The five living presidents will meet in Texas on Thursday to dedicate the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. And while Bush and his aides are using the occasion to soften the 43 president’s image and solidify his legacy, a recounting of Bush-era policies — from his deregulation of Wall Street to the invasion of Iraq — greatly undermine the new rosy narrative of the Bush years:
Authorized the use of torture
Though the US Code bans torture, Bush personally issued a memorandum six days after the September 11th attacks instructing the CIA that it could use “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists. The methods included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and “stress positions.” A recently-released bipartisan committee concluded it was “indisputable” that these techniques constituted torture, and that the highest authorities in the country bore responsibility for the creation of a torture programs at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites” around the world.
Politicized climate science
Bush’s “do-nothing” approach to climate change prevented the U.S. from pursuing meaningful action. Though he claimed that global warming was a serious problem that was either a natural phenomenon or caused by humans, the administration routinely edited scientific reports to downplay the threat of climate change, censored CDC testimony that climate change was a public health threat, and promoted climate denying studies financed by ExxonMobil. At the end of the Bush presidency, a top intelligence adviser warned the incoming president that climate change was a massive destabilizing national security threat that would lead to “Dust Bowl” conditions in the Southwest.
Ignored Afghanistan to launch a war in Iraq
Rather than consolidating gains after the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush and his neoconservative allies pushed for removing Saddam Hussein from power, kicking off a war that led to one mistake after another. Ten years later, the war is estimated to have cost cost up to $6 trillion and resulted in the death of more than 100,000 Iraqis, 4,000 Americans and another 31,000 wounded. Meanwhile, Afghanistan saw a resurgence of the Taliban after Bush shifted resources to Iraq.
Botched the response to Hurricane Katrina
Bush appointed Michael Brown — a man whose only real qualifications were political connections and a sting at the International Arabian Horse Association — to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2003 and he preceded to undo everything the Clinton Administration had done to make FEMA functional, botching the response to 2004′s Hurricane Frances so badly as to prompt calls for his firing. But Bush kept Brown on board and, as a detailed timeline of the response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrates, neither man took the storm seriously until it was too late. Bush, who famously said “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” midway through the crisis, thus presided over the most deaths due to a single natural disaster in the United States since 1900.
Defunded stem cell research
At the turn of the century there was perhaps no greater hope for finding cures to illnesses ranging from Alzheimer’s to diabetes than ongoing stem cell research. But months after taking office, Bush eliminated all federal funding for any new research involving stem cells, citing a religious objection to the use of embryos — even though the embryos in question were byproducts from couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and would have been destroyed by IVF clinics regardless. Twice more during his presidency, Bush vetoed legislation that would have restored funding.
Required Muslim men to register with the government
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush’s Attorney General, John Ashcroft, instituted an anti-terrorism program to register all male immigrants between 18 and 40 years old from 20 Arab and South Asian countries. Thousands of innocent men came forward to register, only to be rounded up for minor visa violations. Roughly 1,000 men and boys in the process of applying for permanent residence were arrested and confined in standing-room-only centers, enduring invasive strip searches and beatings by guards. Many were deported, while others were held for months after their immigration cases were resolved, without a shred of evidence they had any links to terrorism.
Reinstated the global gag rule
On Bush’s first day in office he reinstated a rule that prevented any non-profit doing work overseas from using any of their own, private money to fund family planning services. This so-called “Global Gag Rule” posed a serious threat to international maternal health, but it also cut off funding for HIV/AIDS initiatives, child health programs, and water and sanitation efforts.
Supported anti-gay discrimination
In 2004, President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would have banned same-sex couples from marrying in the U.S. Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Court had just ruled in favor of marriage equality, and Bush hoped to block the ruling from taking effect because “a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.” Though the FMA failed numerous times in Congress during Bush’s tenure, he exploited the issue of same-sex marriage to turn out conservative voters for the 2004 election. That year, 11 states added constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage.
Further deregulated Wall Street
Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.
Widened income inequality
The per-person benefits of Bush’s tax cuts accrued to the top one percent of Americans, as the rate for capital gains dropped to 15 percent. The CBO found that federal income taxes dropped far more as a percentage of the one percent’s income than for any other group after 2000.
Undermined worker protections
Under Bush, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, whose mission is to protect safe working conditions, issued 86 percent fewer rules or regulations and pulled 22 items from its agenda of proposed safety and health rules. The office’s funding and staff were also consistently reduced. Meanwhile, funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency charged with helping workers who claim discrimination against their employers, was similarly low and staffing fell even as the number of complaints increased, leading to a rising backlog of cases.
Ideological court appointments
Bush filled the federal bench with ideologues, including two lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. These conservatives believe that corporations should be able to buy and sell elections, ruled against equal pay for equal work, and have sought to undermine a woman’s right to choose.
Presided over a dysfunctional executive branch
A 2008 analysis by the Center for Public Integrity documented more than 125 executive branch failures over Bush’s two terms. These included government breakdowns on “education, energy, the environment, justice and security, the military and veterans affairs, health care, transportation, financial management, consumer and worker safety,” and others. “I think we’ll look back on this period as one of the most destructive periods in American public life . . . both in terms of policy and process,” Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution observed, noting “genuine distortion in the constitutional system, an exaggerated sense of presidential power and prerogative and acquiescence by a Republican Congress in the face of the first unified Republican government since Dwight Eisenhower.”
Well George, we've brought back the troops from your personal oil grab in Iraq, including the dead ones and we're working on bringing the troops back from Afghanistan, including the dead ones, that being the war you fethed up by starting the second one.
We're very slowly working off the enormous cluster-fethed economic bomb you facilitated happening to the country and the Western world.
We are, gradually and painfully, recovering from the terrible gak you put us all through. I personally only miss listening to your comedic public speaking, rather than any of the other, far more deadly and terrible, things you subjected the world to.
But massive congrats on convincing a part of this country that the guy who inherited your gak storm was somehow responsible for it.
Well George, we've brought back the troops from your personal oil grab in Iraq, including the dead ones and we're working on bringing the troops back from Afghanistan, including the dead ones, that being the war you fethed up by starting the second one.
Well.. wheres the fething oil then? I WANT MY OIL!!!!!HALIBURTON11!!!
We're very slowly working off the enormous cluster-fethed economic bomb you facilitated happening to the country and the Western world.
Need to check your math bro...
We are, gradually and painfully, recovering from the terrible gak you put us all through. I personally only miss listening to your comedic public speaking, rather than any of the other, far more deadly and terrible, things you subjected the world to.
You mean like Obama's "corpse-man"?
But massive congrats on convincing a part of this country that the guy who inherited your gak storm was somehow responsible for it.
It ain't just one guy man... all congress critters are couplable. (you forget O was a Senator too)
whembly wrote: [Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.
They've been saying that for 5 years. While it's still too soon to say so definitively; I'm not so sure that's going to pan out. For the run-up to his library opening, there were a slew of articles asking that very question and the consensus is his undesirables are still very, very high and even people who are pretty dedicated Bushies no longer thing that is going to happen.
As for me and Bush's reputation, I can't say. In my lay opinion he'll probably always be considered a pretty mediocre president, but not the most horrible one of all time or even in the top 5 (maybe the top 10). But history is a weird thing and you never know, for some reason a great deal of Americans consider JFK to be one of our greatest presidents despite him objectively being utterly horrible, and obviously Nixon; who gets rightfully tarred by Watergate but also doesn't get fair credit for a lot of the truly great things he did do - but I think history will come around on him.
HIstory is odd. Like you mentioned, Nixon got slammed for Watergate, and as a result that's the only thing people remember him for. Clinton actually got impeached, and he's considered by many to be one of the greatest.
I'm of the opinion that Bush will be seen in a positive light. He had a remarkable Presidency, in terms of events. People try to paint the economic disaster on him, but he certainly wasn't the cause. He may have done more to prevent it, but so could've Obama, and everyone else who was in power at the time.
Many of his policies are continued on today, despite being dragged through mud during the campaigns. He tried to be bipartisan, doing what he could to work with the left. Maybe less so as the years went on, but there is only so many times your going to let your hand get bit before you stop sticking it out.
Time will tell, but I for one feel he'll be far from maligned by it.
So BrassScorpion, are you just going to keep posting article or are you going to participate in a discussion. If the former, then why are you posting this crap here and not Facebook. Seriously.
Edit: Heh. BrassScorpion's initials are BS. Hehehehehe!
I'm fairly Democratic leaning, but is anyone else a little bit weirded out that an organization called "Think Progress" is still talking and going on about a President who left office about 5 years ago? I'd wish organizations like this would put their time and effort into...y'know...progress instead of finding new ways to tread the same ground because Bush was "bad."
While I tend to agree with their points, this kind of thing is pretty much the equivalent of all the blustery, antagonistic horse gak that keeps politics from actually doing anything.
whembly wrote: [Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.
They've been saying that for 5 years. While it's still too soon to say so definitively; I'm not so sure that's going to pan out. For the run-up to his library opening, there were a slew of articles asking that very question and the consensus is his undesirables are still very, very high and even people who are pretty dedicated Bushies no longer thing that is going to happen.
As for me and Bush's reputation, I can't say. In my lay opinion he'll probably always be considered a pretty mediocre president, but not the most horrible one of all time or even in the top 5 (maybe the top 10). But history is a weird thing and you never know, for some reason a great deal of Americans consider JFK to be one of our greatest presidents despite him objectively being utterly horrible, and obviously Nixon; who gets rightfully tarred by Watergate but also doesn't get fair credit for a lot of the truly great things he did do - but I think history will come around on him.
