Okay, lets look at different aspects of the Bush Presidency and see how much you agree or disagree.
Add your own categories as you see fit. Now, this will be a calm and honest evaluation, so sorry to the liberals who can only bash him no matter what.
Economy:
Bush should have never got on board with the ridiculous notion that absolutely everyone can afford to own their own home. We have now seen how stupid and dangerous that idea is. It is a huge factor in our current economic situation. I know that he was trying to make nice with the Dems and seem "compassionate," but you have to use common sense. Leave the rhetoric for people like ACORN and others who don't get it.
In regards to taxes he was right on...his tax cuts brought our economy back from the only major terror attack on US soil, not a small feat. Liberals can not admit the tax cuts worked, yet they will not yell at Obama when he cuts taxes in a few weeks and does not punish the rich for being successful. Obama will not only follow Bush on this policy, he will cut taxes even more...lets see if liberals have real conviction, actual beliefs or do they just like to yell at Republicans.
Safety:
Dead on, great job. He took the war to the terrorist home. Even though it was not popular he stayed firm in regards to Iraq and they are doing better than anyone would have hoped. Well, its obvious people like Obama and Reid were hoping for us to lose, but we didn't. Oh, and look...Obama will follow Bush on this one too. Lets see how long and hard the liberals complain on this issue when Obama acts exactly like Bush again...
Okay, enough for now...your turn...
Saturday, January 17, 2009
A look back at 8 years of GWB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
A complete unmitigated failure. I honestly have no words for anyone who thinks anything about the last 8 years is better than it was in 2000. I was called crazy for predicting 75% of it, too.
no one in america would have predicted we would have no terror attacks on Sept 12, 2001...and give specific examples of what he did that was a failure, I gave my example of what he did wrong with the economy
A Proposal
Ok, my html skills suck.
A Proposal
http://aconsciousoutpost.blogspot.com/2009/01/proposal.html
Safety:
Dead on, great job.
Except for that one little thing. You know, the one he was warned about by his chief terrorism adviser for almost nine months, perpetrated by the group that the adviser and the previous administration warned him about. You know the thing that he was told was going to happen a month before it did.
He took the war to the terrorist home.
Yes he did, then a year later he decided he'd leave the "terrorist home" and put all his resources and effort to a home where there were no terrorists. Go figure.
To me, the entire Bush presidency can be viewed in the seven minute video of Bush in the Florida Classroom on 9/11/01. Seven minutes of, "I have no clue."
"Lets see how long and hard the liberals complain on this issue when Obama acts exactly like Bush again..."
What planet do you live on Game? Plenty of liberals have found disdain for much already. If you ever decided to see what the liberals are really saying instead of taking your favorite right wing source as the whole truth and nothing but the truth you might enter the real world. You are giving your candyland generalizations again.
For myself, as you may have noticed. I am holding my praise or fire until he is ACTUALLY PRESIDENT and REALLY DOES SOMETHING. Thank God that won't be long.
Report Card:
Foreign Policy: Overthrew a theocracy and a dictatorship and replaced them with democratic government. Grade: A++
Economy: Compromised with Democrats on prescription drugs, no child left behind, immigration, and affordable housing. On other other hand, supported some free trade and got limited tax cuts accomplished. Grade: C-
Domestic Issues. Two words: Roberts. Alito. A+
Final Grade= A-
I really mean it about foreign policy too. The only person in American history who outranks Bush in the foreign policy department is Harry S Truman, who helped remake the world with modern institutions after WWII. I'd rank Bush as #2, followed by McKinley as #3 best foreign policy achiever for bringing civilization to Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba.
