1
   

George Bush's Legacy

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 03:07 pm
Quote:


Sorry, Mr. President, But Your Legacy Is More Awful Than You Think

Bob Cesca

Rest assured, Mr. President, that despite what you told the Times Online today you won't be remembered solely as a war mongering president.

"Look, I think that in retrospect, you know, I could have used a different tone."

Different tone? Ya think?

War mongering is a significant aspect of your legacy, but I think we can conclude, and without much debate, that your legacy will also be one of criminality, failure and a degree of incompetence rarely achieved by any American president, much less one whose deficit of character is rivaled only by his nearly unprecedented lack of humility in the face of his unprecedented roster of inadequacies.

Sorry.

As it turns out, you won't have much control over your legacy and the history of your administration anyway. You might have some cursory input, but no-one really takes you seriously anymore and anything you put forth will be taken as just another work of fiction; another bit of propaganda.

Your legacy will ultimately be written by those of us who have been actively documenting your presidency in real time -- millions of voices authoring the narrative of your awful regime and preserving it with digital clarity one trespass at a time.

And everywhere we look, we can plainly observe your smirking, affectless footprint.

Death, poverty, war, pain, ignorance, blind patriotism, joblessness, and abandoned homes. And guess what? We're writing it down on the Internets. Your history, Mr. President, is being written at this very moment by those of us who are watching our homes collapse in value and our friends and relatives sent to places like Ramadi and Fallujah and, in some cases, Walter Reed or worse. Your history, Mr. President, isn't going to be settled and published decades from now. It's being published immediately and without the fog of memory to obscure the ugly details.

These ugly details are exhaustively researched and easily accessible.

[continued at]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sorry-mr-president-but-yo_b_106596.html


0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 04:42 am
rabel22 wrote:
MM
Your not trying to tie the domestic terroism to the Islamiast terroism are you. I would like to see that done without fabricating any facts please.


No, and I didnt say it was.

It was however, a terrorist attack on US soil during the Clinton admin, and that was the point I was making.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 06:01 am
I just watched the Bush Brown news conference in Downing street.

Bush got quite animated over Iran. It wouldnt surprise me if Israel launched a strike with American help at Iran's nuclear facilities before Bush leaves office.

Meanwhile Brown said oil supply was the most pressing world issue of the day. Really?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 04:44 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
The security plans put into motion by Bush must be working.


The alternative conclusion is that 9/11 was an aberration, and that our lead fisted response has been a waste of time and resources, that we have degraded our liberty and freedom for NOTHING, that we have completely destroyed our standing in the global community for NOTHING, that we have rubbed out our superpower status for NOTHING.


And another alternative conclusion is 9/11 woke up the angels who love America and they have been stopping terrorist attacks ever since.

Just because you can formulate an alternative conclusion doesn't mean it should be taken seriously.

How many examples of actual degradation of American citizens' liberty and freedom can you cite?

The rest of your rant is absurd hyperbole.

We have completely destroyed our standing in the global community?

Evidence?

As for "rubbing out our superpower status," I must have missed the news stories revealing that since 9/11, we no longer have the strongest economy and the most powerful military in the entire world. Can you provide links?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 05:19 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Part of the Bush legacy will be that after the 9/11 attack, there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil.


Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Hey, did i ever show you may patented elephant repellant? Well, look around . . . you don't see any elephants . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 05:23 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Yet the entire govt seemed to ignore those warnings, hence the 9/11 attack.
There have been no attacks since 9/11, so something the current admin did must be working.


Given that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad were the government for more than eight months before those attacks, you apparently are accusing them of ignoring those warnings, and hence, the September 11th attacks. I can go along with that.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 05:54 pm
Setanta wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Yet the entire govt seemed to ignore those warnings, hence the 9/11 attack.
There have been no attacks since 9/11, so something the current admin did must be working.


Given that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad were the government for more than eight months before those attacks, you apparently are accusing them of ignoring those warnings, and hence, the September 11th attacks. I can go along with that.


And the Clinton admin was in power for 8 years, yet we had a terrorist attack on the WTC during their admin.
We had a homegrown terrorist attack the federal building in OKC, killing over 100 people, and they were in power while the WTC attack was being planned and the Clinton admin allowed the 9/11 hijackers into the US.
I am not blaming Clinton or Bush exclusively, there is enough blame to go around.

