Or maybe Warren G Harding's domestic policy.

6/10/2008 2:38:47 PM

Does anyone else recognize the subtle notion from McCain that Bush is a Republican Jimmy Carter?

Obama: "McCain is running for Bush's third term."

McCain: "Well, Obama is running for Carter's second term."

6/10/2008 3:32:55 PM

Quote :

"Fry : I'd be curious to see what all of you that hate Bush with so much passion because of the war would think of any of the World War presidents had you been in their time. The interesting thing is that while there are stories of disapproval this and that ... Thousands more died in single battles in WWII than in the war in Iraq since it began. "

man, you're seriously deluded if you think for a moment that Bush's "Preventative War" in Iraq was anything like our self defense and mutual defense of our allies against invading armies and navies bent on taking over entire continents during WWII.

for your info, "Preventative War" -- what we did in Iraq -- is an aggressive and illegal war of choice, aimed at preventing the future possibility of a potential adversary to ever make war, by attacking him without provocation at a time of the attacker's choosing, when the adversary's resources are less-than-optimally available to defend himself.

it is different than "preemptive war", which actually might have had some legitimacy if it were the case, because that is when you attack based on an actual threat where an enemy is poised, able and ready to attack you.

In WWII we were attacked. our allies were attacked, bombed, besieged and occupied by foreign forces. we engaged in a defensive war to drive out invaders.

In Iraq, WE are the attackers. WE besieged an autonomous nation, bombed their civilians, broke their infrastructure. WE are the foreign invaders, the aggressors, the occupiers.

what we have done, in 7 1/2 years, is turn our nation from a generally benevolent (albeit, sometimes covert and manipulative) power, into an outright immoral and evil force. We are now rightly seen as an unchecked superpower drunk on our physical ability to make war, intent on enforcing a peculiar American hegemony on cultures who don't want it, and attempting to dominate the global economy -- not by diplomacy, or trade incentives, or good will -- but at the end of a gun barrel.






[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/10/2008 4:52:15 PM

I find it damned peculiar that no one even bothered to address the specific refutations of the "Bush lied" bullshit continually spewed by the far-left. I realize that taking the time to examine the facts takes away from promulgating the delusional narratives of some here.

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

6/10/2008 6:25:51 PM

Quote :

"what did FDR do to "piss on" the constitution? the internment of thousands of americans of Japanese descent? is that your beef with FDR? Okay, i can respect that. because Guantanamo is one of mine with GWB, for nearly the same reason. FDR doesnt get a pass for the Japanese-American internment because it was a war time.... that was essentially a fucking war crime. well, i mean, he gets a pass because he's dead, but its a serious foul mark to what was overall a positive administration that first brought the country out of an economic depression and then successfully executed a world war."

Goddamit. I wrote a really long response to that. Then my dog walked over and set his head on the keyboard and it refreshed the page.

My main problem with FDR, which I share with many people at the time, was his attempt at court packing. He was having a hard time getting his plans for a much larger federal government through the Supreme Court so he introduced a bill that would expand it to 15 justices, allowing him to hand pick ones sympathetic to his ideas. This would have effectively allowed him to circumvent the system of checks and balances.

As far as internment camps, I consider it worse than Guantanamo. Instead of detaining foreign combatants because of their ambiguous political status, FDR had american citizens put in camps because of their ancestry. Also the level of government censorship during his administration would be unthinkable today.

In regards to getting America through the Great Depression, economists are evenly divided on whether the New Deal aided recovery or lengthened it. Regardless, it took WWII to get America fully over it. Personally, I'm rather ambivalent towards it.

Like I said, his lasting legacy is World War II, and that has successfully outshined every mistake and immoral thing that he did during his unprecedented 4 term presidency. If Iraq ends up being a progressive and successful democracy with a friendly attitude towards the west, like Germany, Italy, and Japan after the war, Bush's other mistakes will be overlooked by our grandkids. I'm certainly not saying that Iraq will turn out like that (although I'd love to see it happen), I'm just saying that it could define the Bush legacy.

6/10/2008 8:23:16 PM

This will be his legacy to me.