Bush's biggest mistake economically was not reducing spending enough while cutting the taxes. They must go together. When Reagan cut taxes, it was to force Congress to reduce spending. But with Bush, it took far too long for him to weild the veto pen. Still, the cuts did help the economy, just not as much as it could have had he been more frugal on the spending side.
why not wait to see what preemptive pardons he issues?
from bbc documentary, "the power of nightmares-the rise of the politics of fear"...
http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptPowerOfNightmares1.html
"Strauss believed that the liberal idea of individual freedom led people to question everything—all values, all moral truths. Instead, people were led by their own selfish desires. And this threatened to tear apart the shared values which held society together. But there was a way to stop this, Strauss believed. It was for politicians to assert powerful and inspiring myths that everyone could believe in. They might not be true, but they were necessary illusions. One of these was religion; the other was the myth of the nation. And in America, that was the idea that the country had a unique destiny to battle the forces of evil throughout the world. This myth was epitomized, Strauss told his students, in his favorite television program: Gunsmoke...."
"...Leo Strauss’ other favorite program was Perry Mason. And this, he told his students, epitomized the role that they, the élite, had to play. In public, they should promote the myths necessary to rescue America from decay. But in private, they didn’t have to believe in them...."
"...The neoconservatives were idealists. Their aim was to try and stop the social disintegration they believed liberal freedoms had unleashed. They wanted to find a way of uniting the people, by giving them a shared purpose. One of their great influences in doing this would be the theories of Leo Strauss. They would set out to recreate the myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was to battle against evil in the world. And in this project, the source of evil would be America’s Cold War enemy: the Soviet Union. And by doing this, they believed that they would not only give new meaning and purpose to people’s lives, but they would spread the good of democracy around the world..."
(continued...)
"...The neoconservatives now set out to transform the world. In next week’s episode, they find themselves joining forces with the Islamists in Afghanistan, and together they fight an epic battle against the Soviet Union. And both come to believe that they had defeated the Evil Empire. But this imagined victory would leave them without an enemy. And in a world disillusioned with grand political ideas, they would need to invent new fantasies and new nightmares, in order to maintain their power..."
DAVID JOHNSTON , INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST , NEW YORK TIMES : "You’ll hear about meetings where terrorist matters are discussed in the intelligence community, and always the person with the most dire assessment, the person with the—who has the, kind of, the strongest sense that something should be done will frequently carry the day at meetings. We thus believe the most dire estimate of what could happen here. The sense of disbelief has vanished..."
-David Johnston, Intelligence Specialist, New York Times
This story began over 30 years ago as the dream that politics could create a better world began to fall apart. Out of that collapse came two groups: the Islamists and the neoconservatives. Looking back, we can now see that these groups were the last political idealists who, in an age of growing disillusion, tried to reassert the inspirational power of political visions that would give meaning to people’s lives.
[ CUT, VIEW OF ARABIC CROWD ]
[ SUBTITLES OVER CROWD SCENES: We will fight for an Islamic state, we will die for it.]
[ CUT , PAUL WOLFOWITZ ENTERING PRESS BRIEFING ROOM ]
"...But both have failed in their attempts to transform the world and, instead, together they have created today’s strange fantasy of fear which politicians have seized on. Because in an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power..."
"...In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. Whilst the 20th century was dominated between a conflict between a free-market Right and a socialist Left, even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something, whereas what we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by people who believe in anything, and, therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in terms of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that’s a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomised rather than of their inherent strength..."
-Bill Durodie, Director, International Center for Security Analysis, Kings College
"...But the fear will not last, and just as the dreams that politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so, too, will the nightmares, and then our politicians will have to face the fact that they have no visions, either good or bad, to offer us any longer..."
interesting documentary, highly recommend, on how we got here, from there
Hash, quit hiding yourself in a cocoon of words. Do you think the world would be better off if Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein were in power today?
This is a crystal clear, yes or no question.
By removing Iran's greatest enemy in the region, we've given them more influence than they could have ever imagined. Yes, we eliminated a sadist dictator and are seeing signs of a democratic system. Knowing that democracies in the Mideast are limited to a few rubberstamp parliaments (and Israel), it would seem that after we're gone there will be the usual power struggles and a new strongman will emerge. But we'll always be able to claim "We got rid of Saddam, the evil tyrant."
