one point that has bothered me for years.

In the run-up to the war, Bush and his cronies constantly stated in grave, hushed tones whenever a microphone was within half a mile that Saddam Hussein gassed/murdered "his own people."

Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Hussein (whom I despised) was one of our boon friends at the time of this atrocity, the U.S. didn't seem to have a problem with it until Bush and Co. decided to dust it off as proof that Hussein was a nasty piece of work.

Now, the people he gassed were Kurds, a persecuted minority in Iraq and Turkey, against whom the Iraqi government had fought for decades. Yes, they were/are Iraqis in the strictly political sense, but there has long been a separatist agenda there: given their choice, most would rather be citizens of "Kurdistan" than Iraq. There was no love lost between Hussein and the Kurds, and they were anything but "his people" in the sense that they were good patriotic Iraqis. The Kurds had a separatist agenda, and, in the mind of the Iraqi command at the time, they were responding to an insurrection. That they responded in such a heinous fashion was deplorable, but certainly not unique.

If we use repression of "their own people" as rationale for intervention, we certainly have plenty of choices for future action, from our nice friends in China (whom Mr. Bush is loathe to "embarrass" by boycotting the Olympics) to assorted subsaharan thug states. Unfortunately, none of the happens to sit on enough oil reserves for us to be particularly bothered by their human rights records.

But really, to claim that we needed to intervene in Iraq in 2003 because Hussein committed atrocities against the Kurds in 1988 is disingenuous.

#97

I know your comments were in reply to Jason, but can't help myself . . . you say "If the United States were ruled by a horrible dictator, and we were invaded by people intent on allowing us to have free elections, and who would also dump billions of dollars into our country to help us rebuild, I would feel deep gratitude."

I'll make the leap here that you are referring to the US in Iraq, but would like to add a few other things to consider: how grateful would you feel if the billions of dollars to rebuild were needed because the invaders had bombed the crap out of you; if during this process of helping you toward democracy the invaders had killed your parents, your spouse, your sibling, your child, your friend; and what if you suspected on some level that the invasion was because the invaders wanted something your country had (e.g., oh, I dunno, oil?)?

And what if the invaders declared "mission accomplished" but still hadn't left five years later?

103

But...but...don't you understand....HE GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!

That is to say, Hussein's *intentions* were the worst - our *intentions* were the best...

#104

Well, then, that makes it all right. How silly of me.

#99: "As for you, you just argue because that's all you know how to do."

Yeah, if I refuse to answer a stupid question like whether I would endorse Hitler or Stalin, I'm "evading." But if I ask you an open-ended question about how you feel about the Democrats being almost as eager to pass warrantless surveillance as the Republicans and using your vote as an excuse, you don't have to answer that because there must be something wrong with me.

"Does that sound about right, Lunar?"

No, Gene. I'm not entirely apolitical. I do try to vote defensively, but the ballot is so stacked with the trading of one freedom for another, I don't think you can begrudge my cynicism about the system. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going into the Political Conservatives group to post a snarky comment about Oakes' fake libertarianism.

Rumsfeld had good reason to know exactly which WMDs, and in what quantities, Saddam Hussein acquired back in the 1980s.

Of course Bush, Rumsfeld, and that lot couldn't care less about gassed Kurds.

And in general the people running the United States have not shown enormous remorse at supporting a lesser evil against a greater one. In fact, they often whitewashed and celebrated the lesser evil. See, for example, the nauseating praise of Stalin and the Soviet Union which pervaded the liberal press during the Second World War. (And in which some conservatives joined, too.) Or the sickening attempt to paint the anti-Communist death squads in Central America as patriots.

I assume that the people running all great powers are primarily motivated by other than sweet humanitarian concerns. FDR and Churchill cared little, in practice, about German Jews. At any rate, that's not why they fought Hitler.

Neo-Confederates always complain that Abraham Lincoln did not go to war to end slavery, and that most Northern soldiers were white racists. I don't think they have ever convinced a single descendant of a liberated slave that the war was not worth while, and rightly so.

Everyone is motivated by self-interest. But often self-interests can coincide for a while.

The only question that is of interest is: can these great powers, despite the hypocrisy and general moral indifference of their leaders, play a progressive role in history, with respect to advancing the liberal institutions which have grown up in the West in the last few hundred years, and which are proving so attractive to the "little people" all over the world?

I submit that they did so in the Second World War. Perhaps the Americans wanted to inherit the British and French Empires, as my American History professor at university taught us. Certainly the British and French were fighting to hang on to theirs.

It did not matter. People who believe in liberal democracy -- or even just elementary decency -- should have had a side in that war. It was good that FDR pushed a reluctant America into it, even though he fought it using methods that would turn ACLU laywers' beards white today.

We did a good thing in Korea. (And it is too bad we couldn't do the same in Vietnam.)

We did a good thing in Grenada.

We may -- may, I say -- end up doing a good thing in Iraq, albeit at much unnecessary cost.

Now, suppose that a hypothetical American dictatorship was overturned by invading foreigners, who then arranged for us to have free elections and return to the wonderful situation where we are ruled by freely-elected legislators, like the fine people who rule us today.

I would support that, just as the original American revolutionaries accepted aid from the French monarchy, even though I doubt they thought that King Louis was a sincere friend of liberty and representative government.

Everyone has self-interested motivations, as the young lady from Kent understood.

If my family were killed by the invading troops, since I am prone to bouts of irrational emotionalism, perhaps I would indeed join a fascist Christian fundamentalist resistance group dedicated to wiping out collaborating heretics and/or restoring the genocidal old order. The more fool me, in that case.

Doug, I believe that the U.S. would do well from here on out to follow the Ziskey Doctrine (in honor of the Harold Ramis character in "Stripes"), which worked in Grenada for obvious reasons:

"When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.""

For God's sake. Isn't anyone here willing to take on Doug's fictitious American Dictatorship with the damn guns everyone (except Lunar) wants to bear and keep? Come on, this is America. If we find ourselves looking down the barrel of the guns of our own sons and daughters didn't we raise them to reject tyranny? They should be on board with us. Oh, yeah, that's right we don't have enough time to teach them civics anymore, they need more math and science if we're to surpass the Rooshions. They're not afraid of tyranny - you have to know what something is before you can fear it. Wait a minute! Is THAT why we stopped teaching them history and civics? So they wouldn't recognize tyranny when they see it?

Doug, I expect if the American people get pissed off enough, they'll stand up to their own government. They won't need some candy-ass European bailing them out.

"If we find ourselves looking down the barrel of the guns of our own sons and daughters didn't we raise them to reject tyranny?"

Unfortunately, we have not. Instead, we have raised them to be Democrats and Republicans.

Makifat: That sounds like a good common-sense rule, and I suspect most senior military people agree with it. Wasn't it called "the Powell doctrine" or something like that? And didn't we have a few generals who thought Rumsfeld was mad for trying to occupy Afghanistan with such a small number of soldiers?

But the problem in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, is that we are inherently limited in our knowledge of the relevant facts, which are not, in the main, military facts but social ones.

Even when dealing with strictly military situations, even a superficial study of the history of war will show us that ignorance of the enemy's strength and dispositions is more often the rule than the exception -- Omaha Beach, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Ia Drang: they all make for exciting movies, but when you go away and think about it for a bit, you realize that they were really shocking proof of how easy it is to misunderestimate the enemy.

But in the Third World, our problem is trying to understand the local culture as it twists and turns in the agony of modernization. Since we don't even understand our own culture -- what will be the effect of a one percent rise in interest rates? Who would have bet against Hillary this time last year? -- lots of luck in understanding how a Hazara villager will react to our attempt to introduce gender-sensitive government in Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, contra Cody, we can't opt out.

Gene: The problem with you liberals is your mindless American patriotism.

112
I don't think it's a matter of being limited in knowledge of relevant facts, it's being able to communicate with those who actually HAVE the facts and understanding. I often wish I had been blogging in the run-up to the war. Even with my nonprofessional understanding of the Middle East, I made some dead-on predictions of how the whole debacle would unfold, such that I would probably now be hailed as a prophet, had I the forethought to commit those predictions to writing. The easy dismissal of the sh*tstorm that ensued by Administration officials with statements beginning "no one could have predicted...." sticks in my craw almost as much as the "gassed his own people" meme I mentioned previously.

My understanding is that the State Department had at least a rudimentary handle on what could go wrong in light of the religious and ethnic diversity of Iraq, but Cheney/Rumsfeld et al. wouldn't have any of it (we would be welcomed with flower petals and all that). Powell and his people were essentially told to stick with the script and play along, and like a good soldier, Powell did just that, at a huge cost to his own integrity.

It was quite telling that some time after everything truly started to go to hell that Incurious George finally turned to someone and asked what the difference was between a Sunni and a Shi'ite.

He also famously asked his father, again long after it would have done any good to know, what a "neocon" was. Bush pere's response was equally famous: "Israel".

Doug>
You keep going back to words like, if the U.S. were ruled by a "horrible dictatorship" you would feel deep gratitude at anyone who came in and overthrew our government. I don't know if I believe that--I'm not saying you're lying, I just don't think people are that quick to admit that they live in a system that needs anyone else's uninvited help.

And again, extreme examples like "horrible dictatorship" are one thing, but use your imagination here: what if another country that had no homeless people and health care for everyone and virtually no crime and offered a free education to everyone came in here, saw our system and said, "We are here to overthrow your existing system and implement another one that we know is better." Would THAT be justified? Again, forget the "pure evil dictatorship" example here, for THEY are convinced that our system is bad and that's all the justification they need, right? As long as the attackER feels that it is justified it's justified, case closed.

Chile, for example, was not run by an "evil dictatorship" in 1973-- so why did we help overthrow their government? (I'm not asking you to defend that decision--I'm merely pointing out how OUR definition of justified looks to the rest of the world.) WE saw enough of a reason to do it--who cares what anyone ELSE thinks?

