^^i don't know if i'll vote for him or not in 4 years. honestly i likely will. but he'll be a lot less likely to get a cent of my money or a minute of my time.

5/26/2009 11:29:21 AM

Quote :

"A LOT LESS LIKELY"

5/26/2009 11:50:00 AM

Quote :

"Um. . .the article I posted above was written by constitutional lawyer, blogger, and Bush critic Glenn Greenwald. He is number 18 on the list of "The 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media.""

Could you relate that back to what I wrote in some way?

You might at least give me credit for having posted that because the Republican party actually takes this information and blasts everyone with it. For example, Glenn Reynolds who runs one of the most widely read blogs on the internet -- a conservative blog, at that -- has been re-running this flack for months. He's definitely not the only one.

(believe it or not I don't get all my current event news from The Wolf Web ... and considering I work for a company whose chairman of the board sits on Salon's board, I am rather directly aware of their politics, thanks ... )

On a more substantial note, I think they're wrong. Obama plays a longer game than most. I wouldn't put my money on his continuing the Bush policies over time. For one thing, it just so happens that I don't see why all of a sudden we think he makes prudent and sensible decisions generally ... as opposed to being rather calculating overall.

But then again, I don't have so much faith in the 'liberal' analysis of his policy positions.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 2:19 AM. Reason : foo]

5/27/2009 2:08:33 AM

Um. . . ?

5/27/2009 9:44:58 AM

for better or worse, Dick Cheney will be a large part of Bush's legacy, and wow..... i'm sorry, but there's no other conclusion to draw that he is a worthless bastard....
http://www.hulu.com/watch/75858/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-dick-uncut#x-4,vclip,1

6/4/2009 9:09:07 PM

^ Yeah, there was a dick in that video: Jon Stewart. And whatever his flaws, I'll take Cheney over that clown Biden any day of the week.

6/5/2009 12:29:55 AM

so, fair enough - the first 2 minutes of the clip were Jon being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

but did you turn the clip off half way through? Did you miss the part where Dick Cheney blamed 9/11 on Richard Clarke, the man, who my all accounts, was doing more than anyone else to raise alarms and call for more investigations on an upcoming Al Qaeda thread? And then he made a joke about not knowing what Clarke was talking about b/c he hasn't read his book, implying that Clarke is just a money-grubber? That he "didn't recall" being informed by Clarke that the US was under imminent danger, even though his warnings are a matter of public record?

That's a "flaw"?

Well, yeah - i guess it is a "flaw in human nature" to try to shift blame for catastrophic events off of one's self, but people usually aren't so blatant about it

6/5/2009 6:54:35 AM

Quote :

"His staunchest supporters are among the traditional, the poor and the religious faithful...."

Sounds like a Bush or McPalin rally right????


.....


.....

Quote :

"President Ahmadinejad also drew large crowds, but even his most fervent supporters conceded, they didn't come close to Moussavi's. His staunchest supporters are among the traditional, the poor and the religious faithful."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/11/amanpour.iran.poll/index.html

6/11/2009 7:09:05 PM

Report: Bush surveillance program was massive

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – The Bush administration built an unprecedented surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still too secret to reveal. The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to "unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be "carefully monitored." The report says too few relevant officials knew of the size and depth of the program, let alone signed off on it. They particularly criticize John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote legal memos undergirding the policy. His boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving for the previous two and a half years, the report says. Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the "President's Surveillance Program" did not have any connection to terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the "mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made investigating the leads worthwhile.""

7/10/2009 11:02:05 PM

where are all those libertarians hiding?

7/11/2009 5:48:19 PM

awesome.....

Quote :

" in 2002, Dick Cheney and David Addington urged that U.S. military troops be used to arrest and detain American citizens, inside the U.S., who were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda. That was done pursuant to a previously released DOJ memo (.pdf) authored by John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, addressed to Alberto Gonzales, dated October 23, 2001, and chillingly entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the U.S." That Memo had concluded that the President had authority to deploy the U.S. military against American citizens on U.S. soil. Far worse, it asserted that in exercising that power, the President could not be bound either by Congressional statutes prohibiting such use (such as the Posse Comitatus Act) or even by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which -- the Memo concluded -- was "inapplicable" to what it called "domestic military operations.""

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/25/military

is Cheney ever going to "get his"? The outrageous charges against him just keep mounting...

[Edited on July 26, 2009 at 8:53 AM. Reason : .]

7/26/2009 8:51:55 AM

These people had no sense of proportionality.

The Fourth Reich hadn't just landed on the shores of the Potomac, FFS.

So according to Bush, the First and Fourth Amendments don't exist so long as terrorists exist.