If Bush had stopped Rumsfeld and Cheney from issuing the order to disband the Army and de-Baathify Iraq, it might have turned a different way. But once that boneheaded decision came down, it was only a matter of time before the insurgency took flight. The complete lack of post-war planning put our Forces in a nearly impossible position. Thankfully there's been some stabilization but there will be more bloodshed before a measure of permanence returns to that country. And that is a phase that cannot occur while 140,000 US troops are seen as occupiers.
"Hash, quit hiding yourself in a cocoon of words..."
jason, i have no horse in that particular race, so i have no reason to hide, or, more importantly, be ashamed of my complicity in crimes against humanity
it's not my fault the words themselves reveal precisely what you believe, and said complicity
"This is a crystal clear, yes or no question..."
absolutely, yes, the iraqis had a tribal system of government that worked quite well for them, unlike the terror storm, endless carnage, and total lack of services and security neocons forced upon them
not to mention the totally unnecessary losses to our blood and treasure, as well as the continuing aftermath
epic FAIL for americans, a slam dunk for you and your masters, alone
"the iraqis had a tribal system of government that worked quite well for them,"
OK, you believe the United States should have supported Saddam Hussein. Thanks for the honesty.
Your reasoning doesn't hold up though. Using body counts as our standard of value, and not freedom, you still don't have a case. Saddam was a guy who invaded not one, but two of his neighbors-- the Iran-Iraq war was the most brutal of my lifetime. He gassed thousands of his own people, and progressives complained that over 500,000 people died under the sanctions. Supporting Saddam was more trouble than it was worth.
If Saddam died from Iraqi hands, that would have been worse-- one of his beautiful children would have attempted to fill the power vacuum, possibly even bringing Iran and Saudi into the picture. We don't want this instability in a region that contains much of the world's energy supplies.
Only in the upside-down progressive bizarro world is democracy equated to oppression and tyranny equated to security.
Anon--
I thought progressives wanted to do nothing to stop the expansion of the Mullahs' power besides talks. What gives? Are you guys for ordering your jihadists extra crispy all of the sudden?
I doubt it. You guys believe the USA is a Great Satan too; the Messiah will help us atone for our imaginary sins by giving concessions to every evil thug out there. Only airstrikes will stop suicidal Ayatollahs from getting nuclear weapons; even Republicans don't want to face this cold, unpleasant truth these days.
"OK, you believe the United States should have supported Saddam Hussein. Thanks for the honesty."
Ever see the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? We DID support him, in fact encouraged him to invade Iran and turned a blind eye when he acquired and used gas. The US gave him so much support that by 1990 he believed he could appropriate Kuwait without consequence.
Don't tell me what I believe. Obviously in your fantasy world history and reality are at odds. If only Bush had been reading security briefs for his first nine months in office instead of clearing brush and putting his energy into fighting stem cell research...
Game,
Your post begins with liberal bashing. And, you carefully didn't even bring up Iraq war! So, how can it be a "calm and honest evaluation" ? Smiles...
Anyways, let me bring up one of the categories nobody brought up here - Illegal Immigration. He has been a big dissappointment in this category. He could have done so many things to control the illegal immigration. Instead, he did almost nothing! Grade = C-
"OK, you believe the United States should have supported Saddam Hussein. Thanks for the honesty..."
no, no, crafty neocon!
nobody said anything about "supporting" saddam hussein, we need to get out of the business of "supporting" foreign leaders, in general, particularly in the way you built him up in the first place
no, i would have had little problem with tyrannicide or even (gasp) black ops, but i realize such quiet pragmatism would not have afforded you such great opportunities for the jingoism and demonization you need as your lifeblood, no?
well, the reason why your way in actuality failed, and why public support dwindled to nearly zilch, because the war itself was a manifestation of a larger problem, pnac and its destructive legacy on the nation as a whole
and, common sense would have dictated that, in the wake of such a political disaster, that few felt comfortable speaking out openly against, more moderate leadership was the prescription, yet you fought them every step of the way, as well
so, now we have barky, the neocons' final, crushing blow, to americans, it's clear to see a scorched-earth policy was written into your manifesto...
so, no, it doesn't surprise me that you'd send thousands of our troops to die for your gunsmoke fantasy, jason, not at all, when i remember it was our nation, our border security, our particular belief systems, our sense of security, our distinct culture, even our manner of communication and our national sense of purpose you sought to distort and undermine, for your internationalist agenda
so, back to your add-water-and-stir jihadists! you'll find them grateful, to have given them life...