Geneg>
Your impersonation of Lunar was right on. It was almost spooky.

Makifat: Yes, I had the same prediction before the invasion, quoting Robespierre on missionaries with bayonets, etc.

However, it ain't so simple. We tend to see what we want to see.

So, there were people around who thought that we would be well-received and who had some good credentials as Iraqi experts. Some of these people were Iraqis, some were Western experts on the Middle East like Bernard Lewis. (The latter probably just generalized too widely from his Iraqi graduate students.) If there had not been such people, apparently knowledgeable, we would not have had such hostage-to-fortune statements from various neo-conservative spokesmen about how the grateful Iraqis would name a square in Baghdad after George Bush (Richard Perle), etc.

I myself have swayed back and forth on the simple question of whether it might work out: my pessimism changed to optimism after the big turn-out for the elections in early 2005; then I was plunged into gloom after the bombing of the Golden Mosque; and now I am holding my breath and hoping against hope that something might emerge from the blood and chaos.

Because ... no one really understands social reality. South Korea emerged from thirty years of hard-fisted union-busting military dictatorship to become a pretty decent society. The Phillippines did not. Why? I am sure someone could supply an after-the-fact explanation, but who predicted this beforehand?

In the immediate aftermath of the German surrender in May of 1945, the occupying authorities were very worried about serious underground resistance from die-hard Nazis. And this seems to me like a very reasonable worry. And yet there was almost none.

Idiot optimism about a smooth transition to liberal democracy in the Third World is clearly utterly unwarranted. But so is idiot pessimism.

I am currently reading a very interesting book, by a fellow whom I heard speak last week at a charitable event to raise money for girls' schools in Afghanistan. He was the acting governor of a province in Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority, and has described his period of tenure in Occupational Hazards. This book gives you a good sense of just how complicated the Iraqi social and political scene is, and on the face of it, will provide plenty of ammunition for pessimists. (And the author is now a pessimist about our presence in Iraq.)

But I get the feeling, as I read about all the characters and factions involved, that if a strong national state, with plenty of money to distribute among the competing interest groups, can emerge, that things will eventually heal there. And it is not yet obvious to me that such a state cannot emerge, although it will certainly require our eventual absence for this to happen.

Because all the data that the idiot optimists fed to the Bush Administration is not false: Iraq is potentially a wealthy country, with all that oil. Most of them do not want to be a puppet of Iran. And there are many Iraqis who do not want to live in a theocratic state -- although clearly Iraq is going to be at least as Islamic as Franco's Spain was Catholic, for a long time.

People tend to view societies as monolithic. This is never true.

Jason: Yes, if someone invaded the United States to impose a utopia, instead of allowing us to vote for it (I think you have described the liberal program), then that would be bad. This is because we live in a democracy and can vote for utopias if we want to.

As for Chile: we supported the overthrow of the government because it looked, to the people in Washington, like it was leading Chile to become another Soviet outpost in the Americas, like Cuba, and they did not have enough imagination to have a different strategy to deal with communism other than to support any anti-communist regardless of their other views and actions. Our aid to the counter-revolution was minimal, by the way : the reaction against the mad socialist poverty-making economics of the minority-elected Allende government, supported by various far Left Stalinist factions, was very indigenous and very powerful. There would have been a successful, bloody coup, regardless of our support.

But we should have opposed it, not supported it, and acted like Sweden did in trying to help the persecuted leftists. We later helped pressure Pinochet to allow a transition to the very successful liberal democracy that Chile is today.

The problem is, America is a counter-revolutionary democracy. Its revolution is two hundred years in the past. And our government has tended to be made up of people whose personal backgrounds give them little ability to think like revolutionaries. And yet that is what is required, when dealing with the Third World, which is undergoing a prolonged social revolution. Maybe a President who used to be a community organizer will do better.

So, Jason, are you going to make public your support of Democratic illegal spying programs, or is there a shimmer of conscience left telling you that it's the wrong thing to do regardless of party affiliation?

>115 Doug1943: Doug

Much of this post I agree with, and it even seems wise (in the good sense).

Another factor to throw into the mess would have to be Iran. So far they are the clearest winners in the Iraq war. We've eliminated their rival, and al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army are now big (the biggest?) players, and if a recent piece in the NYRB is accurate, more than 20 members of the current Iraqi parliament are members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Meanwhile the Iranian government is funding much of the violent resistance to American occupation. As if Al Qaeda wasn't bad enough already. Something is seriously amiss if we are Ahmadinejad's biggest enablers.

Conspiracy minded folks can now go nuts over claims that Chalabi was an Iranian stooge from the get-go. Or at least partly. I'm not sure how much to buy into that, but weirder shit happened in the Cold War. The question needs to be elucidated.

It does seem as if, in regard to Iran, the US has shot itself in the foot, or been outfoxed, or a combination of both.

This needn't be permanent, I hope. But so far tactical miscalculations have resulted in some very serious strategic reversals.

LUNAR>
You accuse people here of asking you loaded questions and you just asked me THAT?

Try reading a few of Doug's responses and learn how to debate like an adult.

A new book titled Goodnight Bush, based on the beloved children's classic Goodnight Moon, sums up the Bush legacy in verse.

You can view some of the pages here.

#118: It's a very open-ended question and I'm not sure why you keep dodging it, especially since it's about a very real event unlike your contrived hypothetical. Once again, what do you think about Democrats feeling like they're justified in passing illegal spying programs just because the voters gave them control of Congress?

I do hope I have not sounded too anti-Bush here.

The Middle East is a nest of rattlesnakes. If we had not invaded Iraq, we would still have grave problems there. We have grave problems in Afghanistan. We have grave problems in Pakistan. We have grave problems in Palestine/Israel.

People tend to forget how much concern there was, from every quarter of the American political scene, about Saddam Hussein, which is why Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Another problem is that Americans are, necessarily, remote from many of the important facts about this region. I bashed my head against the wall when I read that Mr McCain may still not really understand the difference between Sunni's and Shia's. And on the other hand, I seem to recall that Mr Obama doesn't seem to know the difference between a platoon and a brigade. God help us all.

If you lived in a country separated by a wall from another country, and the country you lived in was locked in by the other, surrounding country, such that you could not leave without wasting hours and hours waiting to get through dangerous checkpoints, and your jobs, life, food and water were available at the pleasure of your prison guard country, and your children were raised in an environment of heavy radicalization (I don't know, seeing your house bulldozed with people inside for no reason, having occupation forces from your neighbor in your village whose sole purpose is to wreak havoc at whim and will does have a radicalizing impact), and none of your "friends" give you anything but lip service, who would you consider a "state sponsor of terrorism"?

Another problem is that Americans are, necessarily, remote from many of the important facts about this region.

Is it, in fact, actually "necessary," though? There's more to the Internet than porn, if one takes the time to look; and there are neat these places called libraries where one can obtain books for free. It tends to worry me when leaders -- leaders who come from wealthy backgrounds and were educated at prestigious universities, and who are charged with huge responsibilities -- don't know basic facts. :-/

Just to keep everyone updated about telecom immunity and warrantless wiretaps, FISA 2.0 has been passed with none of the three amendments introduced to add safeguards being agreed to.

Congratulations, Democrats! You did it! *breaks out champaign*

Hmm. It's no wonder congress' approval rating is at 9%.

Umm . . . of the 28 nay votes on this, 27 were Democrats and 1 was Independent. Of the 69 yea votes, 47 were Republicans.

So this the Democrats fault how?

This is the Democrats fault because they could have stopped it. Similar legislation never made it through the Congress while Republicans controlled it, because the Democrats briefly summoned enough backbone to stop it. It is certainly even more the fault of Republicans, but Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller are utter sellouts, and Obama betrayed us as well.

#126: To be fair, this is mostly the fault of the Democratic leadership because they pretty much determine what bills will be considered. Of course, the leadership is elected directly by the Democratic members of Congress, so they're supposedly accountable to them.

The utter inability of the Congressional Democrats to grow a couple in the face of the most incompetent and unpopular president in American history is a source of never ending disgust and frustration.

Congress has pretty much become an extended circus and photo op. The ridiculous past antics of the Repugs in face of current Democratic failures is cold comfort.

#129

Yes, that's true (or, at any rate, I agree). Sadly, I guess I've gotten used to the idea that the glimmer of hope that the new majority would actually do something has been crushed as thoroughly as our civil liberties.

Of course, having a majority does no earthly good if the smirking chimp vetoes every law they pass. (Though I do realize that's not the issue here.)

Is it inability? It sounds to me like they're doing what they want to do.

The Democratic majority in Congress knows that if they do anything to get in Bush's way in regards to Iraq--from imposing restrictions to stopping the flow of money--that Bush and his team would turn into martyrs. You can imagine the sound bites: "We had turned the corner in Iraq... we were THIS close to victory when the Democrats undermined us like they always do."
As long as Bush gets everything he asks for, the failure remains his.

It's sad but it's reality: the only way change can begin is in 2009 after Bush and company go down with the ship. All Bush and company are looking for right now is someone to blame for "getting in the way of the success that was right at our fingertips". Congress just isn't going to grant Bush the escape hatch that he's looking for: in the end, this will all be his.

132

That "strategy" is one reason we are in this fix. When Bush started his saber-rattling in Iraq, the Dems didn't want to look obstructionist, just in case the war was an easy "success" like the first Gulf War, and because they bought into the perception that Americans were out for blood revenge for 9/11 (which is why Administration arguments emphasized the fantasy that Iraq and 9/11 were linked).

But, in my opinion, if the Democratic Congress gives Bush everything he asks for, it is complicit.

The 2006 election was a "thumpin'" because it was largely a vote against Bush's War and his Republican enablers. Replacing those enablers with Democrats who refuse to push back against the most incompetent and unpopular president in American history was a negligible improvement that has disappointed many voters.

The Banned Bush Interview is on YouTube

"The Democratic majority in Congress knows that if they do anything to get in Bush's way in regards to Iraq..."