Quote :

"#1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq #2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression #3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War #4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States #5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression #6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114 #7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war. #8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law. #9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor. #10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes #11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq #12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation’s natural resources. #13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy #14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing) #15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq #16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors #17: Illegal detention – detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus) #18: Torture – secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy #19 Rendition #20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002. #21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran #22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. #23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE. #24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment #25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens. #26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws. #27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so. #28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process. #29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06 #30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare. #31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration. #32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings. #33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11. Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials. #34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11 #35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders"

^^And I don't want to get into an arguing match with you, so keep your fucking mouth shut.

6/10/2008 9:00:02 PM

helluva nice summary.

where did you compile that from?

6/10/2008 11:34:16 PM

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581

6/10/2008 11:36:18 PM

From the Democrat who represents Faerie.

6/10/2008 11:43:22 PM

who's this Kucinich guy?

he should run for president or something.

6/11/2008 12:19:28 AM

He did you just couldn't see him behind the podium

6/11/2008 12:26:16 AM

#6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

How about in violation of the Constitution.

#7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.

Impeach the majority of Congress for this fuck up.

#8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.

International law is a farce and the U.S. has no business being subjected to it.

#9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.

Better get every other single person who had their hand in this.

#15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq

Fuck Iraq.

#20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.

How many of these children were holding AK-47s? Fuck them.

6/11/2008 12:34:35 AM

UN SECURITY COUNCIL UPDATE ON INSPECTION
HANS BLIX
EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF UNMOVIC
UNITED NATIONS MONITORING AND VERIFICATION COMMISSION (UNMOVIC)
January 27, 2003

Quote :

"Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Quote :

"Chemical weapons The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq."

Quote :

"The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions."

Quote :

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Quote :

"Biological As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that 'all imported quantities of growth media were declared'. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

Quote :

"Missiles Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development."

Quote :

"In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km. Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2. Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions."

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-blix-012703.htm

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Quote :

"Vote Summary Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23 Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay Allard (R-CO), Yea Allen (R-VA), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Breaux (D-LA), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Campbell (R-CO), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Carnahan (D-MO), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Chafee (R-RI), Nay Cleland (D-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Nay Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea Daschle (D-SD), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay DeWine (R-OH), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Nay Edwards (D-NC), Yea Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea Graham (D-FL), Nay Gramm (R-TX), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea Helms (R-NC), Yea Hollings (D-SC), Yea Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Nay Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Miller (D-GA), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Santorum (R-PA), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay"

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 1:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2008 1:47:42 AM

Where were those weapons of mass destruction? Remember Scott Ritter? He was dragged through the coals for correctly saying Iraq did not have WMDs. this is what happens when you take selective evidence and never even ponder the countering evidence.

6/11/2008 10:27:06 AM

Congress is culpable to some extent, but not nearly as much as the Administration who fed Congress -- and the public at large -- the selective intelligence in the first place. most Congressmen didn't have special access to the raw data... only the manipulated results, and the correpsonding cartoon illustrations of Saddam's supposed armaments.

6/11/2008 12:34:08 PM

WMDs are sitting in a warehouse with global warming

6/11/2008 12:36:23 PM

The previous administration bombed Iraqi WMD factories repeatedly based on the same intelligence. Shall we prosecute them as well?

6/11/2008 1:25:34 PM

The only people to whom it isn't obvious that the U.S. invasion was an imperial adventure designed to steal resources (oil) are right-wing ideologues.

There is really no way Iraqis can be expected to hold anything but enmity against the invading and now occupying power. If the situation was reversed and it was, say, China, rolling up and down the streets of Anytown U.S.A., telling you what you could and could not do (and this after shelling the shit out of you and killing your family) and running your government according to its own needs, you would feel exactly as the Iraqis do. Please stop kidding yourself.

6/11/2008 1:34:08 PM

I'm sure pleny of Americans would welcome China into our streets, if our own government had a history of gassing thousands of citizens and executing anyone who dared to speak out against the President...but that wouldnt make your cute little analogy work as well, would it

6/11/2008 1:36:55 PM

Actually it would. Nice try.