But, have there been any terrorist attacks in the CONUS since 9/11?
If not, then something the current admin is doing must be working.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 06:34 pm
MM:
There has been no major terrorist attacks and few (if any) major attempts derailed by our intelligence and policing. Is this because the enemy already has what they want (our self destruction of our way of life) or is it because they are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?? We don't know, but we do know that the cost of the efforts is much of our liberty and freedom, our national government has become increasingly corrupt, we have spent a few hundred thousand lives (ours and of innocents) and at least $1 trillion (to date plus future costs even if we broke off the battle today) that we don't have that we have charged to future generations, and ruined what was left of our good national reputation..........are we get what we pay for???

If you answer yes I want to see your math.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 06:37 pm
Mistaken double post deleted
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 07:07 pm
fishin wrote:
Setanta wrote:
McKinley benefits from the historical ignorance of Americans.


That "historical ignorance" is pretty evident in many of the anti-Bush rants that are widely circulated too.

There has been a "survey" of a few hundred self-selected historians floating around claiming Bush is the "worst President ever!" but I suspect that when the dust settles and the wider body of historians set about writing the history books, that assesment will be significantly moderated. For one thing, both sides will have their opportunity to state their cases instead of only hearing from a self-selected group. Secondly, they'll be forced to review the records and prove their cases to their peers instead of offering anonymous opinions based on their current political beliefs.

Once the heavy publishing starts in earnest and those works are peer-reviewed many of the claims that Bush was the "First President ever to..." or the "Only President ever to..." will disappear.

I suspect his legacy will be largely built on the heated divide between left and right and Iraq more than anything else.

Bill Clinton's legacy is already turning out to be much less than his supporters claimed (and more than his detractors claimed...) it would be when he was leaving office. I suspect much of the same will happen with Bush.


While noting that historical ignorance can hardly be ascribed to those indulging the partisan bickering which you describe and which is contemporary, i largely agree with this.

Joe's comparison of Bush to Truman was very apt. It is entirely possible that Bush's image will be "rehabilitated" if we can get out of Iraq relatively quickly, and with relatively little pain. However, that is the immediate perception, and not the "historical legacy." It would be hard to put a date to it, but i'd say that "historical legacy" would refer to the perception of anyone by the time historians are writing the history of the times, and few or no people who were living then still survive.

But attempts by the left or the right to distort history to their own ends can crop up among historians, as well, if their partisan conviction is strong enough. An example from the Right is the continuing belief that FDR knew about the planned attack on Hawaii by the Imperial Navy, and that he did nothing.

The Martin-Bellinger report (March, 1941--named for the staff officers of the Navy and the Army Air Force responsible for air operations) almost uncannily predicted the likely results of an aerial assault on Hawaii given the conditions which obtained at the time. It was ignored by responsible parties.

ONI had largely broken Imperial Navy codes, and although the Imperial Navy changed their codes every three months, place names and names of ships could rather quickly be broken because of the context. (This was used in the summer of 1942, when false messages were broadcast about Midway island in a code we knew the Japanese had broken, and subsequent Japanese messages about Midway were quickly broken, despite the new code in place on June 1.) But the Japanese carriers had "gone missing" as of the code change on October 1, 1941, and they were never subsequently found, until hostilities began. Additionally, the Imperial Navy changed their code again on November 1, and that should have raised warning flags--it did, but was ignored by responsible parties, as was the fact that we didn't know where the carriers were.

An agent at the Japanese legation in Honolulu was sending in regular reports on the mooring of ships in Pearl Harbor, and generally acting like the Inspector Clouseau of diplomatic espionage. The FBI was tapping Western Union's telegraph lines out of Hawaii, and although they were pretty certain what was going on, they didn't have enough evidence to positively identify the spook at the legation, nor to move on the information. Most notoriously, this agent sent the what is now known as the "bomb plot" message, which detailed exactly where the battleships were moored when in port, as well as the locations of cruisers and navy work vessels. The importance of this message was ignored by responsible parties.