Since telecom immunity and warrantless surveillance have little if anything to do with Iraq, can I just assume you're still dodging my question?

I know quite a few Democrats who are opposed and quite unhappy with Obama at this point. In R'ville, they seem to be pretty split between pissed (this is what a vote for Obama was supposed to be a vote against) and apologists (political expediency trumps ideals). I'm closer to the first position.

"...can I just assume you're still dodging my question?"

I would assume he's ignoring you.

#137: Eh... figures.

Makifat.
You're right, it is complicit. But they know if they do one thing to sabotage the flow here, the GOP will scream bloody murder. The truth is, we as parties are not in this together--the Republicans especially. Every minute of every hour the GOP is hard at work trying to undermine, belittle, and smear any bit of success their opponent has. To them, it's like a chess match: every move must be broken down and analyzed as to how it can help their own party. Period. The success of the country is a distant second.

They're just waiting for Congress to say no to them so they can play the role of victim. And Congress isn't biting.

"Every minute of every hour the GOP is hard at work trying to undermine, belittle, and smear any bit of success their opponent has."

This is the same BS that the Bushies say about the evil terrorists to justify the same nonsense that you're trying to justify. You can ignore me all you want, but don't tell us that "we need to do this for the greater good of the country." Forget the political crutches of "the evil Republicans will say we don't have lapel pins!" Tell us what you really think about telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping.

Shame on the Democrats for following, and shame on Obama for his vote. No ifs ands or buts about that.

But the greater shame goes to the people who pioneered the way for the Democrats to follow.

If the passage of this bill brings us closer to finding out what happened, then I'm all for it. I think at this point it is more important for Americans to know how their government ran off the rails than it is to allow for civil prosecution of companies that were most likely coerced into such action by a tyrant.

Of course this is predicated on Obama's willingness in future to investigate what happened. I will reserve judgment on this until Obama either pushes for an investigation into the wire-tapping or not.

Besides, I'm not going to vote for someone else, anyway. The more Obama stands up to ideology and follows a sensibly pragmatic course, the better I like him. I'm tired of ideologues.

"I think at this point it is more important for Americans to know how their government ran off the rails than it is to allow for civil prosecution of companies that were most likely coerced into such action by a tyrant."

Not T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, or Qwest. All you have to do is ask the government for a warrant. The telecoms that asked for a warrant were not being "ideological," but pragmatic, so take care not to misuse those terms to merely describe the people you disagree with. Some telecoms did not choose to ask the simple question of warrants. That's not coercion and not grounds for immunity. Laws are not investigations. Court cases are.

Revising my legacy definition from #3. Bush's legacy will be of Death being snatched out of the jaws of Victory by the Democrats.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2277298/President-George-Bush-%27Goodb...

That's our boy!

More on the Bush legacy from Salon.

ETA ...and this...

Generations from now, people will look back at this sour point in history and wonder why the Democrats so cheerily played along with Bush. Furthermore, they will wonder why the opposition wasn't.

To put the blame squarely on the head of Bush and his administration entirely disregards the perfidious actions of our loyal opposition.

Because deep down in our hearts we know he was right?

Action is the epitome of preference.

So for the last seven and a half years the Democrats must have believed, deep down in their hearts, that Bush was right. Why else would they act like such patsies?

That, my friend is an excellent question, one I believe is the key to the politics of the next thirty years.

I have no answer. I am flummoxed! Verklemmt, please, discuss among yourselves.

Well, for one thing for most of that time the Republicans held both houses of Congress and the White House. It seems a bit harsh to start blaming the Demos for what happened.

Generations from now, people will look back at this sour point in history and wonder why the Democrats so cheerily played along with Bush. Furthermore, they will wonder why the opposition wasn't.

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "It takes two to lie, Marge. One to lie and one to listen."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/magazine/31bush-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The NYT magazine has a gag-reflex inspiring "portrait" of GWB as some sort of Lion In Winter, perhaps intended as the second act of that "Prince Hal" comparison we were being fed in the months after 9/11.

So many worthy quotes, I'll just share one:

"Through the worst of it, McCain, the old navy man, always stood when talking with Bush on the telephone."

The Democrats did not take it lying down. There's only so much can be done with Republicans in control of both houses and those who speak out were silenced. The problem also lies within the people of this country who believed the lies that were spewed out by this president.

I've said it before, but the fictional character GWB most resembles is Chauncey Gardener from Kosinski's Being There.

Although I find it hard to picture Chauncey rolling his bike down a hill in his little bowler hat shouting "Woo Hoo!"

I can't imagine Bush being smart enough to tend a garden...

Stanley Fish is nuts.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/george-bush-the-comeback-kid/index.html

I've never read Fish before and he writes well, but I agree with you about him being nuts.

However, even if George W. Bush gets popular support again after he leaves office, his political legacy as one of the worst Presidents in our history will be firmly entrenched in the history books.

And if you believe in Hell, there's a special place reserved for him for the thousands of Americans and Iraqi civilians who have died for his unwarranted, illegal, immoral, and unethical war.

But...he's still so likeable!

makifat

Fish is an interesting provocateur/contrarian. And he is nuts about G. W. Bush. At a (new) defining moment of his presidency, Bush finds the political capital of his office to be about as valuable as shares of Bear Stearns. Around November of 2001, his approval rating hovered near 90 percent. With approval ratings in the low 30s, Bush has now made 3 separate speeches (actually one speech and two speechlettes) extolling the Paulson plan and exhorting support for it, and still can not rest assured that his financial bailout (now called a "rescue") of Wall Street, Main Street, and Global Capitalism, Inc. will be passed by recalcitrant members of his own political party. The original plan had all the hallmarks of Bush/Cheneyism and enough irritants to send House and Senate leaders of both parties into a collective rage. At last Thursday's photo-opportunity of blessed bipartisanship, the President had to endure the revolt of Republican Senator Richard Shelby and a shouting match between the presumed deal makers, all without the cover of shadow president Cheney. We are a long way from the "dead or alive" and "bring it on" bravado of the early days.

Being one who disapproved of the job BushCo was doing in November, 2001 and believed the country was going in the wrong direction (any Republican President with a belief in Reaganism automatically has the country heading in the wrong direction) even then. I don't care that he is likeable. He was out of his league, had wrongheaded ideas and was ignorant of too much and should have recognized that fact and refused to run instead of allowing Karl & Co. to talk him into running.

Had he refused to run, my opinion of him would be much higher than it is now. As governor of Texas he was in the perfect political position for his skills. Little responsibility, little control over the state legislative agenda and little control over the bureaucracy and LOTS of PR exposure.

Ronald Reagan and BushCo have been devastating to the United States. We may not be able to recover from those sixteen (twenty with 41) years without a depression. And don't tell me how Reagan won the Cold War.

As I recall, we were told by Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

George Bush is an unremarkable man faced with remarkable times and failed.

Hear, hear.

# 159 Is he so likable?

I still see him as a true and genuine Joe-sixpack patting our queen on the shoulders at a solemn commemoration of WW II soldiers in our country.

Thought him demented, with his all-american speech at that occasion. As if only Americans matter, which is quite a fact I think.
For him and his kind only wealthy white Americans matter...

He returns to his ranch (which he should never have left) and the world has to face the consequences.

Lousy character in a bad movie.

# 164

The beautiful thing was the eyes of our queen. It made me an instant monarchist, which I am normally not.

The coverage of the G7 finance ministers has featured a much more internationalist GW than we are used to. Makes me think we have a very big problem for which he needs their help.

>165 marieke54:, I hadn't heard that he had patted the Queen on shoulder. Hmm, Angela Merkel, too. It's a wonder the Pope didn't suffer any informal contact. He does wear robes, y'know!

164
Oh, for crying out loud! I was being sarcastic!

The likeability thing is is a load of crap that people like Fish, David Broder, and Chris Mathews like to put out there despite all evidence to the contrary.

Will something come from this?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10554

I doubt it. To many Americans, being critical about our leaders (or at least the ones we voted for) is to be unpatriotic. God knows there's nothing worse than questioning the judgement of your politicians!

The whole reason Sarah Palin criticizes the other side for "looking back" is because of the ugliness we see in the rear view mirror (and the fact that her party held the White House while these hubristic blunders were being made).

Even now, as the Bush Administration fades, we prefer not to think about those excesses, drowning them out with patriotic chants.

I think most of us would just like to move on, as they say. I just hope the next president works hard to undo the most egregious of Bush's unconstitutional actions, such as those provisions of the Patriot ACT (I & II, Orwell would have had a field day with that name) that are intrusive, and at least restore the power of the FISA courts. Oh, yeah, I think they could restore habeus corpus, too. And undo a couple a thousand "signing statements", as well.

I have question about signing statements: If the President can write a statement saying he is going to ignore those parts of a law he doesn't like, why can't I write a statement saying I'm going to ignore those laws, whole or in part, that I disagree with?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, Nixon proved that when the President does it, it isn't a crime. It's just a crime when the rest of us do it.

"...why can't I write a statement saying I'm going to ignore those laws, whole or in part, that I disagree with?"

You can. The difference is, your ass will end up in the hoosegow.

900,000 lost jobs, two wars that have no end in sight with the potential of another one starting,and an economy that is quickly falling into the toilet... that's Bush's legacy

172>

Don't be so hasty. He still has 3 more months--perhaps he'll sell Maine to the French or invade Luxembourg. Anything's possible.

Anything is possible- I'm just waiting for a farewell address to the nation and see what kind of spin he'll put on the last 8 years

174
I'm just waiting for the farewell address, I don't care what kind of spin he puts on it.

I now think Bush's legacy will be that he has no legacy. Neither Obama nor McCain want anything to do with him, and other Republicans are running away from him. His presidency amounts to 8 years that will be erased from the historical memory banks as soon as possible, since much of that time has been filled with trauma of his own making. We'll be thankful that he held so few press conferences, that he only appeared before friendly audiences away from cameras but close enough to shake down huge donations. He's been on TV so much recently and I find it annoying.