That's a good summary.
Why isn't anyone dinging Bush for the Patriot Act? Oh...right... Obama signed it too. <chirp>
Funny huh? Remember the Grim Milestone too? Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years <chirp>,<chirp>
Spoiler:
A Washington Post/ABC poll asked respondents to rate Bush’s performance for the first time since December 2008, when only 33 percent rated it positively and 66 percent rated it negatively. What the pollster found is that today 47 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove of Bush’s performance. That approval number is precisely the same as President Obama’s in the most recent Post/ABC poll: http://washingtonexaminer.com/michael-barone-as-bush-stays-silent-his-reputation-steadily-gains/article/2527982
curran12 wrote: I'm fairly Democratic leaning, but is anyone else a little bit weirded out that an organization called "Think Progress" is still talking and going on about a President who left office about 5 years ago? I'd wish organizations like this would put their time and effort into...y'know...progress instead of finding new ways to tread the same ground because Bush was "bad."
While I tend to agree with their points, this kind of thing is pretty much the equivalent of all the blustery, antagonistic horse gak that keeps politics from actually doing anything.
whembly wrote:Heh... we can do this all day long with EVERY.SINGLE.PRESIDENT in modern times...
This is the second dumbest thing you've said in this thread; because it's not only untrue to the degree it applies here, but it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist.
whembly wrote:Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.
And this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. If Bush Jr. gets away with only being regarded as Nixon 2.0, he'll be lucky.
I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but their good-to-bad ratio was at least nowhere near the borderline evil-for-evil's-sake levels that the Bush Jr administration approached. Now, I naturally assume you've got nothing to justify your claim other than your standard "rah-rah-go-red-team" ideology, but I'd be honestly interested in hearing you reasoning for thinking that history will be favourable to Bush. However...
Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.
This snippet is pretty disingenuous. While this is all true, the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act (I bet I spelled at least one of those wrong, but eh) during the Clinton administration is what really set the groundwork, as I believe it was what eliminated most of the oversight necessary to keep the banking institutions in line.
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather have a beer with Bush than a lecture from Obama.
Me too (well, except for the part where I don't actually drink beer). But then, I've worked with a lot of people that were great to hang out with, but whose gross incompetence would've resulted in them being dropped through a trapdoor into an incinerator like a Bond villain's lackey, if there was any way to get away with that sort of thing (Canada doesn't have right-to-work laws). I guess my runaround point is that this is one of the most terrible reasons to vote for someone that I can think of; but such is the problem of democracy's paradox.
whembly wrote:Heh... we can do this all day long with EVERY.SINGLE.PRESIDENT in modern times...
This is the second dumbest thing you've said in this thread; because it's not only untrue to the degree it applies here, but it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist.
Gang rape?
You win the fething dumbest award Azazel...
whembly wrote:Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.
And this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. If Bush Jr. gets away with only being regarded as Nixon 2.0, he'll be lucky.
I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but their good-to-bad ratio was at least nowhere near the borderline evil-for-evil's-sake levels that the Bush Jr administration approached. Now, I naturally assume you've got nothing to justify your claim other than your standard "rah-rah-go-red-team" ideology, but I'd be honestly interested in hearing you reasoning for thinking that history will be favourable to Bush. However...
Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.
This snippet is pretty disingenuous. While this is all true, the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act (I bet I spelled at least one of those wrong, but eh) during the Clinton administration is what really set the groundwork, as I believe it was what eliminated most of the oversight necessary to keep the banking institutions in line.
I can think that one of the best fething thing you can say about Bush is that Iraq now has free elections.
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather have a beer with Bush than a lecture from Obama.
Me too (well, except for the part where I don't actually drink beer). But then, I've worked with a lot of people that were great to hang out with, but whose gross incompetence would've resulted in them being dropped through a trapdoor into an incinerator like a Bond villain's lackey, if there was any way to get away with that sort of thing (Canada doesn't have right-to-work laws). I guess my runaround point is that this is one of the most terrible reasons to vote for someone that I can think of; but such is the problem of democracy's paradox.
Yep... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true... Obama had horrible presidency policywise.. but, that gets overlooked mainly because of his charisma and brilliant political tactics.
You know what Azazel... your response really supports the meme that Leftist really hate it when conservatives talk back. Good job brah!
The Iraq war is the best reason to dislike bush and the bush presidency. The bush administration seems to have lied about the WMDs in Iraq, and that's a pretty damn serious thing.
That war is what history SHOULD remember.
The war in Afghanistan is slightly more understandable, even if I didn't agree with it at the time.
Or they didn't and Saddam may have actually shipped all his chemical stockpiles to Syria, the same stockpiles that have been confirmed to have been deployed in the ongoing civil war.
And maybe people could realize that Iraq wasn't a bad thing overall, we helped those people. Sure it wasn't the best it could have been overall but it wasn't Vietnam. At least we had the balls to stick around and get them started on the right path, unlike Nam where we listened to the whiny hippies and pulled out in disgrace when we could have won. The same hippies that treated our soldiers like dog crap.
As there is some evidence for it, its a possibility. I didn't claim it was certain, which you would have picked up on if you read my post.
As for why, well we may never know. But I could say that he didn't fancy getting caught with them, or maybe some of his underlings we looking to make a quick buck.
And it doesn't really matter, we did a good thing for the people of Iraq by freeing them from an oppressive dictatorship.
Saddam had to go. Regional stability pretty much demanded it in the long term. I just wish they could have been more honest about the reasons instead of the whole WMD thing. Granted, considering how few Americans seem to act like adults when it comes to politics maybe it wouldn't have been possible....
Da Boss wrote: The Iraq war is the best reason to dislike bush and the bush presidency. The bush administration seems to have lied about the WMDs in Iraq, and that's a pretty damn serious thing.
That war is what history SHOULD remember.
The war in Afghanistan is slightly more understandable, even if I didn't agree with it at the time.
Lied? The evidence was largely corraberated by British and German Intelligence. All the information that Curveball provided (which turned out to be false), was through Germany.
*shrug*
(I'm not german)
As the fellas that declared an illegal war, I place the responsibility for doing that based on correct information on their shoulders.
Oh, and Grey Templar, cut the passive aggressive crap, I read your post. If you don't believe it, don't put it forward as an idea. It's ludicrous.
As for "we did a good thing", I figure that's debatable when you look at the death toll in Iraq due to the war and the continuing and mounting death toll due to continued instability.
I reckon that's what the administration will be remembered for. One thing I do have some respect for is the fact that the US stayed the course in a pretty unpopular situation after the initial attacks. I think that was probably a brave thing to do.
Grey Templar wrote: unlike Nam where we listened to the whiny hippies and pulled out in disgrace when we could have won.
Say what?
djones520 wrote: Lied? The evidence was largely corraberated by British and German Intelligence.
The evidence was not substantial and our government did the exact same thing saying that Iraq "definitely" had WMD's when what little information saying they did was patchy and not confirmed by any other sources. Indeed, going so far as to change intelligence reports before releasing them to the press.
whembly wrote:Heh... we can do this all day long with EVERY.SINGLE.PRESIDENT in modern times...
This is the second dumbest thing you've said in this thread; because it's not only untrue to the degree it applies here, but it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist.
Gang rape?
You win the fething dumbest award Azazel...
Yes. Gang rape. The analogy is hyperbolic, but apt.
Go on. Tell me that you're not trying to downplay the horrible things the Bush administration was responsible for by saying it's okay because other administrations have also done bad things. The Bush administration is responsible for WAR CRIMES. Not even shades-of-grey ones, either. TORTURE. And you're honestly going to sit there, shrug your shoulders, and say that every administration has made some mistakes, so this one doesn't stand out?
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.
And this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. If Bush Jr. gets away with only being regarded as Nixon 2.0, he'll be lucky.
I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but their good-to-bad ratio was at least nowhere near the borderline evil-for-evil's-sake levels that the Bush Jr administration approached. Now, I naturally assume you've got nothing to justify your claim other than your standard "rah-rah-go-red-team" ideology, but I'd be honestly interested in hearing you reasoning for thinking that history will be favourable to Bush. However...
Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.
This snippet is pretty disingenuous. While this is all true, the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act (I bet I spelled at least one of those wrong, but eh) during the Clinton administration is what really set the groundwork, as I believe it was what eliminated most of the oversight necessary to keep the banking institutions in line.
I can think that one of the best fething thing you can say about Bush is that Iraq now has free elections.
Did you even read the article you linked? Or was that just a futile appeal to authority? Silver says that it's not news that Bush's approval rating has risen slightly; it would be news if it hadn't. As in, the historical trend is that it always increases, coupled with the fact that Bush left office with the lowest approval rating ever, his approval rating really had nowhere to go except upward. However, that does not imply, at all, that it will ever go north of 50%. Bush will end up like Nixon: a boogieman of US political folklore.
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather have a beer with Bush than a lecture from Obama.
Me too (well, except for the part where I don't actually drink beer). But then, I've worked with a lot of people that were great to hang out with, but whose gross incompetence would've resulted in them being dropped through a trapdoor into an incinerator like a Bond villain's lackey, if there was any way to get away with that sort of thing (Canada doesn't have right-to-work laws). I guess my runaround point is that this is one of the most terrible reasons to vote for someone that I can think of; but such is the problem of democracy's paradox.
Yep... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true... Obama had horrible presidency policywise.. but, that gets overlooked mainly because of his charisma and brilliant political tactics.