"Anyways, let me bring up one of the categories nobody brought up here - Illegal Immigration. He has been a big dissappointment in this category. He could have done so many things to control the illegal immigration. Instead, he did almost nothing! Grade = C-...."
american, their propaganda machine presents a fantasy sitcom in which neocons are actually universally united against illegal immigration, but, out of a sense of warm benevolence, and charity towards men
nothing can be further than the truth, in actuality, the neocons are split on the issue, with half favoring strong enforcement of border and immigration law, the other, more "pro-business" half firmly believing the advantages of cheap labor outweigh the disadvantages
which, is why they "float" a token politician like tancredo occasionally, to remind the donors they're really, really, against the onslaught
or, they dispatch "dead" thompson out to intone, that the GOOD thing about a collapse of our economic system, is that the illegals will go home voluntarily, LOL!
that's neocon policy on illegal immigration, in a nutshell, and one only has to look at the silence regarding the immoral imprisonment of border guards ramos and campion...
ever wonder why the neocons are calling for bush to pardon stevens, yet you hear crickets when it comes to these two border guards, while they let the drug dealer they had tried to take down, run free?
this is how neocon internationalist leanings ALWAYS subvert national security and respect for law that conservatives
always held dear, look at the unhinged frenzy neocon propagandists fly into, whenever buchanan or dr. paul's opinions are sought on the matter!
there ARE self-described conservatives that have bought into the rest of the neocons' lies but still know in their hearts that unrestricted illegal immigration is wrong for america, wrong for the countries the illegals leave, and wrong for the illegals and our people, yet they don't have the capability to beat the neocons back on it, because they are so enmeshed into the rest of this corrupt, failed ideology
there's a complete power void, when conservatives stop playing the role they should be playing in our society, and the illegals use that weakness in our system to exploit it for their own profit
meanwhile, the illegals (and, i'm sure, more than a few "jihadists" that populate jason's narratives) continue to stream in, because drug wars have erupted and we are, once, more, totally unprepared
not my fault, i've advocated deportations of illegals and a WALL, since the early eighties
well, i must retract an earlier statement! (it's as if they listen to me, LOL!)
good news, bush DID do something, he has commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean, about farkin' time
and, being bush, he got THAT wrong, in that he should have issued full pardons, the idea that these convictions should stand, is, imho, a travesty
better than nothing, and, thank God for those officers...
anonymous--
***You guys*** are the ones arguing we should have continued to support Saddam. I'm the one arguing that supporting Saddam was more trouble than it was worth. Yes, I've seen the Rummy photo. What are you saying-- that Saddam should still be in power, and Biden should be over there shaking his hand? Please.
"nobody said anything about "supporting" saddam hussein, we need to get out of the business of "supporting" foreign leaders"
There is no middle ground. Either we support Saddam or we don't. De facto support is still support. Bush did the right thing by changing the status quo.
"i would have had little problem with tyrannicide"
Then don't. Once you stop placing a giant BUT in every sentence you'll stop being a progressive. I'm sick of hearing shit from people like "I oppose religious fundamentalism, BUT we need to understand the root causes of jihad," "I support free markets BUT we need to eliminate inequality," "I oppose racial quotas BUT we need to overcome the history of slavery and segregation." It is like some lefties almost reach the point of having a coherent thought, and then the mothership downloads the progressive dogma.