What will be remembered are events and people:

9/11
Colin Powell's UN speech
Mission Accomplished
Bremmer and Rumsfeld
Abu Ghraib
Gitmo and the waterboarders
Katrina
Brownie
Darth Cheney and Scooter Libby
Supreme Court Justice nominee Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales
$700 bn welfare plan for profligate bankers

It'll be interesting to see what the stock market does on Jan 20th. My guess is it will be up since almost everyone will be in a good mood.

I'm guessing the Dow will end that day up 419 points after a slow start.

176> You forgot the politicization of the Justice Department.

>178 geneg: Not to mention 5 trillion dollars in debt...

>176 theoria:

- The President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US
- My Pet Goat
- Looting of the museums in Baghdad (trivial in the overall scheme of things, but coming from those who claim to respect "traditional values", how do you justify destroying the earliest evidence of modern civilization?)
- Habeas corpus violations
- Warrantless wiretapping
- Presidential signing statements
- Environmental devastation (for example, salvage logging old growth timber after forest fires)
- No-bid contracts
- "The Homeland Security Advisory System" (aka Tom Ridge's Rainbow)
- Ready.gov. I wonder how many millions that one cost. Excellent parodies here and here.
- The TSA charade in airports across the country

So, if Obama wins, especially if there is a Democratic landslide, who will President Bush pardon? Can he frame pardons in such a way to protect people (and himself) from future charges of abuses of power?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22017#wills

>181 margd: Marg, he can pardon a lot of people, and I expect he will, including, perhaps, himself. The guy has been a scofflaw all his life.

One of the fundamental problems of the US constitution, IMHO, is that the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president. This means that there has been no effective check on presidential abuses of power, except when the congress is held by the opposite party and is willing to impeach. The justice department should be a separate branch of government. Moreover, the president should not be able to pardon anyone without having the pardon ratified by congress.

jmcgarve>

Maybe not 'ratified by congress', but yes... SOMETHING.

Maybe a lame duck president should only be allowed to pardon people PRIOR to that year's election day. That way they're still accountable in the sense that any pardon might make their party look bad and could prevent the "What've we got to lose?" approach.

Interesting enough, although I am not a supporter of the idea of "power to the psychiatrist": http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10716

Central question: how could / can it be?

"... that a man of Bush’s character could rise to the White House: “One wondered how he could have been picked as the nominee and then elected..."

This article has a pretty good take on Bush's legacy. It also uses a great postmodernist philosophical quote as an epigram. Perception = Reality. what a bunch of numbnuts.

195> Gene, I want the book advertised on that page, The Rise of the Fourth Reich. The Publishers Weekly review cited on the Barnes and Noble page ends "The result is vintage Marrs-a turgid stew of nonsense."

Robert

#184 marieke54 “One wondered how he could have been picked as the nominee and then elected..."

He didn't get elected. He stole the 2000 election in Florida and stole the 2004 election in Ohio.

One of these days I'll stop being so upset about that, but I don't know when it will be.

# 187
The question was a quote from the article, karenmarie. Which leaves the big question unanswered: how could / can these thefts happen in the so democratic USA with the whole world watching including the countries to which America wants to bring its export articles: “western democracy” and “fair elections”?.

It is so good to know that people like you who were very upset didn’t crawl back into a cocoon of indifference, but come back in great masses to vote again…

It gives me such pleasure and hope to follow these discussions…
And helps me to regain faith in you Americans.

And keep in mind, karenmarie, SOMEONE had to be the worst president of all time. Maybe W was put on earth to serve just that purpose.

I don't know what happened, I posted this, it said I did, then it wasn't there.

In all fairness, thoughts on George W. Bush by some who know him.

#190 jasonseidner - you may be right. When I've argued with "pro-life" Christian friends, I've made the comment "You do realize, don't you, that it may be God's will that Roe v Wade is law."

Perhaps it's God's will that George W Bush stole the Presidency. Who am I to question God?

#192 geneg - interesting article. The qualities extolled - loyalty, moral clarity, promoting human dignity, and the personal aspect - Mrs. Bush and how good a governor George Bush was are points in his favor. To me, though, they don't outweigh the incompetence, idealogy-at-all-costs, and venality of his Presidency.

I don't want to be fair.

I expect my President to be above all that crap. Unrealistic, yes. But there have been other presidents who have done so much better than Bush. Let's hope the next one can do better too. Obviously I hope it's Obama, but even if for some reason (stolen election probably - God's will again?) McCain is President, I want him to do good for MY country and leave it better off than he found it. Bush did not do that.

# 192 "Perhaps it's God's will that George W Bush stole the Presidency. Who am I to question God?"

What a nice thought for the thieves!

I look at George W. Bush's election as definitely the will of God. Until he was elected and screwed things up so royally the country was in a Republican mood and underwent a mini-shift to the right. But then the Republicans do what they always do when in power, showed no interest in governing from the center, ran over the Democrats like a pedestrian in the middle of the Daytona 500, illustrated to an America that had forgotten what hubris and arrogance mixed with stupidity look like, destroyed our standing with our allies and much of the rest of the world, may have destroyed much of the world's economy, engaged in a useless and pointless war at great expense in both lives and treasure, reached the pinnacle of cronyism and corruption, celebrated Gordon Gecko as the great American hero, and engaged in a shameful display of willful ignorance with regard to the truth by ignoring the climate crisis, the energy crisis, and engaging in creating their own reality.

Had BushCo not been in office these last eight years it's questionable whether any of this would have happened and we would still be a country in the thrall of Reaganism, Corporatism, greed, and encroaching ignorance. If McCain wins, obviously God is not finished with His lesson for America.

Hopefully, America has awakened to the catastrophe which has been the Republican party since 1980 and will resoundingly reject them and their post modern philosophy of ignoring reality in favor of a self-constructed reality made from the tissue of their dreams.

Can this possibly be real?

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

I'm reminded of the South Park where Hitler is crying because he doesn't have a Christmas Tree.

Don't pay them no nevermind. They're just a bunch of whiny-ass Republicans doing what they do: whine. We should be prepared for the Republican shit machine to get cranked up, but this time we should reject them roundly.

>196 vq5p9:

Did you notice the brief bio at the end:

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

Well, that explains a lot. While Ken Blackwell was busy rigging the Diebold machines in Ohio, Rove managed to plant a mole on Kerry's campaign team.

My favorite part of that WSJ article is the support they muster for the idea that Bush had a bi-partisan legacy.

Over 8 years, the major bi-partisan triumph for George Bush was .....

His campaign rhetoric!

Talk about damning with faint praise.

#195 geneg - very well stated. I appreciate your clarity and viewpoint.

IMO things happen for a reason. I happen to call that reason God, others might call it serendipity or timing or whatever.

I don't quite get geneg's reasoning in #195. God made Americans vote for Bush in order to show them what a bad idea it was to vote for Bush? It reminds me of God hardening Pharaoh's heart against Moses in order to have a reason to visit Egypt with plagues.

>201 Amtep: God allows us to engage in self-destructive behaviors (remember free will?) until we either come to our senses or, we, quite frankly, self-destruct. The classic example of this from the Bible is the story of Jonah. He was sent to Ninevah with the message that they were on a self-destructive path and needed to repent their ways. They did and destruction was avoided. Hopefully, we have avoided self-destruction for now.

Too bad you didn't avoid destruction for hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

#202: No, that seems to contradict what you said earlier. Was it God's will that Bush was elected, or was it the free will of the American people? If it was God's will, then in what way? Did God interfere with the election somehow? If it was free will, and God did not interfere, then how does God's opinion matter?

(Let's set aside the Supreme Court judgement for now; it wouldn't have gotten that far if Bush hadn't already won almost 50% of the country.)

Amtep, God gives us direction, makes known His will, and allows us to accept or reject it as we will. God did not put George Bush forward as a candidate, nor did He step in and keep us from doing the wrong thing. But hopefully, we have learned the lesson He taught us through BushCo.

God's direction is succinctly stated in Micah, "Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my crime, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? You have been told, O man, what is good, and what the LORD requires of you: Only to do the right and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God." (emphasis mine)

The closer we come to this ideal, the more prosperous as a nation we become, the further we are from this ideal, the greater our chance of destruction.

God has told us what He requires of us. It's up to us to follow or not.

Even the Cato Institute is piling on. A Sweeping Rejection of President Bush

Here are my thoughts on the worst presidents and why:

John Adams: His egregious partisanship and cronyism set up the first constitutional crisis and the first party reallignment; his redeeming qualities are that he can claim responsibility for establishing the Marshall court, which was a hell of a lot better than he was, and he kept us out of European wars

James Buchanan: he rubbed salt on the wounds of slavery, oversaw an economic crisis, and permitted seccession without intervening. No notable redeeming qualities.

Andrew Johnson and Ullysses Grant: two Presidents who failed to succesfully rise to one of the biggest challenges in history: the failure of reconstruction gets shared between them, but each have redeeming features, from the purchase of Alaska for Johnson to the 13th and 14th amendments for Johnson and the 15th amendment for Grant.

Harding: A short Presidency resulting in years worth of scandals. Oversaw the US's withdrawal from Wilson's international engagement, likely contributing to the causes of WWII.

Herbert Hoover: the father of the Great Depression and the man who inspired one of the most significant political reallignments in history

Nixon. Yes, he was a crook. He also, reluctantly, ended the Vietnam war and visited China.