6/11/2008 1:50:22 PM

I'm currently torn on whether he'll be looked at as a Woodrow Wilson, person caught in a time of turmoil that let his idealism cause significant problems later, or if he will be looked at as a Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

Presidential highlights that I think he will be known for in 100 years:

-controversial election in 2000 (a la Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876)

-9/11

-aftermath of 9/11 and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin

-the initial fight in Congress and the U.N. to go to war with Iraq

-aftermath and occupation of the Iraq War

-domestically, a new brand of the Republican Party that embraced big government

-the very politically charged 2004 election

-his presidency marked the first notion of a challenger to unquestioned American power on a global scale since the end of the Cold War (China's increase in power, the EU has become more solidified in the last 8 years as a single entity, India's increase in power, Russia gained back some of its former power under Putin; these would've probably happened anyway, Bush was just president when they occurred)

-decisions in foreign policy and events not of American doing that led to a decrease in American power and influence in the Middle East (whether you agree or disagree with the war, we got bogged down in Iraq and left us unable to carry out other objectives; a distancing in relations between traditional allies the U.S. and the Saudis, a mild increase in Iranian power and influence due to the Iraqi power vacuum, the return of civil strife in Lebanon, Hamas came to power in Palestine in an American-endorsed election, Hezbollah in Lebanon fought Israel to a tactical stalemate in a month-long war)

6/11/2008 3:15:47 PM

Bush can in no way be remotely compared to Jimmy Carter.

He doesn't have a fraction of that man's intelligence, wisdom, or integrity.

You want someone to compare him to? Try Warren G. Harding, or maybe Andrew Johnson.

6/11/2008 4:13:13 PM

they both sound like dumb southerners

but bush doesnt have a fraction of carter's intelligence!

except when he's pulling a fast one over the entire country

6/11/2008 4:15:06 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.impeach.vote/index.html

Quote :

"Kucinich effort to impeach Bush kicked into limbo An attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to impeach President Bush was kicked into legislative no-man's land by members of his own party Wednesday. The House voted 251-166 to send the Ohio Democrat's impeachment resolution to committee, a maneuver that allows the Democratic leadership to freeze the measure indefinitely. The vote largely followed partisan lines, with 225 Democrats voting to punt the measure to committee."

"Hey Nancy! Watch this, I'm going to make a name for myself with this legislation!"

"Shut up, Dennis"

6/11/2008 5:11:59 PM

Quote :

"'Dennis is on a quest of his own. He sees flying saucers and he acts like one, too.'"

--Alcee Hastings (D-FL)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2222486

6/11/2008 6:25:37 PM

Quote :

"Congress is culpable to some extent, but not nearly as much as the Administration who fed Congress -- and the public at large -- the selective intelligence in the first place. most Congressmen didn't have special access to the raw data... only the manipulated results, and the correpsonding cartoon illustrations of Saddam's supposed armaments."

Congress is culpable to the maximum extent. The Constitution says declare war if you want to go to war. They did not. I don't give a fuck WHAT kind of information or lack of information they received. They did not declare war, they therefore deserve JUST as much punishment as Bush. It makes me absolutely FURIOUS when people try to excuse them as if they are 8 year olds that didn't know what they were doing when they drew all over the walls with markers. I don't care if they had a picture of Saddam standing next to a nuclear warhead with writing on it that said "I'm going to use this on America in 3 days." Ron Paul offered a resolution to vote up or down to declare war and everyone ignored him. He and anyone who voted no obviously weren't affected by these "manipulated" results. Fuck the rest of them.

6/11/2008 7:46:22 PM

Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns

http://tinyurl.com/5ej3d6

Whether you agree with this holding or not, it will be part of Bush's legacy. If nothing else, his Supreme Court appointments helped to decide--for the first time in our nation's history--that individuals do in fact have the right to keep and bear arms.

6/27/2008 11:24:19 AM

Except that the Bush administration did an amicus brief that sided with the District of Columbia in this case:

Washington Post article: http://tinyurl.com/5sgt95
The DOJ brief iteself: http://tinyurl.com/5nwbh4
and the Goldwater Institute critique of the brief: http://tinyurl.com/5npyqc

Yes this was because of Bush's appointments, appointments that wouldn't have been made under Gore or Kerry, but you can't argue that this is what the administration wanted to happen.

God you suck, don't you ever get tired of losing?