You know what Azazel... your response really supports the meme that Leftist really hate it when conservatives talk back. Good job brah!
1. I'm unclear as to what you're talking about. "but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true" is not only a double-negative, but lacks a proper noun. I have no idea to what you refer.
2. I fail to grasp the connection you're making to Obama's bad policies. My saying that Bush was incompetent is not the same as saying that Obama is supremely competent. Do you honestly view the world as being entirely binary?
3. I hate it when people say stupid things without thinking. Political affiliation appears to be strongly correlated to this event, but I'm unwilling to declare it as being causal.
Grey Templar wrote: unlike Nam where we listened to the whiny hippies and pulled out in disgrace when we could have won.
Say what?
We didn't militarily lose 'Nam... just politically.
djones520 wrote: Lied? The evidence was largely corraberated by British and German Intelligence.
The evidence was not substantial and our government did the exact same thing saying that Iraq "definitely" had WMD's when what little information saying they did was patchy and not confirmed by any other sources. Indeed, going so far as to change intelligence reports before releasing them to the press.
whembly wrote:Heh... we can do this all day long with EVERY.SINGLE.PRESIDENT in modern times...
This is the second dumbest thing you've said in this thread; because it's not only untrue to the degree it applies here, but it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist.
Gang rape?
You win the fething dumbest award Azazel...
Yes. Gang rape. The analogy is hyperbolic, but apt.
Go on. Tell me that you're not trying to downplay the horrible things the Bush administration was responsible for by saying it's okay because other administrations have also done bad things. The Bush administration is responsible for WAR CRIMES. Not even shades-of-grey ones, either. TORTURE. And you're honestly going to sit there, shrug your shoulders, and say that every administration has made some mistakes, so this one doesn't stand out?
What torture? Abu Ghraib? Or the enhance interrogation?
I just want to be clear here.
If you think he committed war crimes... the Hague would like to hear from you.
Still think your gang rape analogy is dumb.
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.
And this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. If Bush Jr. gets away with only being regarded as Nixon 2.0, he'll be lucky.
I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but their good-to-bad ratio was at least nowhere near the borderline evil-for-evil's-sake levels that the Bush Jr administration approached. Now, I naturally assume you've got nothing to justify your claim other than your standard "rah-rah-go-red-team" ideology, but I'd be honestly interested in hearing you reasoning for thinking that history will be favourable to Bush. However...
Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.
This snippet is pretty disingenuous. While this is all true, the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act (I bet I spelled at least one of those wrong, but eh) during the Clinton administration is what really set the groundwork, as I believe it was what eliminated most of the oversight necessary to keep the banking institutions in line.
I can think that one of the best fething thing you can say about Bush is that Iraq now has free elections.
Did you even read the article you linked? Or was that just a futile appeal to authority? Silver says that it's not news that Bush's approval rating has risen slightly; it would be news if it hadn't. As in, the historical trend is that it always increases, coupled with the fact that Bush left office with the lowest approval rating ever, his approval rating really had nowhere to go except upward. However, that does not imply, at all, that it will ever go north of 50%. Bush will end up like Nixon: a boogieman of US political folklore.
Um... I've stated that history would be favorable to him... unlike during his term. How am I wrong on this?
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather have a beer with Bush than a lecture from Obama.
Me too (well, except for the part where I don't actually drink beer). But then, I've worked with a lot of people that were great to hang out with, but whose gross incompetence would've resulted in them being dropped through a trapdoor into an incinerator like a Bond villain's lackey, if there was any way to get away with that sort of thing (Canada doesn't have right-to-work laws). I guess my runaround point is that this is one of the most terrible reasons to vote for someone that I can think of; but such is the problem of democracy's paradox.
Yep... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true... Obama had horrible presidency policywise.. but, that gets overlooked mainly because of his charisma and brilliant political tactics.
You know what Azazel... your response really supports the meme that Leftist really hate it when conservatives talk back. Good job brah!
1. I'm unclear as to what you're talking about. "but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true" is not only a double-negative, but lacks a proper noun. I have no idea to what you refer.
I'll say it again with FEELING... I was agreeing with your assertations that people VOTE for stupid reasons.
2. I fail to grasp the connection you're making to Obama's bad policies. My saying that Bush was incompetent is not the same as saying that Obama is supremely competent. Do you honestly view the world as being entirely binary?
Of course not... I think you're projecting here boyo. You view Bush as an incompetent fool... yet, he was re-elected. I think Obama has done stupid gak too, but again, he got re-elected.
3. I hate it when people say stupid things without thinking. Political affiliation appears to be strongly correlated to this event, but I'm unwilling to declare it as being causal.
Um... okay? o.O
So, I'm not allowed to have a dissenting opinion?
Geez... isn't the best form of patriotism his voicing an dissenting opinion?
azazel the cat wrote:3. I hate it when people say stupid things without thinking. Political affiliation appears to be strongly correlated to this event, but I'm unwilling to declare it as being causal.
Um... okay? o.O
So, I'm not allowed to have a dissenting opinion?
Of course you are. I encourage well thought-out dissenting opinions. Please note the qualifier, then see if it applies to your question:
whembly wrote: What torture? Abu Ghraib? Or the enhance interrogation?
I just want to be clear here.
If you think he committed war crimes... the Hague would like to hear from you.
Now, before you consider whether or not your question was well thought-out, I'll answer the question with a quote from the OP. Y'know, the reason this thread it even here:
Though the US Code bans torture, Bush personally issued a memorandum six days after the September 11th attacks instructing the CIA that it could use “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists. The methods included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and “stress positions.” A recently-released bipartisan committee concluded it was “indisputable” that these techniques constituted torture, and that the highest authorities in the country bore responsibility for the creation of a torture programs at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites” around the world.
I'll even include the link to the report, and a link to a decent summary article about the report (it's quite long). And please note the last line of the article, which is in no way should mitigate the event itself (see my earlier gang rape analogy).
Sure, but you link to an opinion piece, rather than an actual news article grounded in well documented and supported facts.
Looks like you just lost the game
And where's YOUR news? The link you posted supported that it was an intelligence failure... not an active attempt to LIE. By the holy emprah, why do people cling to that... there are MUCH easier things to bash bush... o.O
azazel the cat wrote:3. I hate it when people say stupid things without thinking. Political affiliation appears to be strongly correlated to this event, but I'm unwilling to declare it as being causal.
Um... okay? o.O
So, I'm not allowed to have a dissenting opinion?
Of course you are. I encourage well thought-out dissenting opinions. Please note the qualifier, then see if it applies to your question:
whembly wrote: What torture? Abu Ghraib? Or the enhance interrogation?
I just want to be clear here.
If you think he committed war crimes... the Hague would like to hear from you.
Now, before you consider whether or not your question was well thought-out, I'll answer the question with a quote from the OP. Y'know, the reason this thread it even here:
Though the US Code bans torture, Bush personally issued a memorandum six days after the September 11th attacks instructing the CIA that it could use “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists. The methods included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and “stress positions.” A recently-released bipartisan committee concluded it was “indisputable” that these techniques constituted torture, and that the highest authorities in the country bore responsibility for the creation of a torture programs at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites” around the world.
I'll even include the link to the report, and a link to a decent summary article about the report (it's quite long). And please note the last line of the article, which is in no way should mitigate the event itself (see my earlier gang rape analogy).
Great job in finding a Think Tank brah!
Now... we should be hearing an indictment from the Hague anytime soon. Amirite?
EDIT: I saw this right off the bat:
Read the "Findings and Recommendations"
I've could've pulled any of those statements from NPR or sites like MotherJones.
azazel the cat wrote:I'll even include the link to the report, and a link to a decent summary article about the report (it's quite long). And please note the last line of the article, which is in no way should mitigate the event itself (see my earlier gang rape analogy).
Great job in finding a Think Tank brah!
Now... we should be hearing an indictment from the Hague anytime soon. Amirite?
EDIT: I saw this right off the bat:
Read the "Findings and Recommendations"
I've could've pulled any of those statements from NPR or sites like MotherJones.
Who are these people?
If you had bothered to read anything, you would find that your question is answered clearly in both links.
whembly wrote: And where's YOUR news? The link you posted supported that it was an intelligence failure... not an active attempt to LIE. By the holy emprah, why do people cling to that... there are MUCH easier things to bash bush... o.O
A direct quote from the article I linked to wrote:Designed for public consumption, it had a personal foreword by Mr Blair, who assured readers Saddam Hussein had continued to produce WMD "beyond doubt".
But, while it was never mentioned in the dossier, there was doubt. The original intelligence from MI6 and other agencies, on which the dossier was based, was clearly qualified.
The intelligence was, as the Joint Intelligence Committee noted in its original assessments, "sporadic and patchy" and "remains limited".
The exclusion of these qualifications gave the dossier a certainty that was never warranted.
The version of the report put out for public consumption was misleading since it completely omitted the doubt that the intelligence services had in the information they were passing on. Since Blair and Bush were singing from the same hymn sheet and were being fed information from the same sources, one can only take from that Bush having also similarly decided not to listen to what his intelligence sources were telling him and feed something else to the public.
I personally don't bash Bush for anything - I genuinely don't care about him as a person or a president. I was replying to the general thrust of the conversation that lies were said over the intelligence reports over which we went to war.
azazel the cat wrote:I'll even include the link to the report, and a link to a decent summary article about the report (it's quite long). And please note the last line of the article, which is in no way should mitigate the event itself (see my earlier gang rape analogy).
Great job in finding a Think Tank brah!
Now... we should be hearing an indictment from the Hague anytime soon. Amirite?
