13 Reasons To Be Glad Bush Is No Longer President by Think Progress

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

So no one is quoting the wise sayer Kayne West and his deep insight into GWB's handling of Katrina?

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
whembly wrote:

...
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.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
There are plenty of things to criticize him

Not the least of which, his pretzel eating technique.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
There are plenty of things to criticize him

Not the least of which, his pretzel eating technique.

*snort* I remember that.

**Jihadin**

Or the confusion of knowing what the right hand does " left hand raised" that the left doesn't know "Right hand raised"

**BrassScorpion**

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.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/29/1931821/after-casting-key-fifth-vote-for-bush-justice-oconnor-now-regrets-bush-v-gore/

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**

We get it... Bush is evil... can you move on now?

**djones520**

Misrepresenting much?

She didn't say anything about regretting her vote. She said that maybe the court shouldn't have taken the case.

It's entirely differant.

**kronk**

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.

**BrassScorpion**

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.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/features-of-george-w-bush-presidential-library,32240/

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

**djones520**

BrassScorpion, swoop and pooper.

**Frazzled**

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**

Frazzled wrote:
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!

**azazel the cat**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Seaward**

Peregrine wrote:
Would you like to volunteer to be waterboarded? Or you could take the easy way out and just read the first-hand account from a pro-war conservative who used to think that it wasn't so bad: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

I strongly suspect Jihadin's been to SERE.

I'm also not sure that pointing out a bloated intellectual didn't enjoy the process is all that necessary. Nobody enjoys it.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
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?

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
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.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
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.

"US's own bipartisan" doesn't exist.

That's a thinktank boyo...

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
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.

"US's own bipartisan" doesn't exist.

That's a thinktank boyo...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/bipartisan-report-u-s-practiced-widespread-torture-torture-has-no-jusification-and-doesnt-yield-significant-information-nations-highest-officials-bear-responsibility.html

Which thinktank, boyo?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/16/3347449/report-us-resorted-to-torture.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/torture-report-cnn-terrorism-iran

Or, more importantly, why don't you explain exactly how their report is biased, as you are obviously implying.

**BrassScorpion**

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?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/29/fox-focuses-bush-rehabilitation-effort-on-young/193821

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.

**kronk**

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.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/bipartisan-report-u-s-practiced-widespread-torture-torture-has-no-jusification-and-doesnt-yield-significant-information-nations-highest-officials-bear-responsibility.html

Which thinktank, boyo?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/16/3347449/report-us-resorted-to-torture.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/torture-report-cnn-terrorism-iran

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.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

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.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:

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.

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:

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?

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:

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.

**Frankenberry**

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.

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

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.