6/27/2008 11:42:35 AM

^ I didn't lose; the point I made is valid. You even confirmed it--GG.

6/27/2008 11:50:05 AM

So, because the administration appointed people . . .

whom it later disagreed with . . .

and who made a constitutional decision the administration was opposed to . . .

they won?


What fucking alternate universe do you live in?

6/27/2008 11:51:33 AM

^ The one where he's still 20-something years old and has his life ahead of him

6/27/2008 11:52:39 AM

I think the only thing good Bush will be remembered for will be the recent advancement with North Korea.

Although, this bothers me in and of itself. Someone help me to understand the logic in this:

North Korea builds nuclear weapons program, Bush places them on list of states that support terrorism.

North Korea destroys nuclear weapons program, Bush removes them from list.

How does researching nuclear technology (peace or war) = sponsor terrorism???

6/27/2008 1:23:54 PM

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E2DC123FF937A25753C1A9679C8B63

Quote :

"''If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he'd turn off the tap,'' said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. ''He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel'' -- about six times what it sells for now."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91LTE8O0&show_article=1

Quote :

"NEW YORK (AP) - Oil prices shot to new records above $144 a barrel Wednesday as the government reported a bigger-than-expected drop in U.S. supplies and the threat of conflict with Iran weighed on traders' minds. Light, sweet crude for August delivery rose as high as $144.13 on the New York Mercantile Exchange shortly after the market closed. The contract also notched a new closing record, settling at $143.57—a full $2.60 above the previous high from a day earlier."

7/2/2008 4:33:35 PM

Bush signs bill to triple AIDS funding

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that triples U.S. funding to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. The five-year, $48 billion plan renews a program credited with saving millions of lives in Africa alone and is widely seen as one of the major achievements of the Bush presidency. Bush said the program, launched by him in 2003, 'is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history.' The president signed the bill in the ornate East Room of the White House, surrounded by lawmakers and people affected by AIDS whom he met on his February trip to Africa. The legislation is a rare case of relatively easy cooperation between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House. It passed the House last week by a 303-115 vote and the Senate earlier in the month by a vote of 80-16. It renews Bush's original five-year, $15 billion program called the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which was set to expire in September."

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3305386/

FYI.

7/31/2008 12:25:55 PM

god...why

7/31/2008 12:41:08 PM

Yeah Bush has done a lot of good stuff for Africa

He hasn't done a whole lot else right so maybe that will be his legacy

7/31/2008 12:42:31 PM

well, africa does need some help. the place is a mess.

so I think it's nice that we're going to send the entire continent of Africa $50 billion over a five (5) year period.

it kind of takes a little bit of the edge off the fact that we send $10 billion in tax dollars every fucking month to Iraq , doesn't it.





[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2008 2:52:51 PM

^ But Iraq has oil, am I right? High five! *crickets*

7/31/2008 4:01:36 PM

I'm surprised none of you Bush haters have picked up on this. I'll help you out.

Bush's serious misjudgment concerning Russia's Vladimir Putin will be a blemish on his legacy.

8/13/2008 4:12:51 PM

bush has gone from ridiculous to irrelevant.

i dont think anyone cares what he does any more.

certainly Putin doesnt.

8/13/2008 7:39:08 PM

"Serious misjudgment" pretty much sums up my opinion of the Bush legacy, all things considered.

Good intentions littered with serious misjudgments.

8/13/2008 8:45:47 PM

Quote :

"Bush's serious misjudgment concerning Russia's Vladimir Putin"

It wasn't a misjudgment.

Bush looked Putin in the eyes and very correctly realized that they were kindred spirits.

Putin's actions as of late reinforce Bush's observation.

8/13/2008 11:43:50 PM

Quote :

"i dont think anyone cares what he does any more."

Maybe not, but the man can still do a lot even as a lame duck President in a half of a year.

8/13/2008 11:45:13 PM

^ perhaps, but not if the entire Congress is controlled by the other par-

o wait.

never mind.

8/14/2008 2:05:30 AM

By Fareed Zakaria:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731/page/1

Zakaria is a guy I respect a great deal. Currently working on his book The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, a great read FTR. IMO he's a straight shooter that really gets to the root of each issue he tackles. This one is no different.