EDIT: I saw this right off the bat:
Read the "Findings and Recommendations"
I've could've pulled any of those statements from NPR or sites like MotherJones.
Who are these people?
If you had bothered to read anything, you would find that your question is answered clearly in both links.
What would be really cool is if everyone mellowed the hell out a little and quit the jabs at each other. Thats MY job.
How not to rehabilitate a failed president By Steve Benen - Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:00 AM EDT 309
Associated Press
A confluence of events appears to have created a curious new talking point on the right. With former President George W. Bush's library set to open, and last week's Boston Marathon bombing still very much on the public's mind, Republican pundits see value in trying to tie the two together in the hopes of improving Bush's reputation.
The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, for example, published this gem yesterday:
"Unlike Obama's tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11."
A few hours later on Fox News, Eric Bolling echoed the sentiment.
"I will tell one thing, from you 9/12/01 until the time President Obama raised his right hand January of '09, the man kept us safe. And there -- you certainly can't say that since President Obama has taken the oath of office."
When it comes to Bolling, I should note that this is an improvement from his previous stance. Two years ago, he suggested on the air that he didn't recall 9/11 at all: "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don't remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time."
I should also note that neither Rubin nor Bolling seemed to be kidding. Their comments weren't satirical or jokes intended to make Republicans appear silly.
As for the substance, there are three main angles to keep in mind. The first is the bizarre assertion that President Obama somehow deserves the blame for the bomb that killed three people in Boston last week, because he didn't "keep up safe." The argument reflects a child-like understanding of national security and is absurd on its face.
Second, though the right likes to pretend otherwise, there were terrorist attacks during Bush/Cheney's tenure -- after 9/11 -- that shouldn't be ignored. Indeed, it's a little tiresome to hear Republicans argue in effect, "Other than the deadly anthrax attacks, the attack against El Al ticket counter at LAX, the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the former president's record on counter-terrorism was awesome."
And finally, I'm not sure Republican pundits have fully thought through the wisdom of the "other than 9/11" argument.
Bush received an intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, at which he was handed a memo with an important headline: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
Bush, however, was on a month-long vacation at the time. He heard the briefer out and replied, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." A month later, al Qaeda killed 3,000 people.
For Rubin and Bolling, the response is, in effect, "Yeah, but other than that, he kept us safe." The problem, of course, is that's roughly the equivalent of saying other than that iceberg, the Titanic had a pleasant voyage. Other than that one time, Pompeii didn't have to worry about the nearby volcano. Other than Booth, Lincoln enjoyed his evening at Ford's Theater.
It is, in other words, a little more difficult to airbrush catastrophic events from history.
I can appreciate the zeal with which Republican pundits want to rehabilitate Bush's poor standing, but they'll have to do better than this.
Jihadin wrote:Makes me wonder what Gore would have done if the Supreme Court decided he won FLA on and after 9/11......
Now, I really dislike Gore. But I bet he'd have at least read the "OBL determined to attack the US" document (this assumption is based on the Clinton administration's previous efforts to deal with AQ).
Think we're all being a bit....hestitant on this thread. This can quickly turn ugly with Bush and Obama bashing...maybe a few others thrown into the mix....and its a locked thread. I highly suspect BS just watching how this develope.. Right now Obama is in the seat like Bush. Syria just cross line with chemical weapons. What is he goig to do.
Seeing as how some of the discussions have gone in this thread.......
I'm going to assume its Bush Jr. people are referring to...... the guy was bad yet funny to as hell to listen to. And for the whole "hes horrible he tortured people wah wah wah" who fething cares, after an event like 911 anyone and I mean ANYONE who has information that could lead to the finding of the instigators should get tortured if they decide to be enough of an idiot to withhold that kind of information. Never cared for Obama either, he seems like a bit of a puppet
Jihadin wrote:Makes me wonder what Gore would have done if the Supreme Court decided he won FLA on and after 9/11......
Now, I really dislike Gore. But I bet he'd have at least read the "OBL determined to attack the US" document (this assumption is based on the Clinton administration's previous efforts to deal with AQ).
And divined the method, place, and time of the attack and miraculously prevented us from enduring it?
Bush will not be remembered as the worst US president when people calm down about the whole affair. He has to compete with Taft, Harding and Coolidge to even be considered. He may of been a lot of things but those presidents were outright corrupt.
Also, Millard Fillmore, no one can top Millard Fillmore.
Media Matters for America "Fiscal discipline?" Really?
Can we talk about the $5.5 trillion deficit that Bush racked up over his two terms, please?
Fox Ignores Economic History To Praise President Bush's "Fiscal Discipline" Blog ››› 8 hours and 35 minutes ago ››› ANDREW LAWRENCE 58 Print
Fox News ignored economic history to forward the absurd claim that former President George W. Bush exercised "fiscal discipline."
On the April 25 edition of Fox & Friends, former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andy Card claimed that President Bush "probably has the best track record of any modern president in terms of fiscal discipline," a statement that went unchallenged by the Fox & Friends co-hosts:
But facts undermine Card's claim. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the drivers of current and future public debt are policies from the Bush presidency:
A recent study from Harvard researcher Linda J. Bilmes found that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will ultimately cost taxpayers between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, that the Bush-era tax cuts added $2.6 trillion to public debt from 2001-2010, and as Foxnews.com noted in September 2011, the Bush-era Medicare drug benefit came with unfunded costs of $7 trillion.
Furthermore, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Office of Management and Budget data, the Bush era saw the second largest annualized growth in federal spending since the Eisenhower presidency:
According to former President Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett, when Bush took office, the CBO projected a $3.5 trillion surplus through 2008. Instead, Bush delivered a $5.5 trillion deficit over his two terms. :
I thought of more presidents worse than Bush, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, Ulysses S Grant and James Buchannan
All of these men were corrupt, incompetent, criminal or some conbination of the three. For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
We just get more heated about him because he was more recent
EmilCrane wrote: I thought of more presidents worse than Bush, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, Ulysses S Grant and James Buchannan
All of these men were corrupt, incompetent, criminal or some conbination of the three. For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
We just get more heated about him because he was more recent
Naw man... Booosh will always be a pariah to some folks because he stole the election for Al Gore. :eyerolls:
Might as while compile a list of all the bad things he has done to destroy America. I defend those two above me. I had contract over site in Afghanistan and at times in Iraq. So the contractors are in my ball field. Who's willing to play in my field. My experience in dealing with them, firing them, removing entire branches of them, and charging them to get back lost gov't money is in my lane. Who wants to play in my lane
edit
Next on whoever wants to add 3,4,5,6 and so on and on. Break it down. Have some damn order in this debate
Political threads are depressing as hell. I'm still not recovered from the what, 14 months leading up to the election and all that gak - we don't need to start this again.
Bromsy wrote: Political threads are depressing as hell. I'm still not recovered from the what, 14 months leading up to the election and all that gak - we don't need to start this again.
I agree. The next election cycle will be started up proper in what, a year's time? Why get it going early
EmilCrane wrote: I thought of more presidents worse than Bush, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, Ulysses S Grant and James Buchannan
All of these men were corrupt, incompetent, criminal or some conbination of the three. For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
We just get more heated about him because he was more recent
Oh I'm pretty sure he was corrupt, incompetent and criminal, maybe not to historic levels, but still. I'm not particularly a Bush hater and I don't think history will be too harsh on him. I think he made a lot of money off the Wars and if we ever find out that was his reason for going then, well hes a bastard.
Bush was the best thing that could've ever happened for Obama. He sat the bar so low that its nearly impossible for Obama to look bad. Lying about nukes in Iran, setting the precedent for holding people without trial (Gitmo), and making torture acceptable (sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and water boarding at Gitmo). Not only that, but he defunded stem cell research, endorsed banning gay marriage, and he reduced taxes for the top one percent of Americans more than any other group. Add in the fact that he won in 2000 despite losing the popular vote, and you have an all around gakky president.
What state though wanted to have terrorist within their state borders?
As for trials....fed court or military tribunals? How were they captured?
Torture. Well we still do solitary confinement in our prison do we not? Water boarding.is a mind game. Sleep deprievement. is simple. As for turning over to other country prison system where torture an accepted form we put a stop to that did we not?
Remind me again....does Iran have nukes? say maybe 1 or 2 at leasat...aircraft deliverable...
Defunded Stem esearch was influence by I believe a Christian coalition basically saying we are not God?
Endorse banning Gay Right...making it sound like we stole their rights? Time...that take time to change. Already happening. Its in the beginning stage. look how long it took for MLK to accomplish what was needed to be done what he and everyone else knew it was the right thing to do. They were the majority going against a minority that was in power.
Bush played the cards the best way he knew how even though it might not be what the general populace wanted. Obama is now playing the cards he been dealt with.
Obama waitng for the UN to send teams in Syria to confirm a chem strike. Problem is...no teams are allowed in
Obama cell phones. I know he did not start that but its so bloated now and voters thanked him for the free cells it is now tied to him
Obamacare is starting to kick off....and it is not looking good.
He expanded the drone operations Bush had in place and created a kill list. He got Osama but in such a way he was killed he can't really claim the kill
He could not secure a SOFA agreement with Iraq and quite a chunk of equipment were left behind in Iraq
Afghanistan going to be the same deal with quite a bit of 3rd generation vehicles are being left behind unless Hugary, Roaminains, Poland, Kuwait, and a few others want them. Ukranian contract cargo carrier going to make a killing flying those equipment out to their respective country.