The responsible parties who whom i refer, however, were not FDR, nor the Secretary of War, nor the Secretaries of the Navy and the Army. I refer to Lt. General Walter Short, commander of the Army in Hawaii, and therefore the Army Air Force; and Husband Kimmel, the Navy's Commander in Chief, Pacific. In fact, ONI and the departments in Washington were paying close attention, and, on November 26, 1941, sent a war warning message to Short and Kimmel.

Short reacted, and reacted in a completely inappropriate manner. He had developed a fifth columnist paranoia, and had the fighters clustered in the middle of the airfields, and had the munitions bunkers put under lock and key so that saboteurs could not use AAA ammunition to blow up the planes. Fuchida and company could hardly believe what they were seeing when they attacked Hickham field and found the fighters set up like sitting ducks in the middle of the airfield (Short's idea was to keep them as far from the fences as possible, so that Japanese-American saboteurs could not get at them). Kimmel did just about nothing. (It is also worth noting that MacArthur did nothing, and he had news of the attack on Hawaii before his own aircraft were attacked on the ground in the Philippines. That attack came from Formosa, what we call Taiwan, and it was socked in with fog for hours after the attack on Hawaii--MacArthur had hours to respond, and he did nothing.)

Not everyone reacted badly, or failed to react, though. Halsey was steaming with a carrier division toward Wake Island when he received the war warning. He immediately ordered the division to go to a war footing, and to post watches accordingly and sent his destroyers out to aggressively search for submarines, with orders to attack any sub they encountered which was not supposed to be there (i.e., not known to be an American sub). The commander of the destroyer U.S.S. Blue on his own initiative began patrolling aggressively in Hawaii, and convinced the other destroyer commanders in his division to do so, and he found and attacked a sub at the entrance to the ship channel to Pearl Harbor the night before the attack, and again early on the morning of the attack. His superiors did not respond. The only radar available then in Hawaii was a mobile unit which reported a large flight of aircraft approaching from the north on the morning of the attack--they were told it was just some B17s coming from Los Angeles, and were ordered back to the base--they were then operating only at night! No one seems to have remembered that Los Angeles is east of Hawaii, not north, nor that the exact number of planes in the group of B17s (18, i think) was known, and did not approach the at least dozens which they mobile radar crew had reported. The duty officer who ordered them back to base did not report to his superiors.

Security for this operation was probably the finest the Imperial Navy ever enacted. The crews of Admiral Nagumo's First Air Fleet, including the flight crews and all flight officers except Fuchida did not know that they had trained for an attack on Hawaii, or that they were steaming to make such an attack, until they were at sea. The Japanese maintained perfect radio silence throughout the week which they required to reach the launch point north of Hawaii.

Nevertheless, the historical myth persists to this day that FDR had certain knowledge of the attack and did nothing because he wanted war.

The same thing comes from the Left, as well. At the time that Nixon started bombing North Vietnam, academic historians in the United States began to claim that the bombing of Germany in the Second World War had not affected their production, and that such bombing was futile.

To cobble this story together, it was necessary to indulge several distortions and to ignore a good deal of evidence which was well known. The basic bald claim was that the Germans reached the height of their war production after the Allies reached the peak of their bombing campaign. The distortions come in several forms. It ignores that German industry stopped producing consumer goods, including the crucial area of "durable goods." That may not seem important, but it's hard to feed a nation when farmers can't get farm machinery and tools--and the Germans were starving by late 1944. It ignores that the dramatic increase in the production of synthetic fuel resulted from the near destruction of the Ploesti oil fields in Romania by air raids which cost the United States Army Air Force horribly, but which cut German fuel supplies dramatically--one third of the petroleum upon which Germany relied came from Ploesti, and synthetic fuels did not make up the loss. It ignores that aerial bombardment lead the Germans to disperse their production facilities, and to set many of them up in remote areas or underground. This dramatically interfered with their ability to provide logistical support for their armies.