Jimmy Carter: another President who failed to rise to challenges, though his were not as great as Johnson's and Grant's. Bad enough to inspire a fundamental political reallignment, though that may have been in the works from the time of the Civil Rights Act and the birth of the Republican's "southern strategy". Redeeming features include his nobel award winning brokering of the Egypt/Israeli peace accords

George Bush: the rare achievement of two recessions and two wars to his credit in eight years; FDR is the only other President I can identify who oversaw two recessions, and his were part of a continuing meta-cycle in the Great Depression; two wars is also a rare achievement. Like Adams, Carter and Hoover, he may have been bad enough to inspire a major political reallignment. He was hampered by his own party, which generated a huge number of second rate scandals, cripplying it's ability to function in Congress. No identifiable redeeming characteristics at this time.

I think Bush's legacy leaves him at home in the above group, as one of the handful of worst Presidents ever. Some President's with redeeming features, like Adams, Johnson, Grant, and even Nixon, will go up and down in the historian's assessments over the years. If Obama is very successful, some of Bush's failings may be forgotten and he may rise in the rankings a bit (maybe even up to Coolidge's and Fillmore's levels, just off the short list). If Obama can't get things turned around fast enough, Bush may sink to the bottom, though Buchanan will always be lower than he is in historian's assessments.

From the above Cato article:

"Republicans racked up further losses in the most libertarian parts of the country, such as New Hampshire and the Mountain West. Obama won affluent, educated voters and professionals. And if conservative Republicans continue to respond to the loss of educated voters by declaring themselves proud to be "real Americans" who don't care much for book learning and Darwinism and elite stuff, they will only accelerate the process." (Emphasis mine)

I've got my fingers crossed!

"But a candidate in either party who presented himself as a product of the social freedom of the Sixties and the economic freedom of the Eighties would be tapping into a market that both parties have yet to nail down."

Go Go Obama! (To the tune of "Go Go Godzilla").

Although, maybe the economic freedom of the Eighties will be tempered with common sense.

I have already made my contribution to Palin's 2012 primary run.

She may be the second best thing to happen to the Democratic party in years--the first being Bush.

Hilarious AS and a wonderful plan.

Bush's legacy lives on with Obama, as the latter supports the bailout and FISA legislation. Not only that, but Obama just asked one of the most hawkish and most pro-Israel politicians to be his chief of staff.

Hope and change!`

For someone who wants to get things done, Rahm Emanuel is an inspired choice. We'll see what happens. Is America ready to break free from the chains of Israel? Were you here when I initially brought up the idea that maybe Israel wasn't totally innocent in the middle east? Boy, anti-semite was the gentlest name I was called. I don't think this attitude will change for awhile, especially as long as AIPAC and the NeoCons have some influence in America.

Anyone in favor of a day dedicated to the memory of those brave American sailors who lost their lives on June 8, 1967? If anyone else had committed this atrocity against an American Ship of the Line there would have been hell to pay. Not this time, they were our "friends".

I don't think Obama will allow Israel to drag us into war, either through diplomacy with the Israeli's or just refusing to play. But you can bet AIPAC and the NeoCons will be beside themselves with fury if Israel starts a war and we decide to sit it out. Tough Tuna, fellas.

Contained in this story is the difference between how Republicans and Democrats approach the economy, from the ground up or from the top down. How would you like to see your economic recovery dollars spent? Saving jobs, revitalizing our moribund manufacturing sector, aiding our competitiveness or throwing $750,000,000,000 out the windows of Wall Street at the traders below?

#213 Definitely infrastructure. I would like roads, libraries, schools, teen centers, state hospitals, and state assisted living facilities to go up.

Apparently, the Obama administration plans to quickly undo some non-legislated parts of Bush's legacy, e.g. executive orders on such matters as stem cell research, the environment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856....

# 214
“Traveling through a cracking empire” was the the title of an article in De Groene (a weekly like The Nation) about America’s infrastructure by Geert Mak, author of In Europe. In the summer of 2004 he and his wife travelled 10 weeks through the USA in a camper. They were deeply shocked by what they saw. For Americans who read Dutch: http://www.geertmak.nl/geert%20zegt%20geert%20schrijft/artikelen%20essays/6.html

#215 margd - I love that article and the fact that Obama is interested in reversing so much of "Bush's Legacy."

Conservatives bemoan 'big government' and accused Obama of being a socialist, but turned a blind eye to the greatest engrossment of the power of Executive branch in decades under G. W. Bush. We'll see if they continue to make duplicitous arguments as Obama reverses several of Bush's executive orders.

Two pieces of legislation which Bush vetoed will likely become the initial bipartisan measures of the Obama presidency after the inauguration: stem cell research and the extension of health care benefits to children.

UNBELIEVABLE! Yesterday, President Elect Obama asked President Bush to allow bridge loans or other support (from the $700 billion) to struggling US automakers. (An estimated 3 million US jobs, including my husband's, may be at risk.) Bush conditioned any support for US automakers on Obama/Dems' support for a trade deal with Columbia!!

Bush doesn't reject the idea of support for US automakers for CAUSE. NO! He's willing to gamble 3 million US jobs in order to get a foreign trade deal...

Where are the rails, pitchforks, tar? I'm about ready to join you, geneg!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html?hp

Those 3 million jobs are somehow worth saving over any sample of 3 million other jobs? What makes those jobs so special that we should go out of our way to save them?

You don't like having a domestic economy with a heartbeat? Anyway, as I said, Bush wasn't dismissing the idea of loan for good economic argument. Rather, he's willing to consider it in exchange for a rather minor foreign trade deal.

>220 codyed: We're talking about bridge loans not tariffs.

This is a commonsense short-term policy position, not a long-term move toward economic protectionism.

What's your deal?

Not how it is currently defined. No.

But even still. What makes those automotive jobs and their derivatives more worthy of protection than any other set of three million jobs? It appears that just so as long as an industry has proper sway within the government, one is ensured protection. But the poor sap who doesn't belong to such a well connected industry, well, he's out of luck.

>223 codyed: Easy to say, when you have moose meat, and are able to suck on the petrol state's teat. But the rest of us, down here in the lower 49, well, we'd like to maintain what little industrial production we have left while we forge through this current economic crisis, thank you very much.

Save the sob story. It doesn't impress me one bit.

>225 codyed: Are you just going to ignore post 222?

What makes you think it is a commonsense short-term position? Have liberals essentially jettisoned the concept of "moral hazard?"

Bridge loans are by virtue of their nature short-term, and such loans make sense when: a) there is no reason to believe that the recipient/industry will go belly up (and thus be unable to pay back said loans) in the short- to medium-term if it can sustain itself through, in this case, the current economic crisis; and b) there is reason to believe that the industry does need these loans to survive the current economic crisis without major job cuts.

This is not protectionism. This is an example of the government stepping up to provide a function that the "free market" cannot provide because we just so happen to be going through a severe economic crisis.

But, hell, if you don't want to address the question, don't.

Bush doesn't reject the idea of support for US automakers for CAUSE. NO! He's willing to gamble 3 million US jobs in order to get a foreign trade deal...

By implication, if Bush doesn't gamble these 3 million jobs he is, in a sense, preserving these jobs. I asked what was so special that we should go out of our way to preserve (or "protect," if you will) these jobs.

You seem to be arguing semantics.

>229 codyed: All actions, including inaction, have consequences.

That doesn't change the fact that you're dodging a question by way of asking questions.

>229 codyed: You just changed post 229 completely from a response directed at me to a rebuttal of margd? Bizarre...

"What's your deal?" is a very vague question. And as such, I gave you an adequate answer.

I think it is obvious that post was directed at you.

>232 codyed: I know it's a late night early in the week, but... Is that the best you can do?

"What's your deal?" is a dumb question without any context behind it. And what context you have provided I showed that you are arguing over word choice.

>232 codyed: The idea of the government providing bridge loans to an at risk industry has clearly raised your ire. Yet you have provided no basis for your opposition, outside of an off-handed reference to "moral hazard."

The "free market" alternative to these government-provided bridge loans is, you guessed it, bridge loans provided by the private sector! However, given your interest in economics, I think it's safe to say that you know fully well just how hard the banking sector of literally all of the Western powers has been hit by what has now been identified as the worst global economic crisis the world has seen since the Great Depression.

Right now, the private sector cannot provide.

Either the government steps up or we let the chips fall where they may. The thing is, you have done nothing here to defend the argument that letting the chips fall where they may is preferable to the government providing a function which the private sector would and will soon enough be providing once the world has weathered this storm.

Anyway. I'm out for the night. Respond (or not) at your leisure. I'll get back at you tomorrow.

#219: That's not what the $700 billion was for. Has it suddenly become play money? If it's not needed to rescue the financial system and prevent another Great Depression, then please put it back. The taxpayers will thank you.

(edited to fix post number)

Under a free-market system, if those automakers could not secure a bridge loan, then they would then have to cut costs in some way or file for bankruptcy. If that is what might happen under a free-market system, then the government is not providing a service to the automakers that they would otherwise have in a free-market. Instead, we are sending a signal to big business managers that, if they are caught in hard economic times, then they can expect favorable treatment from the government. There would then be little incentive to avoid risk or cut costs to avoid a similar situation in the future.

>238 Amtep: - But it's a bridge loan, Amtep. Perfectly harmless and commonsensical to boot.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/17950266/detail.html

"When Wall Street was in trouble the administration acted with lightning speed to provide relief," said Rep. Miller. "Now our industry needs help and the administration has been slow to act."

What worries me is that this reasoning can be applied to all industries. "They got some, now we get some". Pretty soon you have a line around the block.

Amtep, codyed--The goal for the $700 billion was to prevent serious worldwide recession or depression, and thus it supports the flow of credit. GM, at least, has a financial arm (GMAC), and I assume Ford and Chrysler do also. They need a bridge loan to tough out the next year or so. The business papers seem to have agreed that it was a mistake to let Lehman Bros fail, due to ripples through the economy and failure of trust. My understanding is that even the failure of just Chrysler will cause similar ripples through the economy. Anyway, even if you think the market should be allowed to discipline the Big Three--with all the implications for jobs, the economy, and reliance on foreign carmakers--surely you, too, must be appalled by Bush's willingness to deal?