I'm just pointing out the cards thart are being dealt to each is not favorable to eaither of them They have to play them the best way they can. It might suck to us in the military andthe general populace but is crunch tie due to money and logistical capability to get them out.. Our biggest hit. Our C5 fleet of aircrafts are not mission ready. Very few can fly.So bac they go over to karach and shipped out using contract vehicle boots and what few ro/ro boots we have.
Just throwing it out there. Point and counter point.Think both sides
So if you can make remarks about Bush negatively. Can you also make negative remarks about Obamaq.
edit
EXCLUSIVE: As many as 50 U.S. and Coalition military helicopters were badly damaged in a hailstorm at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan this week. The damage was severe enough that the helicopters are grounded until they can be repaired.
The storm moved through southern Afghanistan on April 23.
A military spokesman says "ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] has already implemented actions to mitigate the effects of the storm and our forces continue to receive all necessary support."
Fox News was told by one service member serving at a remote outpost in southern Afghanistan, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter, that he was told "supplies and personnel movement are going to be restricted because of lack of deployable helicopters."
This service member said he was told that around 50 helicopters were damaged and grounded as a result. Several U.S. officials have confirmed that number, although ISAF would not comment on the exact number, citing concerns about operational security.
One military official said repairs are likely to happen quickly and that it is a "top priority" right now.
Flying new blades in for the 50 rotary wing aircraft. Quickest way to replace the blades instead of repairing voided out areas of the blade wihich takes like 36 hrs to do a proper seal on a UH60 blade.
Defunded Stem esearch was influence by I believe a Christian coalition basically saying we are not God?
Yes, and this is why Bush sucked: instead of making decisions based on scientific facts he defunded important research as a gift to the religious right. And that's the generous interpretation, that it was a pragmatic act to secure votes that would be important to keeping him and his party in power, and Bush himself wasn't actually stupid enough to believe the religious right's anti-stem-cell arguments. If he did act out of a sincere belief that stem cell research needed to be stopped then it's even worse, he's either a gullible figurehead who didn't care enough to investigate the issue before making a decision or a crusading zealot willing to sacrifice real lives in the name of ideological purity.
Endorse banning Gay Right...making it sound like we stole their rights? Time...that take time to change. Already happening. Its in the beginning stage. look how long it took for MLK to accomplish what was needed to be done what he and everyone else knew it was the right thing to do. They were the majority going against a minority that was in power.
And how is "well, he wasn't any worse than the racists of the 1960s" supposed to be praise?
Tazz Azrael wrote: Seeing as how some of the discussions have gone in this thread.......
I'm going to assume its Bush Jr. people are referring to...... the guy was bad yet funny to as hell to listen to. And for the whole "hes horrible he tortured people wah wah wah" who fething cares, after an event like 911 anyone and I mean ANYONE who has information that could lead to the finding of the instigators should get tortured if they decide to be enough of an idiot to withhold that kind of information. Never cared for Obama either, he seems like a bit of a puppet
What a dumb comment. What about all the people who didn't know anything? What about the fact that torture dose not work? Infact it makes things worse. Every person you pick up who knows nothing becomes an enemy, as dose everyone they know.
IMO the approval of tourture will be the one thing that is rememberd about Bush.
Steve steveson wrote: IMO the approval of tourture will be the one thing that is rememberd about Bush.
You forgot about Poland.
Insha'Allah, we can keep this thread going long enough so that we can line up criticism of Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina exactly, to the day, when it happened 8 years previously. Just 4 more months!
Jihadin wrote: Makes me wonder what Gore would have done if the Supreme Court decided he won FLA on and after 9/11......
I don't know about that, but I do know that we would not now be staring down the barrel of the terrible manbearpig menace. Serially!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: It is like I stepped into a time machine and it is 2004 all over again!
Wow finally a second chance to sell my Apple stock. Its getting its keister handed to it by IBM.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: Political threads are depressing as hell. I'm still not recovered from the what, 14 months leading up to the election and all that gak - we don't need to start this again.
Dude the inauguration hadn't finished and they were talking about the 2016 election. Seriously, give us all a break from the horserace nonsense please.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thirteen Reasons Lincoln was the Worst President.
1. Under his watch the US was plunged into the worst war in its history.
2. International relations were some of the worst ever. We were almost drawn into a long war with Britain and France
3. Under his watch foreign powers invaded our brothers to the South.
4. The corporations sucked off the government through favored military contracts making millions. You know who benefited – the evil corporates! CARNEGIE! CARNEGIE!
5. Under his watch we went off the gold standard
6. His plan to “connect the East and West” led to environmental carnage for thousands of miles.
7. Under his watch debt and deficits were at the highest level in a hundred years.
8. Under his watch illegal immigration continued to flood the country. Indeed he used many of those illegals in his illegal war against fellow US citizens.
9. Under his watch, funding for AIDs and breast cancer research were almost nonexistent. Heartless!
10. Lincoln used executive orders to steal property from legal owners in multiple states, yet he did nothing for the poor!
11. Under his watch the government actively acted to destroy the road system that the 99% of us had to use to get around, not like those corporation guys in Washington. Carnegie!
12. under his watch homeless and poverty increased greatly for the 99% in our economically disenfranchised reasons in the South. Indeed, his policies directly led to poverty and…er homelessness!
13. He did nothing to prevent 9/11!
Spoiler:
1. Under his watch the US was plunged into the worst war in its history. US CIVIL WAR 2. International relations were some of the worst ever. We were almost drawn into a long war with Britain and France THE CSA’S ATTEMPTS TO DRAW THEM ONTO THEIR SIDE.
3. Under his watch foreign powers invaded our brothers to the South. FRANCE’S INVASION OF MEXICO
4. The corporations sucked off the government through favored military contracts making millions. You know who benefited – the evil corporates! CARNEGIE! CARNEGIE! THIS IS TRUE ACTUALLY-GOVERNMENT CNTRACTS IN THE WAR HELPED START THE CAREERS OF MANY OF THE TRUSTS INCLUDING CARNEGIE.
5. Under his watch we went off the gold standard PAPER GREENBACKS WILL NEVER LAST!
6. His plan to “connect the East and West” led to environmental carnage for thousands of miles. TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD
7. Under his watch debt and deficits were at the highest level in a hundred years. TO SUPPORT THE WAR 8. Under his watch illegal immigration continued to flood the country. Indeed he used many of those illegals in his illegal war against fellow US citizens. IRISH IMMIGRANTS
9. Under his watch, funding for AIDs and breast cancer research were almost nonexistent. Heartless! WELL, YOU KNOW
10. Lincoln used executive orders to steal property from legal owners in multiple states, yet he did nothing for the poor! EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
11. Under his watch the government actively acted to destroy the road system that the 99% of us had to use to get around, not like those corporation guys in Washington. Carnegie! US MILITARY DESTRUCTION OF RAILS AND OTHER SYSTEMS IN THE SOUTH.
12. under his watch homeless and poverty increased greatly for the 99% in our economically disenfranchised reasons in the South. Indeed, his policies directly led to poverty and…er homelessness! US INVASION OF THE SOUTH, DESTRUCTION IN GEORGIA
13. He did nothing to prevent 9/11! WELL, HE DIDN’T!
Well, we were planning on removing him in GW1 but Saudia Arabia said no.
We took a very active role militaristicaly for Libya to be "free" today.
There was a couple attempts to overthrow Saddam. He used mustard gas in retaliation.
Afghanistan does have them. I've been in theatre helping to provide armed protection so the citizens could vote safely for 2 of them. Certain area's are still affected by the Taliban in those regards, but the country predominantly is "free" when it comes to them.
You're right about Saudi, but there isn't much we can do about that. When the government actively hides people who kill thousands of our citizens, then we most likely will, but until then we don't have much ground to stand on.
Considering the base of his own party (i.e. the tea Party) doesn't want anything to do with him anymore, I have a hard time believing history will be kind to him.
They have been trying to distance themselves from Neo-Cons since Bush II failed at SS reform.
...
I can think that one of the best fething thing you can say about Bush is that Iraq now has free elections.
...
That wasn't why we invaded Iraq. If we wanted to throw out the Saddam regime, we could have done it much easier at the end of Gulf War One.
Libya has free elections without our invading to make them happen.
We don't know that Saddam might not have been overthrown by internal efforts if we had left them alone, as happened to Gaddafi.
Afghanistan doesn't have free elections, which we stayed in for nine years for the sake of human rights.
Saudi Arabia doesn't have free elections, but we don't care because they are an ally.
If you believe in the USA's mission as World Police, it hasn't been very successful.
I wasn't saying that...
I was saying that the best tribute to George W Bush is that IRAQ'S ELECTION WAS LARGELY PEACEFUL. There are plenty of things to criticize him, but we can at least acknowledge that things turned out better for Iraqis post-Saddam.
To add insult to injury, and Bush did an amazing amount of permanent injury to the USA internally and to its standing around the world, even Sandra Day O'Connor now regrets her Bush v. Gore vote. She's not the only one, most of America regrets that vote.
After Casting Key Fifth Vote For Bush, Justice O’Connor Now Regrets Bush v. Gore
By Ian Millhiser on Apr 29, 2013 at 9:00 am
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the conservative retired justice who provided the fifth vote to install George W. Bush as president, is now having second thoughts about that decision:
Looking back, O’Connor said, she isn’t sure the high court should have taken [Bush v. Gore].
“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”
The case, she said, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation.”