7/26/2009 10:44:03 AM

Quote :

"Tom Ridge, the first head of the 9/11-inspired Department of Homeland Security, wasn't keen on writing a tell-all. But in The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again, out September 1, Ridge says he wants to shake "public complacency" over security. And to do that, well, he needs to tell all. Especially about the infighting he saw that frustrated his attempts to build a smooth-running department. Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/19/tom-ridge-on-national-security-after-911.html

Not surprising, but there you have it.

8/20/2009 10:30:25 PM

hows this for a legacy for the 2000's.....

Negative private-insdustry job growth for 10 years

9/9/2009 10:04:33 PM

i miss bush

9/12/2009 6:49:22 AM

agentlion, what are the shaded regions in that chart?

9/12/2009 7:44:40 AM

recessions

9/12/2009 10:37:23 AM

Cut those taxes dammit

9/12/2009 1:28:04 PM

here's some more outstanding 2000-decade data

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/decade-of-no-income-gains.html

decrease in average real income


(except for Asian-Americans)


(and, of course, for the top 10% of earners)


increase in poverty


[Edited on September 12, 2009 at 7:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/12/2009 7:13:18 PM

In fairness, those are due more to structural issues in the US and global economy more than they are due to one President. Al Gore would have reaped similar numbers.

9/12/2009 8:54:07 PM

^^damn

9/12/2009 9:01:11 PM

i miss bush

9/13/2009 9:54:36 PM

dude asians are rocking the income graph.

9/13/2009 10:28:14 PM

Quote :

"In fairness, those are due more to structural issues in the US and global economy more than they are due to one President. Al Gore would have reaped similar numbers."

I'd imagine Gore's numbers in that respect would be similar--I can't help but think his numbers of servicemen and civilians dead would have been significantly fewer. If anybody gives a shit about that.

9/14/2009 2:30:52 AM

Richard Armitage on George W Bush:

Quote :

"* He says Bush and his war cabinet never formally considered whether to invade Iraq. "Never to my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, did the President ever sit around with his advisors and say, 'Should we do this or not?' He never did it." * The Bush administration didn't understand democracy and how to encourage it. "The Bush administration's push for votes as though voting equals democracy was wrong-headed because a vote is something that happens inside a democracy, but is not necessary for a democracy. You can have a democratic system without having people raise their hands and have a secret ballot. Loya jirgas to some extent are these." * He believes Bush administration actions undercut the American position abroad. "It's harder and made more complex when we abuse the writ of habeas corpus here or when we torture people." "

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/03/armitage_on_pakistan_s_spies_bush_s_errors_egypt_s_novels

12/4/2009 9:20:47 AM

Quote :

""Never to my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, did the President ever sit around with his advisors and say, 'Should we do this or not?' He never did it.""

that scares me, and at the same time, doesn't surprise me.

12/4/2009 9:59:10 AM

remember when Bush lost several months worth of emails, and Rove was sure they were simply gone and "unrecoverable"?

whoops..... somehow I doubt anything found in them will exonerate Bush and his cohorts
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/us/politics/15brfs-MISSINGBUSHE_BRF.html

Quote :

"Computer technicians have found 22 million missing White House e-mail messages from 94 days in the administration of President George W. Bush, and the Obama administration is searching for more potentially lost e-mail from the Bush years, according to two groups that filed suit over the failure by the Bush White House to install an electronic record-keeping system. The groups, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive, said they were settling the lawsuits they filed in 2007. It will be 2014 at the earliest before the public sees any of the messages because they must go through the National Archives’ process for releasing presidential and agency records."

12/15/2009 7:58:00 PM

,

8/19/2010 7:27:22 AM

To save Obama, Left cries out for … George W. Bush?
August 18, 2010

Quote :

"How badly did Barack Obama fumble the mosque controversy last weekend? No fewer than three media columnists now want Obama rescued by George W. Bush. Byron York reports on the desperate pleas:"

Quote :

"'It's time for W. to weigh in,' writes the New York Times' Maureen Dowd."

Quote :

"Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. 'I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,' Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session."

Quote :

"And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. 'Words I never thought I'd write: I pine for George W. Bush,' Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. 'Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.'"

Quote :

"For the moment, with Obama failing to live up to expectations, Bush-bashing is over."

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/18/to-save-obama-left-cries-out-for-george-w-bush/

LOL! Now the liberal media gives a damn what Bush thinks?