The issue here is whether we should give the $750,000,000,000 to the money men who know how to use it and where best to spend it and let them put it where it's needed, creating a trickle down effect that will prime the pump, or inject the money into the system at a government determined place in the economy hoping that it will provide operating capital that allows the selected industry to continue functioning, putting money into the pockets of the employees encouraging them to spend or save, both of which provide capital for the money markets, but not as directly and not as immediately as the top down approach.

Do we give the money to the already insanely wealthy who have proven their mastery over the economy by virtue of their vast wealth, or do we give it to Joe SixPack to help make his house payments, buy groceries for his family, pay his bills, and put some aside for that proverbial rainy day?

I don't know about you, but this is a real poser.

FYI: I believe we are being instructed in the nature of the free market. Governments are mutual protection pacts (or should be, and in a country as large as ours not everyone will feel that way at any given time, depending on who the government sees as its constituency) and we are in serious need of protection from the free market by our government.

At this point government is not the problem, we can only hope it provides a solution that the free market is, at present, unable to provide. If allowed to continue to its logical conclusion there very well may not be a market, free or otherwise.

If the automakers declare bankruptcy, you might as well just shut them down. Who would buy a car, with a three year warrenty, from a company you don't think will be here in two years? How will you get the parts? Who will work on it?

Yes, if people DID buy cars from companies on the verges of closing, I am sure that after market options might open up, but most people are smart enough NOT to do that.

So we have a choice--let Japan have the American auto industry, and we just throw in the white flag, or do something to help build it back up.

We are already weak enough, in terms of manufacturing. We don't need more nails in the coffin.

Oh, and here is a three word answer to the question, "What is Bush's legacy?"

Barak Hussein Obama.

The US auto industry is a tough case. The last thing we need is to have even more people losing their jobs, their healthcare coverage, their pensions, etc. I hope we can find other industries where they can use their skills productively, but I have very little sympathy for the industry.

Detroit decided their future was in huge trucks and SUVs, while Japanese manufacturers were pursuing quality, fuel efficiency, and low emissions. Between company cars and rental cars, I have a very dim view of the US auto industry. Their products are almost uniformly lousy - poor performance, worse gas mileage, and terrible reliability.

Meanwhile, my Japanese-made Honda purrs along, approaching 300,000 miles with most of its original parts still on board. When it eventually dies, I won't be looking much beyond Toyota and Honda for a replacement. Bill Ford talked a good story for a while, but he didn't really do much to steer the company away from the monstrosities they were building.

>246 oregonobsessionz: I had a nice little Honda Accord decades ago (built in Ohio ), but since then they've all been GM cars with no particular problems. Consumer's Reports (via salon.com) seems to agree that one can find a good car among those built by our neighbors:

"Ford's three brands--Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury--continue to pull away from the rest of the Detroit automakers. Almost all Ford models are now average or better, with the exception of some that are truck-based. Excluding those, Ford's reliability is now on a par with good Japanese automakers. GM is a "mixed bag." Chrysler seems hopeless. "Almost two thirds of its products rate below average for reliability.""

A large part of Detroit's problem, and the problem with a lot of older American companies, is the huge pension and retiree health care obligations they have. Instead of just throwing money at the problem maybe we should make the companies healthier by nationalizing this commitment and that of all other companies in the US. If you think about it it doesn't really make sense for a company to promise something for 30 years in the future when it may not even be around any longer. This would be a huge commitment but US companies will be more profitable if it were done so increased tax income should pay for part of it.

>248 jjwilson61:

That is one major argument in favor of a national system of health care - manufacturers in other major industrialized countries don't have these burdens.

Regarding the pensions, during the 1990s when the stock market was booming, the rules for pension reserves were changed. I'll see if I can find a reference for this. What I recall is that a company's contributions to pension reserves were calculated based on the assumption that the earnings in the pension fund would grow at a rate equivalent to one of the federal benchmarks (T-bills or something like that). But with the stock market outpacing the stodgy old-fashioned index, companies were allowed to derive an index from stock market results. Assuming a higher rate of return meant companies could reduce their contributions, but it also meant they didn't have much of a safety net for two major bear markets during the GWB administration. When their reserve funds fell below required levels, companies should have made additional contributions to catch up; insead, many of them simply dumped their pension funds on the PBGC.

passing the torch

One way or another, part of Bush's legacy will be gasoline at $1.95/gal.

President Obama Ends Torture in America

(Edited to fix the link - I previously linked to a gallery of cartoons, and the Obama cartoon has moved.)

#252 oregonobsessionz - very good. Can't wait.

Another dimension of Bush's legacy seems to be a record of losing legal cases against alleged terrorists and/or enemy combatants.

"In the first hearing on the government’s justification for holding detainees at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, a federal judge ruled Thursday that five Algerian men were held unlawfully for nearly seven years and ordered their release....

Last month, another district court judge in Washington, Ricardo M. Urbina, ordered the release of 17 other detainees, all ethnic Uighurs from western China. The judge did not hold a hearing on the evidence in that case because the government conceded that the men were not enemy combatants." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/21guantanamo.html?hp

A GOP Dirty Trickster Has Second Thoughts

Roger Stone is one of the last guys on Earth one would expect to feel guilty over an episode of rough and tumble politicking. As a self-admitted hit man for the GOP, Stone has had a hand in everything from Nixon's dirty tricks to Eliot Spitzer's resignation to spreading discredited rumors of a Michelle Obama “whitey” tape during the 2008 Democratic primaries. You might call Stone the Forrest Gump of scandal, popping up to play a bit part in the most notorious negative campaigns in recent history.

The capstone of Stone’s career, at least in terms of results, was the “Brooks Brothers riot” of the 2000 election recount. This was when a Stone-led squad of pro-Bush protestors stormed the Miami-Dade County election board, stopping the recount and advancing then-Governor George W. Bush one step closer to the White House. Though he is quick to rebut GOP operatives who seek to minimize his role in the recount, Stone lately has been having second thoughts about what happened in Florida....

Last night's PBS program, "Torturing Democracy", gave a pretty good overview of this particularly shameful aspect of Bush's legacy.

>256 Makifat:

The program was available only on selected stations. Elizabeth Jensen at the New York Times alleges that PBS tried to bury it.

ETA: You can watch the program on line here.

Thinking back, "shameful" is entirely too weak of a word.

The documentary will turn your stomach - both in the descriptions of torture and in the realization that the people who approved these acts were "our" representatives. The program leaves no ambiguity about the fact that the U.S. government engaged in reprehensible acts of torture and the violation of basic human rights.

Anyone who want to debate the fact should watch the documentary first.

One sunny day in January, 2009, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, 'I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.'

The Marine looked at the man and said, 'Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here.'

The old man said, 'Okay' and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, 'I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.'

The Marine again told the man, 'Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here.'

The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, 'I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.'

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, 'Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?'

The old man looked at the Marine and said, 'Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.'

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, 'See you tomorrow, Sir.'

LOL!!

It's worthwhile to save the automakers for a number of reasons. The potential of 3 million job losses is the potential of a real national depression but it will hit some states harder than others. Maybe up in Alaska will still be just ducky. In any case the govt. will mandate better fuel efficiency standards--alternative energy solutions. The world seems poised on the cusp of new solutions to enegry/transportation problems and some would have just blow up the industry. Those solutions are coming and people are going to continue buying cars but it's not the jobs but where all the profits going to go from sales in the United States--if there are no American automakers left? It will go overseas somewhere which is the problem with money liquidity now as can be seen with the hundreds of billions of dollars that went to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait when the cost of oil skyrocketed.

What is left of our manufacturing is vital for our economic health. The free market principles pushed by the Republican party have done much to dismantle manufacturing in this country and what's more those principles have failed--they are why our economy is where it's at right now.

I heard several people (talking heads types) today say the Big Three cannot be saved. Apparently they are only worth $17,000,000,000 together and they are asking for twice what they are worth. We can only push back the inevitable. If that's really the case there is no good reason to bail them out now only to fail later. One fellow did say that there weren't any union jobs involved in designing and selling product. Detroit is not collapsing because of the burden unions put on them, but on thirty years of crappy, shortsighted management.

One of the people I heard speak interviewed a Big Three management type who told him that they made a conscious decision sometime back to cede the car market to the foreigners and decided to concentrate on SUV's and trucks where the money was. Well, as it turns out, it ain't working for them.

I remember watching a PBS show back in the '70's discussing small, fuel efficient Japanese cars that were just hitting America's roads and several of the guests were spokesmen for Detroit. They just laughed at the idea that Americans would ever buy those little cars. No, Americans wanted their big cars and they were going to see that we got them, a new one every three years. Well that kind of thinking is now not just catching up to GM, Ford, and Chrysler, it's apparently steam rolling right on over them and crushing them flat.

Years of congressional enabling, both Republican and Democratic, have come home to roost.

Let them go.

I am still curious whether President Bush will grant preemptive pardons in the twilight of his presidency. One writer at Huffington Post thinks that VP Cheney is actively pursuing such a pardon for Rumsfeld, Rice, Meyer, and himself on mistreatment of prisoners.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-latt/cheney-taunts-bush-pardon_b_151675.html

263>
Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Meyer, Cheney (and throw in Gonzales) -- quite a rogues gallery. If Bush, who promised to bring integrity back to the Oval office, issues these pre-emptive pardons, it will make Clinton's pardon of Rich pale in comparison.

Apparently, Bush has made reluctant use of pardons. Remember his mocking that Texas murderess as he denied her request for clemency in 1998 ("don't kill me")? With that in his past, pre-emptive pardons for himself and his colleagues would be even more ugly. I can't imagine that the new Congress and the Administration, with all they have to do, will want to waste time going after Bush, Cheney, etc. Are Bush et al. at risk from law enforcement officials or private citizens' suits? A US pardon wouldn't protect them from charges in other countries, except perhaps from extradition from the US? I suppose if it came to that, Obama could follow President Ford's example and pardon them just to put this sorry history behind us?