“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.“
If nothing else, Bush v. Gore demonstrates how justices who are determined to reach a certain result are capable of bending both the law and their own prior jurisprudence in order to achieve it. In Bush, the five conservative justices held, in the words of Harvard’s Larry Tribe, that “equal protection of the laws required giving no protection of the laws to the thousands of still uncounted ballots.”
The Court’s decision to hand the presidency to Bush stunned many legal observers, some of whom were O’Connor’s fellow justices. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens once recounted a story where he ran into fellow Justice Stephen Breyer at a party while a relatively early phase of the case was pending before the Court. According to Stevens, “[w]e agreed that the application was frivolous.”
Indeed, Bush’s own lawyers were skeptical of the legal theory that ultimately made up the basis of the Court’s decision in Bush. As Ben Ginsberg, a top lawyer on Bush’s presidential campaign, explained in 2006, “just like really with the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have some fundamental philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of Equal Protection.”
And, yet, O’Connor and four of her fellow Republicans joined together to embrace a particularly aggressive reading of Equal Protection — at least so long as it could put George W. Bush in the White House.
whembly wrote: We get it... Bush is evil... can you move on now?
Considering the fact that BS refuses to engage anyone in legitimate conversation, I think the best way to retort to BS is to just ignore him right back.
His MO is to spam political articles from biased sources and then run away for a day or two.
Here's a really hilarious bit from The Onion delineating the joke that is the Bush Library. "Visitors can ride the fun Approval Rating Slide all the way from Bush’s first year in office down to the last" and "A replica of Saddam’s nuclear warheads". Great stuff.
Features Of George W. Bush Presidential Library
Infographic • politicians • george w. bush • News • ISSUE 49•18 • Apr 29, 2013
The technologically advanced and highly interactive George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum will open to the public on May 1 in Dallas. Here are some of the notable features of the museum:
Interactive world map that lets visitors create their own Axis of Evil
Visitors can ride the fun Approval Rating Slide all the way from Bush’s first year in office down to the last
Exhibition of the best Bush effigies from all around the world
Entire wing devoted to quick, effective federal response to Tropical Storm Arlene
Tastefully done oil-on-canvas painting of a nude Laura Bush
Free “Museum Accomplished” button handed out to all visitors after making their way through just the first of 25 rooms of the museum
A replica of Saddam’s nuclear warheads
Building’s total area is 800 square feet
whembly wrote: We get it... Bush is evil... can you move on now?
No no you don't get it. BUSH IS EVILLLLZZZZZZ!!!! Interestingly, polling denotes that US standing internationally is viewed LESS favorably now than then in most regions.
whembly wrote: We get it... Bush is evil... can you move on now?
No no you don't get it. BUSH IS EVILLLLZZZZZZ!!!!
Interestingly, polling denotes that US standing internationally is viewed LESS favorably now than then in most regions.
But...but, Obama haz nobel peace prize! It's inconceivable!
EmilCrane wrote: For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
Well, except for the massive conflicts of interest involving Cheney and Halliburton (though it's questionable if Bush can be blamed for much of that). However, there is also the matter of warcrimes (torture).
Jihadin wrote:So Bush is bad for the USA
1. Afghanistan
2. Iraq
Might as while compile a list of all the bad things he has done to destroy America. I defend those two above me. I had contract over site in Afghanistan and at times in Iraq. So the contractors are in my ball field. Who's willing to play in my field. My experience in dealing with them, firing them, removing entire branches of them, and charging them to get back lost gov't money is in my lane. Who wants to play in my lane
edit
Next on whoever wants to add 3,4,5,6 and so on and on. Break it down. Have some damn order in this debate
You bring up an interesting point here: while Afghanistan was undoubtedly bad for the US, economically-speaking, I don't think it's something that I would fault Bush over. I think going into Afghanistan was necessary, so while it's not a "good" decision for the US, I think it was the right decision. I would consider saying the same for Iraq if the motivations weren't so damned questionable, imo.
No conflict. Cheney's financial portfolio was put in a trust when he became VP. Further government contracts went to a non Halliburton spin off entity.
EmilCrane wrote: For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
Well, except for the massive conflicts of interest involving Cheney and Halliburton (though it's questionable if Bush can be blamed for much of that). However, there is also the matter of warcrimes (torture).
So... when are you contacting The Hague to charge Bush and crew?
EmilCrane wrote: For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
Well, except for the massive conflicts of interest involving Cheney and Halliburton (though it's questionable if Bush can be blamed for much of that). However, there is also the matter of warcrimes (torture).
So... when are you contacting The Hague to charge Bush and crew?
Not my job nor duty. But your infantile smugness in defiance of the US's own bipartisan report on such is quite telling of your rah-rah-go-red-team-no-matter-what bias; so thanks for playing.
EmilCrane wrote: For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
Well, except for the massive conflicts of interest involving Cheney and Halliburton (though it's questionable if Bush can be blamed for much of that). However, there is also the matter of warcrimes (torture).
So... when are you contacting The Hague to charge Bush and crew?
Not my job nor duty. But your infantile smugness in defiance of the US's own bipartisan report on such is quite telling of your rah-rah-go-red-team-no-matter-what bias; so thanks for playing.
EmilCrane wrote: For all we fault Bush for he was neither corrupt nor criminal nor particularly incompetent (not compared to what history has to offer)
Well, except for the massive conflicts of interest involving Cheney and Halliburton (though it's questionable if Bush can be blamed for much of that). However, there is also the matter of warcrimes (torture).
So... when are you contacting The Hague to charge Bush and crew?
Not my job nor duty. But your infantile smugness in defiance of the US's own bipartisan report on such is quite telling of your rah-rah-go-red-team-no-matter-what bias; so thanks for playing.
Once again, a complete denial of recent history and willfully ignoring facts combines for crazy propaganda in support of Bush from Fake News.
Media Matters for America In the past week, Fox News has worked hard to rehabilitate George Bush's image, lauding his record on fiscal discipline as probably "the best track record of any modern president," and claiming that he helped grow the economy despite "inheriting a recession."
Now they've moved on to polishing up the image of George Bush's younger brother Jeb. Discussing whether Jeb Bush should run for president in 2016, Fox's Brit Hume declared, "The country may indeed be ready for another Bush."
Does Fox really think that America has forgotten the Bush legacy so quickly, which involved a completely unjust war and the initiation of one of the deepest recessions in modern U.S. history?
Fox Focuses Bush Rehabilitation Effort On Younger Brother Jeb Blog ››› 2 hours and 28 minutes ago ››› EMILY ARROWOOD 34 Print
Fox News' Brit Hume is continuing the network's effort to rehabilitate the Bush family name by lavishing praise on Jeb Bush, a potential 2016 presidential nominee.
Fox spent the week of the George W. Bush Presidential Library dedication lionizing Bush's tenure and whitewashing the effects of his policies; several hosts even bragged that Bush "kept the country safe" from terrorists after the September 11 attacks. From Fox & Friends to America's Newsroom, Fox uncritically allowed former Bush officials to spin Bush's record on fiscal discipline as probably "the best track record of any modern president," and to falsely claim that he helped grow the economy despite "inheriting a recession." According to a Media Matters review, 71 percent of Fox's guest appearances about President Bush's library and legacy were by former Bush White House personnel.
Now Fox's senior political analyst Hume is turning the Bush rehabilitation effort toward President Bush's younger brother and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday on April 28, Hume discussed whether Jeb Bush should run for president in 2016, remarking, "The country may indeed be ready for another Bush." The next day on America's Newsroom, host Martha MacCallum asked Hume about his comment. Hume responded by lavishing praise on the younger Bush, saying, "a great many political observers had identified Jeb as ... the most gifted natural politician among the lot of them." He continued:
HUME: I think it is the fact that Jeb Bush is an especially gifted political figure. He's a disarming personality. He's highly articulate. He's deeply versed in policy, especially domestic policy. He has a connection to the Hispanic community. His wife is Hispanic. He speaks the language. He showed that when he was governor of Florida. He was a successful and generally popular governor of Florida. So he's got a lot going for him.
Could you find some links to sites other than "Media Matters for America"? I'd rather not read editorials from either far left or right websites. Thanks!
Or, better yet, stop posting links and start engaging in discussion. To continue to blindly post links is spamming.
The Constitution Project is a non-profit think tank in the United States that builds bipartisan consensus on significant constitutional and legal questions... source.. wiki...
Here's the About US page boyo. It's a ThinkTank... it'd have more credibility if the ACLU or even, gasp, a real congressional independent investigation.
Interestingly, polling denotes that US standing internationally is viewed LESS favorably now than then in most regions.
According to what polling group?
I would guess Pew because that's the most popular global opinion survey, but their results don't fall in line with your comment.
whembly wrote: t's a ThinkTank... it'd have more credibility if the ACLU or even, gasp, a real congressional independent investigation.
The fact that an organization is a think tank does not invalidate its work, especially if you're going to claim that an advocacy organization (ACLU, any Congressional investigation) is a better source.
Claiming that X is incredible because it was produced by Y is lazy.
The fact that an organization is a think tank does not invalidate its work.
Claiming that X is incredible because it was produced by Y is lazy.
EDIT: don't you mean "credible"? (I know, I know...)
I concur... I was just bringing to attention that just because it claims to be "bipartisan" doesn't make it so. The ACLU and such advocacy group always need to be scrutinized because they're an advocacy group. amirite?
I've read the whole report (you should too as it's interesting). There's nothing really new there, but it's an attempt to have an adult conversation on this subject matter. So don't dismiss it out of hand...