There were two other major distortions--these historical "analyses" relied upon early assessments by the Eighth Army Air Force of the effectiveness of their raids. The first distortion is that the AAF itself did not feel the raids were effective. In the early assessment, G2 did not know how properly to read aerial photographs of the targets after they had been bombed. A bomb which goes through the roof of a three story building can blow out the windows and doors, and destroy everything inside, but still leave a shell standing with what appears to be an essentially undamaged roof. One of their first targets was Schweinfurt in Franconia, which was the ball-bearing and roller-bearing "capital" of Germany. This was intended to cripple the German aircraft industry (hitting ball- and roller-bearing production would cripple the Navy and the armored divisions, as well), and the raid had a second mission, to attack the Messerschmidt factory at Regensburg. The casualties were horrible, and a second mission two months later was equally costly, leading Eighth Air Force to cancel all daylight missions into Germany for five months. These jokers in the 1970s were ignoring the fact that post-war analysis showed that daylight bombing was far more effective than it was thought to be at the time.

But these academic historians were either ignorant of good historiography in military history, or willfully ignoring the implications. Albert Speer, who was in charge of industrial production for Hitler, arrived at Schweinfurt the next day, and was appalled by what he saw. American daylight bombing doctrine called for 10% of bombs withing 1000 feet of ground zero. Post-war analysis shows that, despite the horrible casualties, bomber crews who survived to drop their bomb loads put almost 40% of their bombs within 1000 feet of ground zero. Since the industry was located within the town's commercial and residential districts, Army Air Force intelligence analysts were horrified to think that they had done nothing more than the English were doing with their night-time raids over German industrial cities' residential districts.

But Speer estimated that Germany had lost 65% of their ball- and roller-bearing production for three months. Not only had the bombing been more effective than G2 staff thought looking rather cluelessly at aerial photographs of the first major raid they had mounted, but as the ball- and roller-bearing factories relied on delicate and sensitive machine tools, even a near miss could put a machine out of action. Furthermore, sprinkler systems and the water pumped in by fire brigades further damaged the machine tools needed to make these items. This would play out in just about all the German factories we hit in daylight raids.

Speer's response, a completely reasonable one, was to disperse ball- and roller-bearing production, which further delayed the process of coming up to speed on that production, and made it more difficult and dangerous to assemble the needed parts for the production of aircraft, tanks and submarines. And this leads to the greatest historical facts which these partisan historians were obliged to ignore.

After the two disastrous Schweinfurt/Regensburg raids, Eight Army Air Force suspended daylight raids into Germany for five months--into early 1944. Eisenhower, planning his invasion of France, sought and received permission to take charge of Eighth Army Air Force and Royal Air Force Bomber Command operations in preparation for the invasion. His G3 officers came up with the Transportation Plan. They hit every highway and railway bridge, every tunnel, every railroad marshaling yard, every canal--every anything you could drive, cycle or walk on in western Germany and in France. They devastated the communication systems of France and Germany. Their efforts were so minutely targeted that Rommel accurately predicted that Normandy was the target months before the invasion (he was, of course, ignored--the United States was not the only country where military leaders believed what they wanted to believe, as opposed to the evidence before their eyes).

So, the Army Air Force had about two months of daylight bombing after they resumed the operations before Eisenhower's boys took over mission planning. Historians in the United States in the 1970s either knew this and ignored it, or were too stupid about military history to realize the depth of their hebetude. That German production may have reached a peak after daylight bombing reached that putative peak was meaningless in the face of the destruction of the communications network. It doesn't do you much good to produce the finest ball-bearings in the world if you can't reliably deliver them to the folks who are depending on them.

After the Normandy invasion, the Transportation Plan pretty quickly ran out of targets. Their resources were enormous--on D-Day, the Army Air Force and the Royal Air force flew 14,827 sorties over Normandy (a sortie is one plane flying one mission--a plane can fly more than one sortie per day, and with the target being Normandy, they could fly several). Soon, they were reduced to bombing crossroads in Normandy. They were killing more Normans than they were Germans. By August, the French were complaining bitterly, and Eisenhower's staff admitted that they didn't really know what else they could blow up. Eisenhower released the bomber forces to make their own mission plans, and by then the P51 Mustang was available to escort the bombers to the target, escort them back to Aachen (the farthest range of the P47 Thunderbolts and Hawker Hurricanes who escorted them home), and still had hours to shoot up everything in sight. Locomotive busting was a favorite pastime, because the results were so spectacular if you hit the sumbitch. I saw Chuck Yeager in a televison interview, and he said: "What the Spitfire could do for 40 minutes, the Mustang could do eight hours." Adolf Galland, the head of the Lutfwaffe fighter command at the end of the war, tells how Mustangs would follow German fighters home, and shoot the Hell out of the airfield when they got there. By the end of the war, Galland recounts that they were landing on logging roads in forests, and hiding their planes under canopies in clearings. Asked after the war when he knew it was lost, Goering said when he saw the first Mustang over Berlin.