Any pardons by Bush would be an indirect way of admitting there was wrongdoing of any sort. And we all know how much Bush likes admitting THAT. It'll be interesting to see which road he takes.

Five Bush traits will be in play, then, in deciding on any midnight pre-emptive pardons for himself and other members of administration: (1) historically not a fan of pardons, (2) doesn't admit error, (3) concerned re legacy (appearances), but (4) expects and extends loyalty to underlings, and (5) easily manipulated by Cheney.

ETA: Here is NYT editorial calling for investigations and prosecutions of senior personnel based on report of the Senate's Armed Services Committee. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/opinion/18thu1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&...

Kudos to President Bush for his efforts to smooth transition to new Administration.

Just a reminder. BushCo has a tough row to hoe ahead if they want to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.

Another look at George W. Bush's triumphs. Sing those praises, folks. He's moving to my town. I hope to hell I never run into him at the store. It won't turn out pretty for either of us.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of George Bush’s legacy is the fact that American conservatism has split into feuding factions as a result of his reign. Moreover, the opportunistic (or parasitic) alignment of conservatives with the Republican party was shattered by Bush’s big government warfare state and his handouts to Wall Street fat cats. Consequently, a new front in the culture wars has been opened. Do-nothing small government/anti-tax conservatives and Know-nothing cultural conservatives are now pitted against the Big Brains conservative intelligentsia in an apocalyptic war for the soul of the conservative movement (Right wing libertarians have no place here and find their default position in the bedlam of Ron Paul; Left wing libertarians still have the ACLU). Conservatives such as Peggy Noonan and David Brooks, whose intellectualism places them on the far right tail of Charles Murray’s bell curve of the cognitive elite, openly dared to question the selection of Palin as VP candidate, this Jeanne d’Arc for the oxycontin driven life of the Limbaughs who occupy AM talk radio. The Palinoconservatives, who occupy the far left tail of the same bell curve, feel abandoned by their brighter lights brethren and those suburban independents who once belonged within the conservative Republican fold. Words like competence and diction vex the Palinoconservatives, for whom a diphthong is associated with something the Alaskan governor once wore during a beauty pageant. Obama’s hubris in selecting Rick Warren as the toastmaster of his inauguration has only brought this festering sore on the conservative rump out into the light: no doubt, Pastor Warren will be serenaded by love speech like ‘friend of the baby killer’ in future appearances before elderly evangelicals and the Weyrich branch of the Poujadist International.

Republican party politicians, another stakeholder in the Conservative Movement, Inc., are scrambling to regain the trust and support of any of the battalions in this conservative culture war. Testing the water with songs like “Barack the Magic Negro” and a fiscally responsible f*ck you to autoworkers who bring home half of the salary of our national legislators, these professional politicians seek to regain the momentum that was lost when Reagan lost his memory during the Iran-Contra hearings. No doubt they are planning their own barrels of pork to attach to Obama’s New New Deal, such as funding for school vouchers to save parochial schools from extinction. However, they will be reduced to reaction until the cultural war has been won or a cease fire has been arranged among the conservative factions, since the only legitimate ideas for the conservative movement are those which originate outside the Beltway (such as in Wasilla, AK). Naturally, AEI, The Heritage Foundation, and The Federalist Society are exempt from this geographical requirement.

No matter what happens, we have Bush to thank for this surge to retake the electoral battlefield from the “librals” and their Democratic front organization.

>> Words like competence and diction vex the Palinoconservatives, for whom a diphthong is associated with something the Alaskan governor once wore during a beauty pageant.

LOL!!

The LA Times has started a series dealing with Bush's legacy.

Apparently Bush will be first ex-president to have Secret Service protection withdrawn after ten years. Doesn't sound prudent for such an unpopular president, much less for his successor who will almost certainly be targeted by racist wing nuts, if not others. Hope Congress doesn't wait for a dead ex before reversing its decision to limit post-presidential protection!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/310/story/58949.html

(Years ago, I attended a press conference on some environmental issue (brownfields, I think). Then-mayor of Detroit, Coleman Young, was surrounded by HUGE bodyguards, while a past-governor (of VT?) was accompanied by a female staffer with a clipboard, The incongruity of travelling styles was startling, to say the least!).

274>
It seems to me that most people don't seem to care about Bush and would rather just see him disappear. I think he might face a Pinochet type situation if he were to travel overseas, but I doubt he'll be a world traveler as Clinton has been. He certainly can't be tasked by Obama to do anything that requires competence.

He will spend most of his time working to rehabilitate his 'legacy', which seems to involve a single claim: he kept America "safe" after 9/11. As Frank Rich pointed out in today's NY Times, this boast assumes that one thinks Bush held office only on 9/12 and not beforehand. So in fact he kept America safe after 9/11 happened on his watch. But all this PR work will likely keep him away from unfriendly people, so 10 years of protection will suffice. As the hatred of Bush wanes, the humor related to his term in office will remain, and the born-again bumbler will be happily forgotten.

theoria>

There should be a term for such A+B=C formulas. Bush's "since 9/11" claim could mean anything. We haven't been attacked by Paraguay, Sri Lanka, or aliens from space in that time either. Using Bush's logic, can't he claim that it was his policies that prevented these disasters as well?

jason
We have to "trust" reports that various threats (from Paraguay or Mars!) were "thwarted". However, when we see the cases that have became public, cases of major plots or 'enemy combatants', etc., often the government loses its cases (see post #254) or the threat (for example, the one which allegedly aimed to blow up fuel supply tanks at JFK airport) involved people with no wherewithal to actually mount an attack. Trust is not strengthened when one remembers the color-coded terror alerts which turned delicious burnt-orange whenever an election outcome was at stake. There seem to have been no major announcements of terror alerts, and the shifting crayola colors at Homeland Security became a quaint memory, since the 2004 Presidential election. is this mere coincidence or the result of Bush's anti-terror efforts or the result of the manipulation of fear for political ends? How would we ever know the truth?

277> How would we ever know the truth?

Waterboard George Bush and ask him.

Robert

We can't ever 'know' the truth, that's my point. There are people who have strange fears. Let's say you're afraid of the outdoors and you never leave your house because you think you'll be attacked: can you really say that not leaving the house PREVENTED you from being attacked? I mean, you can say there's a correlation, but I don't think you can say that remaining inside PREVENTED such an attack.

In the same way, you could suggest that the policies Bush had up until 9/10 CAUSED 9/11. Of course, positive correlation is always welcomed but I'm sure negative would be deemed unfair...

Members of BushCo, including GeeDub his ownsef have admitted terrorism was off the radar prior to 9/11. After 9/11 they simply brought it into the room. Once they learned how effective fear was in obtaining their goals they made it a part of their political strategy. We can never know if attacks haven't happened because of their actions or because the terrorists haven't chosen to attack the US since. I suspect some of both. I also suspect that as far as actual terrorism was concerned the intelligence agencies and the FBI paid closer attention to what was going on. This certainly caused some innocents to be harmed, but some of the people rounded up in the US do appear to be real terrorists. The question is are they driven by some terrorist organization or just good ole American crazies.

When I heard the world had changed forever, I knew Bin Laden had won at least a short term victory.

The Guardian has made its contribution to our remembrance of Bush's terms in office. If there is a Mt. Rushmore for Presidents who generously offered comic relief to the poor, tired, and huddled masses, Dubya's visage should be etched in stone there. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/george-bush-usa

This Onion article was intended to be humorous satire when it was written in 2001. Read now, it seems to have been a visitation form the future of 2008.

I don't know which to celebrate: Martin Luther King Day, or the last day of the Bush presidency. Both worthy of a joyous dance.

Once again, the hypocrisy meter is twisted off the dial. Now, Barack Hussein Obama is evil.

sounds like the Republican shit machine is getting cranked up again. Oh, well maybe we can learn to ignore them this time around.

282>

That Onion article was creepy. I would almost need to see proof of when it was written to know it wasn't put together a week ago. Not kidding.

>> What a pitiable man, that Farah. Beyond health insurance.

I have a place on the fourth floor here for him. He will have good company with the other delusional people who think they are God.

On George Bush, we can quote Robin Williams:
"I CAME, I SAW, I LEFT."

I was so glad to see W and Laura getting on that plane yesterday. As I said in another thread, "Good riddance to bad rubbish."

I was going to say that I'll have to take my Impeach Bush button down at work, but perhaps it can stay as a reminder that no matter what Obama does, and I'm sure he'll do things that I'll hate, it absolutely and positively cannot be any worse than what Bush did.

They got to go to Midland and listen to Lee Greenwood. If that's not an earthly approximation of Hell, I don't know what is.

I think it only counts as hell if you don't like it. And the only reason they are going to Midland is because the new house in Dallas needs some painting. The house that Laura bought that Dubya hasn't even seen! my, that little lady might be gettin' above her place in the natural order of things.

The Economist weighs-in on the Republicans loss on Nov. 4.

geneg - a succinct summary of the state of the Republican Party.

Back to the original topic, Bush deserves credit for cooperating with Obama to ensure a smooth transition, although he might have been more active in the Gaza situation

I personally feel that it an outgoing President's duty to cooperate with the incoming President. I expect it, therefore give no special credit for it. I expected it of Clinton, I expected it of Bush, and I will expect it of Obama.

It's part of the smooth transition of power.

re 294>

From the article:
"The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride (...).

I would also add "the war on communism" to this list of Reaganite ideas. (Of course, conservatives will insist the Republican party is a vehicle of political convenience, hence, the sound defeat of the Republican party in 2006 and 2008 portends nothing for conservative ideas or the fate of conservatism writ large). But let's take this laundry list of ideas: entrepreneurialism, law and order, American pride, and a war against (fill in the blank).