But, to use this report to say "SEE! BUSH IS EVILZZZ!! ALL REPUBLICANS NEED TO HOLD ACCOUNT! HALIBURTON YEARRRRRRRRGH! WARCRIME!WARCRIME!!!!!" and proceed to burst your veins... which, doesn't add anything to this discussion.
The fact that an organization is a think tank does not invalidate its work.
Claiming that X is incredible because it was produced by Y is lazy.
EDIT: don't you mean "credible"? (I know, I know...)
I concur... I was just bringing to attention that just because it claims to be "bipartisan" doesn't make it so. The ACLU and such advocacy group always need to be scrutinized because they're an advocacy group. amirite?
I've read the whole report (you should too as it's interesting). There's nothing really new there, but it's an attempt to have an adult conversation on this subject matter. So don't dismiss it out of hand...
But, to use this report to say "SEE! BUSH IS EVILZZZ!! ALL REPUBLICANS NEED TO HOLD ACCOUNT! HALIBURTON YEARRRRRRRRGH! WARCRIME!WARCRIME!!!!!" and proceed to burst your veins... which, doesn't add anything to this discussion.
I do not for a moment believe you have read the entirety of a 576 page report.
But even if we stick to just the summary of "yes, waterboarding is torture, and yes, bush/cheney are responsible for authorizing it", exactly what part are you refuting?
I do not for a moment believe you have read the entirety of a 576 page report.
But even if we stick to just the summary of "yes, waterboarding is torture, and yes, bush/cheney are responsible for authorizing it", exactly what part are you refuting?
It took me a couple of days to actually read it dude... did you?
This report doesn't advocate anyone to be prosecuted... You'd know that if you read it too... The report is instead suggesting that our government honestly confront what it has done as an “error” committed by senior officials who were nevertheless acting in good faith, make public what actually occurred in the name of the American people, and take all necessary steps to make sure it never happens again.
Do you really believe that we employ sadists and enjoy doing these things? I get the feeling that the anti-Bushies get off of the idea that the administrations were lawless psychopaths who enjoys butchering the enemy... but, I digress here.
In addition..a proper discussion of responsibility cannot ignore the state of U.S. law governing enhanced interrogation at the time that the Bush administration made its decisions. The law governing interrogation procedures and which defined illegal torture was passed by Congress in 1992 and signed into law by President Clinton.
That was the law that the Bush administration looked to in proscribing guidelines used by the CIA, after 9/11. The U.S. torture statute was amended in response to widespread complaints about the use of enhanced interrogation, after which questionable tactics were clearly banned and in fact there is no credible allegation that the Bush administration violated the torture law as amended. There is no point condemning the administration apart from the statute then in effect, which could be reasonably interpreted as permitting the tactics which were used.
So the question I've always had is that why is Congress therefore not accountable for that 1992 statute? As if they were only a remote party to the conduct which it clearly authorized?
Corrective action requires a clear understanding of all pertinent facts... Right?
There is an assumption that the Bush administration was operating as a rogue agent with regard to its interrogation policies. In fact those very policies were little more than an application of the law on the books at that time.
Perhaps that is why there is so little will on the part of Obama and co. to more aggressively pursue his predecessor. Too many members of Congress, of both parties, and President Clinton himself, authorized the very things that Bush/Cheney did, and they do not want to face that inconvenient fact.
You know, I can't help but point out that my fellow Americans elected this guy, he didn't just seize power and then proceed to take your rights away and kick puppies.
Pretty sure we let him do whatever he wanted, so while he did exactly that, I think the people are to blame for their current situation than any poorly-spoken, mentally deficient elected official.
Not that it matters much, people are so apathetic towards the running of this country and the slow degradation of their rights, they'd rather argue on a forum about it than actually take any steps to fix anything.
I do not for a moment believe you have read the entirety of a 576 page report.
But even if we stick to just the summary of "yes, waterboarding is torture, and yes, bush/cheney are responsible for authorizing it", exactly what part are you refuting?
It took me a couple of days to actually read it dude... did you?
This report doesn't advocate anyone to be prosecuted...
Political face-saving. Nixon was pardoned for his crimes, too.
Whembly wrote:Do you really believe that we employ sadists and enjoy doing these things? I get the feeling that the anti-Bushies get off of the idea that the administrations were lawless psychopaths who enjoys butchering the enemy
Sadists? No. Well, not Bush. I'm not sure about Cheney. I suspect he's more in the morally-bankrupt camp than he is in the gains-sexual-pleasure camp.
Whembly wrote:Perhaps that is why there is so little will on the part of Obama and co. to more aggressively pursue his predecessor. Too many members of Congress, of both parties, and President Clinton himself, authorized the very things that Bush/Cheney did, and they do not want to face that inconvenient fact.
But we're not discussing Clinton or Obama. We're discussing Bush. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty in seeing things in a non-binary fashion. "But they did it too" does not make a bad action less bad.
I do not for a moment believe you have read the entirety of a 576 page report.
But even if we stick to just the summary of "yes, waterboarding is torture, and yes, bush/cheney are responsible for authorizing it", exactly what part are you refuting?
It took me a couple of days to actually read it dude... did you?
This report doesn't advocate anyone to be prosecuted...
Political face-saving. Nixon was pardoned for his crimes, too.
Nice try bucko... try reading it some more.
Whembly wrote:Do you really believe that we employ sadists and enjoy doing these things? I get the feeling that the anti-Bushies get off of the idea that the administrations were lawless psychopaths who enjoys butchering the enemy
Sadists? No. Well, not Bush. I'm not sure about Cheney. I suspect he's more in the morally-bankrupt camp than he is in the gains-sexual-pleasure camp.
Morally bankrkupt?? Wow...
Whembly wrote:Perhaps that is why there is so little will on the part of Obama and co. to more aggressively pursue his predecessor. Too many members of Congress, of both parties, and President Clinton himself, authorized the very things that Bush/Cheney did, and they do not want to face that inconvenient fact.
But we're not discussing Clinton or Obama. We're discussing Bush. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty in seeing things in a non-binary fashion. "But they did it too" does not make a bad action less bad.
*sigh*
I guess there's nothing for us to discuss.
There are other interesting things to discuss in this report (ie, how Gitmo was even debated in the report), but you're not interested in that.
azazel the cat wrote: No, I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in staying on-topic, which in this case involves debunking a hardcore Bush apologist.
Me?!?! A hardcore Bush apologist?
Bwahahahhahaha!!!!
Whooooooooo...
Funny man!
So... back on topic. Provide evidence YOU believe would indict Bush (or anyone for that matter) for war crimes.
That's not my job. This is a question of "should history view this guy as being favourable".
Waterboarding is torture.
Bush authorized waterboarding.
Therefore, Bush authorized torture.
So no, history will not be favourable to Bush (note, being "more favourable than when he left office" is not "favourable". "Favourable" is greater than 50% approval. He will never get that; he'll be lucky to have Nixon's 40%.)
azazel the cat wrote: That's not my job. This is a question of "should history view this guy as being favourable".
Waterboarding is torture.
Bush authorized waterboarding.
Therefore, Bush authorized torture.
So no, history will not be favourable to Bush (note, being "more favourable than when he left office" is not "favourable". "Favourable" is greater than 50% approval. He will never get that; he'll be lucky to have Nixon's 40%.)
azazel the cat wrote: That's not my job. This is a question of "should history view this guy as being favourable".
Waterboarding is torture.
Bush authorized waterboarding.
Therefore, Bush authorized torture.
So no, history will not be favourable to Bush (note, being "more favourable than when he left office" is not "favourable". "Favourable" is greater than 50% approval. He will never get that; he'll be lucky to have Nixon's 40%.)
Is it worse to waterboard someone for info, or drop a guided bomb on him?
Grey Templar wrote: I would say its also better than burning brands, the rack, or other unpleasant methods of torture. Waterboarding is fairly mild compared to those.
When did the policy changed? The "torture" aspect. When Obama went into office right? So the entire time the "torture" during Bush Admin was condone by both sides. I sure don't remember either party raising Caine to prosecute Bush/Cheney and whoever else were a party to that in that eight years and AFTER. I know Obama made it a political point when he ran for Pres. Yet he didn't say anything nor fought tooth and nail to make it right while he was senator. Democrats and Republicans are guilty of the charge of condoning torture till it became a positive political point.
Its torture for me to read words like "Boy-o" or "Buck-o". Seriously....torture for me.......
Less barbaric way is to turn them over to their gov't. Intell obtain after that no problem. How was it obtain...its their country
I concur... I was just bringing to attention that just because it claims to be "bipartisan" doesn't make it so. The ACLU and such advocacy group always need to be scrutinized because they're an advocacy group. amirite?
Very much so, but if there is good evidence that the organization is bipartisan (there are significant members of the Constitution Project from both parties), then claiming that it might not be is just a lame attempt dodging the point.
I concur... I was just bringing to attention that just because it claims to be "bipartisan" doesn't make it so. The ACLU and such advocacy group always need to be scrutinized because they're an advocacy group. amirite?
Very much so, but if there is good evidence that the organization is bipartisan (there are significant members of the Constitution Project from both parties), then claiming that it might not be is just a lame attempt dodging the point.
Yes, I did. It indicts the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. It is very much the production of a group that has shown itself to be quite libertarian.
azazel the cat wrote:But we're not discussing Clinton or Obama. We're discussing Bush. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty in seeing things in a non-binary fashion. "But they did it too" does not make a bad action less bad.
Congrats azazel, you've earned an exalt. OT could use more users like you.