If for no other reason, the dispersement of German industry and the destruction of the communications network assured the fatal crippling of the German war machine. There were many other problems, as well. The Germans tended to "overbuild" their equipment. When the Imperial War Museum (in England) was restoring a Focke-Wulf 190 in the 1980s, they sent the engine and shaft to Rolls-Royce to be checked out. It was sent back, and they were told that it was in good condition, but not to damage it, because Rolls-Royce could not grind shafts and bearings to that fine a tolerance. The Tiger and Panther series tanks had no equals on the battlefield, but they were high maintenance tanks, and the destruction of the communications system meant that it was increasingly difficult for units to keep their machines in the field. They also produced a few thousand of them, while the Soviet Union produced more than 80,000 T-series tanks, and the United States produced 50,000 of the Sherman tanks alone. The Germans in the field had a saying: "A tiger tank can take out 10 Shermans before they can get him--and the Amis (the Americans) always have at least 11."

The final nail in the coffin of this left-wing historical myth is that the analogy fails altogether. Germany had to produce all the equipment it used, even if it stole raw materials and slave labor from other nations. Any success in bombing raids was a serious blow to their ability to make war. But North Vietnam was simply a customer--they didn't manufacture their AK47s, their MiGs or their SAM missiles--they were supplied by the Soviet Union, by Warsaw Pact nations or by China. That's why the Navy bombed Holy Livin' Hell out of Haiphong harbor. In the Second World War, we could get at German production. In Vietnam, we couldn't "bomb 'em into the stone age," they had barely left that condition. We could not affect their war materials production, because it wasn't in Vietnam.

These clowns produced a serious distortion of history in order to attack to the bombing campaign against North Vietnam, when the best argument against it apparently escaped them altogether. Nevertheless, the historical myth that Allied bombing failed to harm German industrial production in World War Two persists to this day.

You perhaps didn't know those details, but i'm sure that principle comes as no surprise to you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 07:09 pm
mysteryman wrote:
But, have there been any terrorist attacks in the CONUS since 9/11?
If not, then something the current admin is doing must be working.


Yeah, sure, sure . . . see my elephant repellent analogy again . . .
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 10:10 am
Bush Legacy, interesting subject.

Here are a few points that will become clearer as Bush's legacy and placed into context with time:

Liberation of 50 million Muslims, put the Taliban and Al Qaeda on their heels, and no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. This is in response to one of the most heinous and severe attacks by any terrorist organization in history, serving notice in earnest that the Western world was under seige by those factions and their millions of supporters around the world. Bush treated terrorism as a war problem, not a law enforcement problem as the previous administration did, which was an important and successful policy decision. The administration improved our ability to track and monitor terrorists and their communications, through the Patriot Act, etc., although the entire issue has been politicized by Bush's political opponents.

Work on Deployment of Missile Defense System. This is a vital and key foundation to an effective defense of the world, Europe, etc., for a long time to come.

Nomination and successful seating of 2 excellent Supreme Court justices. The impact and positive effect upon our judicial system for many years to come is difficult to estimate, but is very substantial.

Was able to continue a period of successful economic conditions and growth in the U.S., through tax cuts, etc.

The primary negative, as currently perceived by the majority of the public, is the war in Iraq turned out to be more difficult and costly than probably hoped, although much of what has happened has gone according to predictions, but the war has made important positive strides and could / should be ultimately successful. Public perception is still in a state of flux, and will continue to be until history makes further judgements. Success may turn on how Iran is either successful or not in gaining sway in Iraq, or whether Iraq progresses and emerges as a beacon of independence as an ally of the U.S. in the region. The future will largely determine Bush's legacy, whether positive or negative. If successful, Bush will have proven the naysayers wrong, and will have set himself apart as a rare example of one with unusual and daring vision that brought about positive change to a traditionally negative situation or region. He will have joined another such example, Ronald Reagan, who dared to challenge conventional wisdom of his time.