This article summarizes the evolution of Bush's policies since 2000. You can argue he's paying Bush backhanded insults instead of applauding the appropriate changes in policy his administration has made in recent years. I agree to an extent. I think Zakaria is at least trying to show that Bush deserves some credit for making the changes that were needed, even if he doesn't admit it publicly.

As some pundits have said over and over again - we can't got back into the past and reverse course. We can however change what we're doing now. It's fair to say that was Bush has done RECENTLY has been far more effective than what has been done in the PAST.

And yes, he does deserve some credit for that...

Quote :

"A broad shift in America's approach to the world is justified and overdue. Bush's basic conception of a "global War on Terror," to take but the most obvious example, has been poorly thought-through, badly implemented, and has produced many unintended costs that will linger for years if not decades. But blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. The administration that became the target of so much passion and anger—from Democrats, Republicans, independents, foreigners, Martians, everyone—is not quite the one in place today. The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush's first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed."

Quote :

"...it is overwhelmingly clear that the administration made a series of massive blunders in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. It went in with too few troops, dismantled Iraq's Army, bureaucracy and state-owned factories, arrested tens of thousands of Iraqis, mistreated and tortured some of them, and used overwhelming military force against all perceived threats. The outcome? Chaos; an angry, dispossessed and armed Sunni community; a sullen and restless Shiite population; an insurgency; a jihadist terrorist movement, and spreading sectarian violence. In addition, foreign forces were destabilizing the country because both the invasion and the occupation were undertaken without first gaining support from neighboring Arab states or winning international legitimacy. The result was a perfect storm in international affairs, a failure that kept getting worse... It took a long time, but the turnaround in our policy in Iraq has been significant. The United States has made broad overtures to the Sunni community, and now actively supports Sunni fighters it had once jailed. We've concentrated on stabilizing Shiite neighborhoods, helping to free them from dependence on militias. We have abandoned dreams of a pure, free market, instead trying to jump-start Iraq's state-owned enterprises in order to create jobs. And we've even been pursuing a more regional approach, trying to get neighboring countries to open embassies in Baghdad and commit to help stabilize Iraq."

Quote :

"On Afghanistan, there is a more compelling case to be made that the administration mishandled the most important front in the War on Terror. The central critique that Barack Obama makes—that American attention, energy, troops and resources were wrongly diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq—is devastating and hard to dispute. But it's a criticism of Bush policy in 2003. The policy that the administration is currently pursuing is less vulnerable to easy attacks. ...the administration has ramped up spending in the region considerably. Whereas in 2003 it spent $737 million on reconstruction and equipping the Afghan Army, by 2007 it was spending $10 billion."

Quote :

"On North Korea, the administration's reversal has been near total. Within months of entering the Oval Office, Bush publicly repudiated his secretary of State, Colin Powell, for even suggesting that the administration would continue Bill Clinton's efforts to negotiate with Kim Jong Il. But since July 2005, Bush has pursued a very similar approach, in fact an even more multilateral one than Clinton's—four additional parties are now at the table. Bringing in the Chinese has been crucial because they are the only ones who have any real leverage with Pyongyang. Bush began by describing North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil. Today he is considering taking the country off the terror list and has offered economic aid to its regime."

Quote :

"An obsession with terrorism has also made the administration devote too little time and energy to the defining feature of the new world order —"the rise of the rest," by which I mean the growth in economic and political power of countries like China, India, Russia, Brazil and a series of regionally prominent nations like South Africa, Nigeria, Mexico and Kazakhstan. In some cases its policy positions are divided and incoherent, as in the case of Russia. But in several crucial instances, they've pursued extremely sensible strategies."

Quote :

"...the administration's China policy has moved toward recognizing the centrality of the relationship. If China can be brought into the existing world order—in some fashion and to some extent—that will greatly improve the prospects for future peace and stability. Bush, despite his grand rhetoric about spreading democracy around the world, has been practical in his relations with the Chinese regime."