Yes, I did. It indicts the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. It is very much the production of a group that has shown itself to be quite libertarian.
azazel the cat wrote:But we're not discussing Clinton or Obama. We're discussing Bush. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty in seeing things in a non-binary fashion. "But they did it too" does not make a bad action less bad.
Congrats azazel, you've earned an exalt. OT could use more users like you.
Wait a bit....people be coming to defend Obama and Clinton from this. Which I believe the next slam will be the Drones and the kill list...Bush put in place and Obama expanded on....wait....hey Brassscorpian...go ahead and post few of those articles lol
EDIT: don't you mean "credible"? (I know, I know...)
No, I meant "incredible". As in you claimed that the report was "incredible" due to its origination in a think tank.
Now Dogma if you start arguing about "incredible" you need to do it in a bad Steve Martin French accent and say "in..cred deeeee BLAH!"
and then follow it with shouting AMBURGAH!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Wait a bit....people be coming to defend Obama and Clinton from this. Which I believe the next slam will be the Drones and the kill list...Bush put in place and Obama expanded on....wait....hey Brassscorpian...go ahead and post few of those articles lol
I already asked that. Is it worse to dunk them under water or bomb them with your flying tonka toy of doom?
Didn't Republicans have the Senate when the "Torture Law" was passed along with the ability of the US military to apprehend and imprison terrorists awaiting trial? Now that the Democrats have the senate the Torture Law was removed(?) and investigated indepth for possible prosecution. No one went to jail but then though...Drone Strikes legality and target list became a hot issue that shoved the torture to the back burner.
edit
WHen I got water boarded I knew there was an "end" coming. I just had to last 30-45 min...lasted longer then what you think. That way they get a mind Frak in on you to. Worst part was the last two min when they go all out. Sleep depreivation was the worse. Racking the sand and standing asleep was funny. Your incoherent. You see things....you talk to yourself and convince yourself of all sorts of silliness. Most time though its "Why did I volunteer for this BS..."......."Oh ya....Carreer Progression". Barney though....fear the Barney...they bring out Barney then someone going to get roughed up for 24 hrs....hope your number is not called...another thing...you don't have names you have numbers....BTW they only speak english when your in the hot seat. majority of time its whatever they need to practice on. You will get a taste of pain. Holding DR8 wire and someone on the other end of the wire with a TA312 field phone.....Its to teach you what to expect...and what NOT TO DO OR SAY THAT MIGHT GET YOU EXECUTED. Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone, Sleep Deprievation is the best way to obtain info IMHO. Because extreme amount of pain the insurgent will say or agree to anything to make it stop. Example...same they use on us. Spanish Inquisition. Its not reliable because the individual is now giving up everyone and signing confessions so the pain can stop.
Why do the taxpayers have to foot the bill for polishing George W. Bush's image?
Dubya calls his new presidential library, which opens to the public today, "a place to lay out facts." I call it a 250 million dollar revisionist history lesson. The museum pays tribute to all of President Bush's greatest failures, from Iraq to Hurricane Katrina. Visitors can pull up briefing materials, videos and maps on a glass-topped Defending Freedom Table, right next to the Choking-On-A-Pretzel Recliner.
According to the New York Times, the Iraq War exhibit says that, "No stockpiles of W.M.D. were found.” But then adds, “Post-invasion inspections confirmed that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to resume production of W.M.D." I'm sorry, but I don't remember that. How can he resume production of something that was never there in the first place?
Then there's something called the Decision Points Theater:
In a new brick-and-limestone museum, visitors to an interactive theater will be presented with the stark choices that confronted the nation's 43rd president: invade Iraq or leave Saddam Hussein in power? Deploy federal troops after Hurricane Katrina or rely on local forces? Bail out Wall Street or let the banks fail?
Invade Iraq or leave Saddam in power? Who was demanding Bush make that choice? Nobody who wasn't insane.
It's like one of the questions in that "Would You Rather" game the kids like to play. Would you rather have your ass in the front, or a nose shaped exactly like a penis? You know, one of those "stark choices." Leaving Saddam in power wasn't a choice Bush had to make any more than leaving Tony Blair in power was.
But what's really galling is that, like with all presidential libraries, US taxpayers are on the hook for the day-to-day operating costs of Bush's Selfie Memorial. According to USA Today, "the federal government will spend more than $68.7 million this year on programming, operations and maintenance of 13 presidential libraries."
If you're looking for entitlements to cut, let's start with building shrines to douchebags. George W. Bush was not King Tut; he was President of the United States, and a lousy one at that. [//quote]
I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded by someone else.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.
Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.
Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.
Yeah, but isn't there a difference between a library and a shrine to him?
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.
Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.
Yeah, but isn't there a difference between a library and a shrine to him?
Well... they're all "shrine-ish"...
*shrugs*
I'll be honest, I've only been to the Truman Library and Clinton's Library. My take was, at least the two places I visited, were a "historical chest thumping" of the awesome presidency.
10 reasons Brass Scorpion posts from Left wing hippies but doesn't reply when challenged:
*He's really Bagdad Bob in disguise.
*A cat ate his REPLY key and he's too ashmed to admit a wiener dog would have made a much better pet.
*He gets paid for piece work. He gets $.32 an article post.
*He's Rush Limbaugh's hidden third brother, Bob (the furniture salesman-and good too!)
*Mongols don't react, they only ACT!
*I don't care what you say. 3rd Edition Dark Eldar had a lot going for them.
*Purge the Xenos. Its not just a phrase. Its a way of life.
*Wiener dogs are nature's pratfall comedians.
*Mother doesn't let him reply. You don't want to upset Mother. She's very strict. Aren't you Mother?
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.
Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.
Well not really there are only 13 of them. Just because something stupid is the norm is no reason to continue it. This is not just building a library in a needed area and naming it after a President. This is a vanity project pure and simple. It should be paid for from a foundation set up by the President, he is rich enough.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.
Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.
Well not really there are only 13 of them. Just because something stupid is the norm is no reason to continue it. This is not just building a library in a needed area and naming it after a President. This is a vanity project pure and simple. It should be paid for from a foundation set up by the President, he is rich enough.
Oh... don't get me wrong, I agree with you on that.
I'm surprised these are tax funded... I could've swore that these libraries were spent via donations.
Remember when this idiot called "W" pretended to land a fighter jet on a carrier in San Diego Bay and then declared "mission accomplished"? Well today is the anniversary of that really bad joke that dragged on for years and cost the US $6 trillion dollars. Oh yeah, then there's all the maimed and dead people too. Definitely part of why so many of us are glad he's no longer president of these United States.
Ten Years Ago: Bush Declared 'Mission Accomplished'—and the Media Swooned
Greg Mitchell on May 1, 2013 - 8:11 AM ET
George W. Bush declares the end of major combat operations in Iraq aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite.)
Today marks the tenth anniversary of Mission Accomplished Day, or as it might better be known, Mission (Not) Accomplished Day. Sadly, it comes amid another upheaval in sectarian violence in Iraq—two days ago The New York Times warned of a new “civil war” there—and a week after the attempts at Bush revisionism upon the opening of his library. We’re also seeing aspects of the run-up to the Iraq invasion playing out in the fresh, perhaps overheated, claims of chemical weapons in Syria.
In my favorite antiwar song of this war, “Shock and Awe,” Neil Young moaned: “Back in the days of Mission Accomplished/ our chief was landing on the deck/ The sun was setting/ behind a golden photo op.” But as Neil added elsewhere in the tune: “History is a cruel judge of overconfidence.”
Nowhere can we see this more clearly than in the media coverage of the event.
On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today op-ed, “Relax, Celebrate Victory.” The same day, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq—with the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner arrayed behind him.
Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a “hero” and boomed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.” He added: “Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple.”
PBS’ Gwen Ifill said Bush was “part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.” On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, “The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a—on a carrier landing.”
Bob Schieffer on CBS said: “As far as I’m concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time.” His guest, Joe Klein, responded: “Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me.”
Everyone agreed the Democrats and antiwar critics were now on the run. The New York Times observed, “The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.”
Maureen Dowd in her column did offer a bit of over-the-top mockery, declaring: “Out bounded the cocky, rule-breaking, daredevil flyboy, a man navigating the Highway to the Danger Zone, out along the edges where he was born to be, the further on the edge, the hotter the intensity.
“He flashed that famous all-American grin as he swaggered around the deck of the aircraft carrier in his olive flight suit, ejection harness between his legs, helmet tucked under his arm, awestruck crew crowding around. Maverick was back, cooler and hotter than ever, throttling to the max with joystick politics. Compared to Karl Rove’s ”revvin’ up your engine” myth-making cinematic style, Jerry Bruckheimer’s movies look like Lizzie McGuire.
“This time Maverick didn’t just nail a few bogeys and do a 4G inverted dive with a MiG-28 at a range of two meters. This time the Top Gun wasted a couple of nasty regimes, and promised this was just the beginning.”
When Bush’s jet landed on the aircraft carrier, American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded. That was over 4,300 American, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, fatalities ago.
Greg Mitchell’s So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits and the President Failed on Iraq has just published in a new e-book edition.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.
Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.
Well not really there are only 13 of them. Just because something stupid is the norm is no reason to continue it. This is not just building a library in a needed area and naming it after a President. This is a vanity project pure and simple. It should be paid for from a foundation set up by the President, he is rich enough.
For once, I think we are in total agreement.
Grey Templar wrote:So are your going to participate in the conversation or continue to post insanely biased drivel?
To be fair, it's not insanely biased... it factually was the anniversary of a pathetic publicity stunt that no sane person could claim was anything but.
However, I suspect that isn't the heart of your point.
<chirp>