1. Entrepreneurialism: the Democratic party realigned itself with the business class preceding and during the Clinton years, and the general public remembers the relative economic bon temps of the Clinton years and contrasts it favorably against the sinking economic fortunates of the end of the Bush years. Add to this the fact that most Democrats, and their intelligentsia ala Krugman, seek to throw money at business (700 bn for Wall Street investment firms and big banks isn't too shabby). As a consequence, it is difficult for Republicans and conservatives to credibly claim that the Democrats and liberals are "anti-business" or "anti-entrepreneurialists (sic)." Even Obama's proposed, and likely delayed, tax hike on incomes over 200k didn't deter voters in this income bracket from his cause (probably, because they intuit that in these times some 'sacrifice' is needed -- sacrifice, for Republicans and conservatives, seems to pertain only to those who serve on the field of battle). These trends might indicate that "entrepreneurialism", as a distinctly "conservative" idea, is no longer monopolized by conservatives and the Republican party.

2. Law and order: the crime rate has decline over the last 20 years. As I remember it, this topic was entirely missing from campaign rhetoric in 2008. Oddly, the fact that many Democrats and liberals wish to limit access to handguns in urban centers may strike the average voter as a reasonable policy with regard to "law and order" and the conservatives/Republican recourse to 2nd amendment absolutism (fueled by the coffers of a powerful "special interest group" -- the NRA) may appear to be "soft on crime." With respect to "order": the federal response and the President's response to Katrina put into question whether Republicans could actually govern effectively. The scenes from the Superdome looked more like chaos rather than order.

3. American pride: this remains a constant refrain of American conservatism. However, it was deployed in hysterical ways in 2008, from the parsing of Michelle Obama's insufficient patriotism to the rumour-mongering about Barack Obama's "true faith." This silly line of attacks diminished conservatives and Republicans more generally; hence, the "pride" argument did not carry the powerful symbolism for Republicans as it had in the past.

4. War against (fill in the blank): in the days after 9/11, conservatives and Republicans mined militarism (and fear) quite well. Bush's "axis of evil" metaphor and the call to arms for a "war against terrorism" supplied conservatives and Republicans with the external enemy it had been lacking since the Wende at the Brandenburg gate. Bush's approval ratings were sustained by this call to patriotism in the face of an external threat that was compared to Nazism/fascism (i.e., "Islamofascism"). However, they were eroded by the gross incompetence of how this war was waged, from the failure to capture or eliminate bin Laden to the lengthy cycle of violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. This left an opening for someone like Obama to suggest that he could wage war more effectively than Republicans. Conservatives, seeking to deploy the idea that Democrats and liberals are "soft on terrorism" (which echoes the "soft on communism" charge from the days of Reaganite glory), have forgotten that JFK (the inexplicable darling of Democrats) was a serious anti-Communist; Obama turned out to be far more militaristic than Republicans imagined (especially with regard to pre-emptive action in Pakistan). Again, what had been a strength in the past for conservatism and Republicans became a weakness in the face of Bush's bungling. The alliance of Petraeus (a Princeton man) and Obama (a Harvard man) symbolizes the "smart power" so arrogantly articulated by Hillary Clinton (a Yale woman) during her Senate confirmation hearings. The message couldn't be more direct: conservatives and Republicans used "dumb power" to the detriment of American foreign policy. In light of this, it is not surprising that some of the "neo-conservative" brain trust gravitated (and may still be gravitating) to Obama (on this point, see the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241457979096159.html ).

The turn of the Republican party to Bubba politics, a turn symbolized by the significance of Palin and Joe the Plumber in McCain's campaign, can be separated out from the fate of conservative ideas. The ideas themselves are no longer the exclusive property of conservatism, in part because they were poorly enacted by Bush. More importantly, these ideas which once might have been associated with a pragmatic approach have now been thinned out into pure ideology. They function as no more than catch phrases and slogans when mouthed by Republicans and their talk radio brethren. For conservative ideas to again gain purchase on an increasingly more educated populace, the conservative intelligentsia will need to articulate coherent and pragmatic thoughts that can compete against Obama's neo-liberal ideas on the right tail of the bell curve of intelligence so well described by Murray and Herrnstein; they will also have to convince Republicans to stop taking up residence in the left tail of this bell curve, to choose the Jindals and Grahams of the Republican party as future leaders and to consign the Palins and Santorums to the dustbin of Republican party history.

Tongue in cheek:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/25/bush-memoir-publishing

In his Washington Post article "Ten Takeaways from the Bush Years", Bob Woodward relates Bush-era anecdotes to illustrate how NOT to manage a Cabinet: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402791.....

Rather than a strength, people-management seems to have been a unusually wanting skill in our first MBA president.

I don't see tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans here. This is the single most important thing a President can do. It cures everything from war to warts. Just ask the Republicans, they'll tell you. Anything that does not contain these targeted tax cuts is wrongheaded and doomed to fail.

301>
Wealthy people and/or people who have aspirations to become wealthy (e.g., Joe the Plummer) recommend tax cuts for other wealthy people. This all makes sense. The goal is to keep wealth where it belongs: with the wealthy.

Yes, they've done such wonderful work with it. Just look around at the shining financial industry, or, as I've said repeatedly so much wealth has trickled down that some 60,000 Americans just this week have announced they are leaving their jobs. Oh, the glories of being wealthy! Taxes are for those too stupid to be wealthy or to have been born of the wrong parents. How does someone choose to be born into poverty, anyway? Dumbos!

>303 geneg:

I blame it on something I did in a previous life. If only I knew what it was!

Gallup report: Americans Expect History to Judge Bush Worse Than Nixon

Perceptions of how George W Bush will go down in history (based on a poll taken January 9-11, 2009):
4% outstanding, 13% above average, 23% average, 23% below average, 36% poor.

Net positive ratings (% outstanding/above average minus % below average/poor):
Reagan 55 percentage points, Clinton 30 points, Ford 12 points, George H W Bush 7 points, Carter -3 points, Nixon -33 points, George W Bush -42 points.

Perceptions of how George W Bush will go down in history, by party ID:
Republicans - 38% outstanding/above average, 37% average, 24% below average/poor
Independents - 13% outstanding/above average, 24% average, 63% below average/poor
Democrats - 3% outstanding/above average, 13% average, 84% below average/poor

Worse than Nixon? How about worse than Harding? Worse than Buchanan? How about worst ever?

*hey, guess which party I identify with?!*

I've said before that we'll look back and think, "It's not so much that W was BAD, but that we voted him in TWICE. (Fool me once, shame on you...)

That's what it will come to: look what can happen to a country when the voters don't take their role seriously. (And look what can happen when they DO.)

>308 jasonseidner: Oh, now, the electorate only voted him in once. It was the supreme court that voted him in the first time. Still, the slight majority that voted for him in 2004 were certainly idiots. By that time, his character was plain to see.

He stole the election in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. We didn't vote him in either time in my opinion.

Regardless, he is one of the worst Presidents ever.

I have to say that although I thought Nixon one of the worst Presidents ever, at least he created the EPA and opened the door to China.

I can't think of a single positive thing Bush did in his 8 years.

I really hate it, but I have to agree with Bush himself, we don't know where he will fall in history. I come to Truman. He was determined initially to be a poor president, then he got himself a TV show through which he explained himself, and people fell in love with him. Stay tuned for "The Bush 43 Years" on a local PBS channel near you.

We just don't have the distance to judge, yet. Look how people idolized Reagan. The bloom seems to be fading off that rose.

Iraq may wind up doing exactly what the Neo-Cons hoped for. Refusing to talk with the Iranians may prove to be the wiser course. Blustering about the world with a crow-bar up your ass may be the posture all Presidents should assume. We just don't know how this stuff will turn out. Even the destruction of the world economy may have a positive result.

If the shoe fits...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01292009/news/worldnews/bush_shoe_throwing_incident_...

>312 theoria:

Brilliant and funny! What a fitting tribute to the Bush years.

Bishop Tutu on the Bush years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7897206.stm

Ouch! AP (Feb 28 2009) quoting Governor Huckabee at CPAC meeting:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, like Romney an unsuccessful candidate for president in 2008, pointed to the Bush administration’s failed response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

“You know what kind of conservatives we need most? Competent conservatives,” Huckabee said in a speech Thursday. “It’s when we lose our competence, that Americans lose their confidence.”

“We’re no longer Reagan’s shining city on a hill; we are the ruined city by the sea,” he added.

There's serious Bush bashing at CPAC. Huckabee has to prove that he's a Republican whom the conservative hoplites at this meeting can trust. One sign of allegiance to true conservatism is dismissal of Bush: these rhetorical acts establish conservative bona fides. Today this is also established by losing: somehow the defeat in November and the passage of Obama's recovery plan are interpreted as victories for conservatism. This was puzzling at first, but now I understand. Conservatives are fully ready to embrace the destruction of the Republican party as a condition of the renewal of the conservative movement (a variant of ‘we had to destroy the village in order to save it’ thinking). Republicans in Congress seem to understand this and are doing all they can to hold on to the conservative base (having lost independents); hence, defeat, the Do-Nothingism of Boehner, McConnell, Shelby, and Kantor is celebrated, and the incipient purge of Snowe, Specter, and Collins (no support from the RNC) will shed more moderate Republican infidels. I suppose the logic here is this: they must shrink the party down to a white hot core of anti-government conservatives who, for some reason, want to be in government, in order to then rebuild the party. The risk is that public opinion has moved on from the Manichean political ethos of Goldwater and Reagan. Rather than pushing not-ready-for-prime-time people forward, like Jindal and Pawlenty (the Republican version of Wally and the Beaver), country club Republicans like Romney, or an evangelical talk show host like Huckabee, the party's future should be built around the winking, talent show tested grace of Palin. Besides being the favorite of Joe the Plumber, she has already proved her viability as political eye candy for the midwestern and southern tool belt and bible belt set. “North to Alaska” should be the battle cry for the next conservative crusade. This will surely make the Saladins of the Democratic party quake.