Quote :

"Of course, the administration recognizes that the rise of China upsets the strategic balance in Asia. That's led Washington to deepen the strategic relationship with Japan and to develop a new one with India. In the latter case, Bush deserves credit for having transformed the relationship. While Indo-U.S. ties were warm under Bill Clinton, they were always limited by the controversy over India's nuclear program. The Clintonites refused to legitimize India's nuclear program, but for Indians their nukes were absolutely vital. Bush broke the deadlock by accepting, in large measure, that India would have to be treated as an exception and be brought into the nuclear nonproliferation regime as a nuclear power, not a renegade. Now India and America are developing a strategic relationship at many levels of government, which will stand both countries in good stead no matter what the future balance of power in Asia looks like. In an essay in Foreign Affairs, political scientist Daniel Drezner points out that the administration has sought to give China, India and Brazil more weight in international institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the G8 and other such bodies. Timothy Adams, the undersecretary of Treasury, told The New York Times in August 2006 that "by re-engineering the IMF and giving China a bigger voice, China will have a greater sense of responsibility for the institution's mission.""

And lastly...

Quote :

" There was a U.S. president who came into office convinced that everything his predecessor had done was feckless, stupid, ill-informed and venal. He rejected and tried to reverse everything that he could, almost as an article of faith. Before he had even examined the policies carefully, he knew that they had to be changed. The base of his party was delighted by his clarity and fighting spirit. That president, of course, was George W. Bush. His decision to blindly repudiate anything associated with Bill Clinton is what got us into this mess in the first place. Let's hope that the next president, no matter how much he despises Bush, will take a careful look at his administration's policies, America's interests, and the world beyond and do the right thing for the country and its future."

8/20/2008 11:52:31 PM

^

8/20/2008 11:54:04 PM

^ First off, ew. Second off, I'll happily give Bush credit where credit is due. Same goes for any in politics, or in general for that matter. Bush is not stupid, evil, or any of the other asinine adjectives used to describe him and his presidency. He doesn't deserve 1/10 of the crap he gets on a regular basis, and time will tell whether he truly should be considered "bad" or his 8 years in office a "failure."

However, I was not surprised at all to see this in Zakaria's article:

Quote :

"There was a U.S. president who came into office convinced that everything his predecessor had done was feckless, stupid, ill-informed and venal. He rejected and tried to reverse everything that he could, almost as an article of faith. Before he had even examined the policies carefully, he knew that they had to be changed. The base of his party was delighted by his clarity and fighting spirit. That president, of course, was George W. Bush. His decision to blindly repudiate anything associated with Bill Clinton is what got us into this mess in the first place."

Liberal or not, one thing you can't call Zakaria is a hack. This conclusion to the article really hits home why I believe Bush took this country in the wrong direction. He, more than any other president in recent history, took his own pre-conceived notions and applied them immediately. It's as if he bought into his own talking points and took them as gospel.

The result? Reality has routinely been manipulated by the Bush Administration to fit their solutions, instead of the other way around. When it hasn't worked, they have run the same playbook over and over again:

1) Say it really is working
2) Claim "_____" bias
3) Applaud Bush for doing what's right, not what's popular
4) Condemn the critics as hacks
5) Claim the media isn't covering the issue fairly
6) Say things are working when they aren't
7) State ambiguous facts based on half-truths to defend your position
8) Ultimately... make the changes that are needed and pretend that you didn't


Fair or unfair? I'm curious...

8/22/2008 5:45:32 PM

Quote :

"Bush is not stupid, evil, or any of the other asinine adjectives used to describe him and his presidency. He doesn't deserve 1/10 of the crap he gets on a regular basis, and time will tell whether he truly should be considered "bad" or his 8 years in office a "failure.""

i tried telling people this 4 years ago...I didn't get any positive feedback in TSB...people just started assuming I loved Bush

8/22/2008 5:46:40 PM

sorry. i disagree.

bush is just another biblethumper of middling intellect, poor communication skills, and atrocious historical understanding .... who is clever enough to hold political power by surrounding himself with evil war-profiteering bastards who have no loyalty other than as counsel for the multinational energy and aerospace conglomerates.

8/22/2008 5:50:27 PM

so not only can you not give him credit for doing anything good, you can't even accept the fact (F A C T) that you can't truly judge a president's legacy until they've been out of office for awhile?

8/22/2008 5:53:11 PM