RUN, BUSH! IT'S A TARP!!!1

8/19/2010 7:55:24 AM

Dem survey shows George W. Bush more popular than Obama in vulnerable congressional districts
Aug. 19, 2010

Quote :

"Over at Hotline, Reid Wilson has pretty informative read on the campaign strategies of congressional Democrats, who are quickly trying to create daylight between themselves and the President. It's worth reading for some smart strategic campaign analysis, but it also contains this eye-popping detail: The advice from Democratic consultants and strategists is almost unanimous: Run away from the president, and fast. A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in 'Frontline' districts — seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear. But disassociating oneself from an incumbent president is never easy, and Democrats have to walk a narrow line. Ouch. It's getting ugly out there for Democrats."

http://tinyurl.com/27a95en

LOL! Told you so.

8/20/2010 7:52:32 AM

i like that picture

8/20/2010 8:01:39 PM

It reminds me of what a buffoon he was.

8/20/2010 10:52:44 PM

LoL Hooksaw is so proud that the majority of Americans get hoodwinked by ridiculous right-wing horseshit

8/21/2010 12:08:59 AM

^^ Opinions vary.

^ If that's so, a lot of those Americans are Democrats that are being "hoodwinked."

Quote :

"That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear."

8/21/2010 7:22:15 AM

Yes they are. Surprised?

WOOO YESSS AMERICANS ARE SO FUCKING DUMB THEY BOUGHT MY PARTY'S RIDICULOUS SHIT HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER

*BOLDS SOMETHING*

*GETS OFF*

*GETS REMOVED FROM POST AS A TA*

8/21/2010 9:10:06 AM

^ Um. . .that's not true and I think you know it. Don't get mad at me just because I was right that opinions about Bush would become more favorable over time.

8/23/2010 11:42:30 AM

2 years into Clinton's presidency, George HW Bush was viewed in such a positive light, and Clinton so poorly, that the GOP was able to engineer a complete takeover of both Houses of Congress. Now it's pretty well established that GHW Bush was completely mediocre and Clinton was just this side of being a political genius.

2 years into Reagan's presidency, his approval was so dismal that Jimmy Carter was looking good. Now it's difficult to argue against Reagan being probably the most effective and powerful president in the 20th Century behind FDR.

it comes as no surprise that a new party in the executive is going to be unpopular 2 years into the first term and the previous president will be, for the moment, viewed more favorably. your prediction was nothing more than a nominal awareness of historical precedent.








[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2010 12:48:34 PM

8/23/2010 1:30:51 PM

did you just make those statistics up and MS Paint that? because for all i know "coyote blog" at WordPress could be you. never minding the fact that quality of life is not measured by corporate profits, whoever slapped the cartoon together didn't bother to cite any sources.

but thanks for continuing to bring us your quality propaganda







[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2010 1:42:29 PM

^^^

Quote :

"your prediction was nothing more than a nominal awareness of historical precedent."

I almost forgot this. And I never said that I was reinventing the wheel.

8/25/2010 2:27:44 AM

Quote :

"As we do, I'm mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it's time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It's well-known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security."

--President Barack Obama, August 31, 2010

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/31/obama.speech.transcript/#fbid=aaOdAIb6QFW

This doesn't sound like the description of a "war criminal" to me.

9/1/2010 4:26:57 AM

Rule 1 of the US Presidents Club:

Sitting US Presidents Never, Ever Talk Shit About Previous US Presidents.



Rule 2 of the US Presidents Club:

Sitting US Presidents Never, Ever Imply Support For Investigating Previous US Presidents



seriously. don't be daft. you know as well as anyone else here how this works.

9/1/2010 12:00:46 PM

One thing I've gotta give to ol' Dubya, he really kept the crazies placated. That fucking Glen Beck j/o sesh never would have happened with a Bush in the White House.

9/1/2010 12:24:50 PM

Clearly we didn't collectively lose our honor until Obama took office.

[Edited on September 1, 2010 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2010 12:26:38 PM

Some asshole from the Southern Baptist Convention was on NPR the other day talking about how we lost it in the sixties. THE FUCKING SIXTIES. Good luck fighting that battle, buddy.

9/1/2010 12:31:41 PM

^ Actually, it's a pretty classic argument (the meaning of the whole "honor" thing is obviously at issue).

9/1/2010 3:17:40 PM

Yeah, I know it is, but at this point you might as well be arguing about us using electricity and running water.

9/1/2010 6:00:24 PM

^ Fair enough. But you didn't seem to be taking that position in your previous post is all.

9/1/2010 6:01:57 PM

Quote :

"Sitting US Presidents Never, Ever Talk Shit About Previous US Presidents. "

I guess you dont watch this Admin that close. Basically everything that goes bad, including the oil spill, was bc of the last Admin. This is pretty much par for politics, everyone does this.

9/1/2010 6:32:51 PM

^ True. And remember the early days of the Obama presidency? There were actually those who wanted and thought they might get a Bush-Cheney "war crimes" trial of some sort--this also refutes schmoe's "Rule 2."

9/1/2010 7:19:02 PM