"What are you saying-- that Saddam should still be in power, and Biden should be over there shaking his hand? Please..."
whose hand will biden be shaking now? hardly anyone better, given the carnage...
i'm saying, place america's interests first, not your own cultural affinities
"There is no middle ground..."
of course there is, it's called diplomacy, with the benefit of saving american lives, and american tax dollars, recognizing failed causes as such, rather than opportunities to interfere
can't get much more coherent than that, but that doesn't mean it'll be found in strauss's playbook
"of course there is, it's called diplomacy"
Diplomacy involves two parties seeking to reach an agreement. If one party seeks diplomacy and another does not, there is no diplomacy, regardless of how much the party seeking diplomacy wants it.
The left thinks if it wants diplomacy, they automatically get it. That's magical thinking.
The current government of Iraq is much better than Saddam's government. You people used to argue that regime change in Iraq was bad precisely because it was in our interest, that is, it was a case of imperialism. In reality, it is merely an event where self-interest and the interests of others coincide.
"If one party seeks diplomacy and another does not, there is no diplomacy, regardless of how much the party seeking diplomacy wants it..."
and, if america cedes the higher ground by falsifying intelligence and engaging in a pattern of unlawful acts, there is no reason for any foreign nation to negotiate with what essentially has become a shadow government, particularly when it's not even apparent if americans are operating chiefly according to their own nation's interests, anymore
"The left thinks if it wants diplomacy, they automatically get it. That's magical thinking..."
i don't think so, jason, because attempting to reason with neocons who have reduced their adversaries to the level of dogs, vermin, and livestock, there's no reason to assume negotiations could bring about peace at any rate, for one might negotiate for peace, but not if the peace is itself, a lie
dealing with satanic elements within the internationalist neocon movement is even more hopeless, for the very concept of punishment proportionate to defense does not exist, ex. minor violations of trade sanctions=dense inert metal explosives, hostile actions from rogue elements=dense inert metal explosives, mass genocide=dense inert metal explosives..
it's all good, to the pnac masters, and the controllers who have thoroughly absorbed the message
"The current government of Iraq is much better than Saddam's government..."
not being iraqi, and not having ever been denied safe drinking water and any modicum of safety for the better part of four years, i can't honestly confirm or deny that
"You people used to argue that regime change in Iraq was bad precisely because it was in our interest..."
actually, i argued that regime change at home was what was urgently required, and the iraqi problem was better left to other nations, more involved in the outcome, but i can understand that what i'd actually put forth doesn't necessarily jibe with your narrative, perhaps i need to learn how to catapult my own propaganda more effectively
"In reality, it is merely an event where self-interest and the interests of others coincide..."
whose interests, jason?
certainly not the interests of americans, of any stripe
i no longer make assumptions when neocons use the expression "self-interest", as delusions of self-identity have increased so markedly on the american right, over the course of the past sixty years or so
Hash and his "neocons". What a buffoon. His tin-foil hat has a propeller. He piles on so much "conservatives-as-evil" rhetoric in his comments that as Jason says, he hides himself in a cacoon of words. He's boring.
well, my advice to you, marshall, is to not pay attention to such words!
i don't feel compelled to read the words of steyn, glick, or the louse-ridden subversive in a wheelchair, when i need to bark at dissenting opinions, why do YOU feel compelled to open your kielbasy hole and spew hatred every time you're confronted with reality?
you are a prime example of a lower-middle class man, who ingratiates himself to a privileged minority, to raise his station, regardless of spiritual compromise, and moral integrity, so you can level their own savage rhetorical weaponry at your own intellectual betters who simply shed light on your own common perfidy, nothing "cacoonish" about that!
conservatism on its own is not evil, but you represent neoconservative philosophies, which are, so why are you throwing shame, to obscure your own?
i can't be blamed for identifying the problem, why not take responsibility for your own tactics?
hopefully, without creepily using the word "goofy" with other adults, or resorting to gutter lingo, but that's just my own personal preference
Post a Comment