One black cloud that remains to be seen how it plays out, is the continued deficits that expand the federal debt. Bush failed to reign in spending, and the clock continues to tick in regard to various entitlements that threaten the country's future. To his credit, Bush proposed sweeping changes to Social Security in an effort to improve / fix it, but failed to get anything pushed through Congress. On other fronts, Bush expanded spending programs in a big way with the prescription drug program, education spending, etc. Congress deserves to take partial credit or blame for spending.

Immigration policy was pretty much a failure although the administration made a few positive steps late in the game, with mixed results. Generally, he has failed to really fix a problem that not only relates to economics, culture, but also to the terrorist problem.

There are several things Bush proposed that never went anywhere, so Congress can either take the blame or credit, example energy production. I view it as blame, and this will become clearer as time passes. But Bush is not entirely a lame duck in regard to a few things, such as gasoline prices, and may yet get a few things enacted.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 10:15 am
I think part of the legacy of GWB will be the continued legal over-turning of his decisions and programs.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/23/appeals-court-rules-against-bush-administration-in-enemy-combatant-case/

Quote:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has "overturned the Pentagon's classification of a Guantanamo detainee as an enemy combatant," undermining "the basis for his more than six years in detention." The court also rejected the argument that the President can "detain people who never took up arms against the U.S.," dealing another setback to the Bush administration's detention program.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 06:32 pm
This also will be part of Bush' legacy

Sewage plant honor for Bush

Quote:
San Francisco - Other US presidents have Mt Rushmore, statues, airports and libraries.

When US President George W Bush leaves office in January he may well have another monument to his achievements: a San Francisco sewage plant.

That's the idea behind a ballot initiative that's likely to be put before San Francisco voters in the November elections when the satirically-named Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco will ask voters to approve changing the names of the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant to the George W Bush Sewage Plant.

During the inauguration, the group also wants supporters to participate in a "synchronised flush", which they say would be a "fitting monument to this president's work".


Source
0 Replies
 
mellow yellow
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 08:30 pm
From the '70's onward, Cheney and Rumsfeld always believed in the unfettered power of the executive and how it should free itself from the restraints of international law. Bush the Younger had the connections of the Elder's backing (both in the petrol business and in civilian intelligence), and this school of neocon political thought sought to do four things: release the American presidency from its so-called restraints; establish fourteen bases in Mesopotamia (the Pentagon's wet-dream); maintain the American position as the guarantor of Arab petrol; secure a "great power" presence in the Middle East. Above all, such thought sought to rewrite the basis of international relations (in the Westphalian sense).

His legacy? To the AEI and its cohorts within the Isreal lobby, I am certain he is a super-hero; to the rational citizen, on the other hand, he is far from it. Then again, I have seen portraits of Ronald Reagan in some houses. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 09:44 pm
mellow yellow wrote:
From the '70's onward, Cheney and Rumsfeld always believed in the unfettered power of the executive and how it should free itself from the restraints of international law. Bush the Younger had the connections of the Elder's backing (both in the petrol business and in civilian intelligence), and this school of neocon political thought sought to do four things: release the American presidency from its so-called restraints; establish fourteen bases in Mesopotamia (the Pentagon's wet-dream); maintain the American position as the guarantor of Arab petrol; secure a "great power" presence in the Middle East. Above all, such thought sought to rewrite the basis of international relations (in the Westphalian sense).

His legacy? To the AEI and its cohorts within the Isreal lobby, I am certain he is a super-hero; to the rational citizen, on the other hand, he is far from it. Then again, I have seen portraits of Ronald Reagan in some houses. Shocked


Thus, the AEI and its "cohorts" are irrational.

Supporters of Israel are, therefore, irrational?

Those who regard Ronald Reagan as a superior leader are irrational?

Fair enough.

So who is rational?

Supporters of Hamas?

Denounceres of the Reagan legacy?

Supporters of a continued Cold War status with the Soviet Union?

Supporters of high levels of taxation?

Supporters of Hezzballah?

Supporters of Islamic Jihad?

Supporters of Al Qaeda?


Who, precisely, is rational?
0 Replies
 
mellow yellow
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:08 pm
Quote:
Thus, the AEI and its "cohorts" are irrational.


To utilize American hard power and squander our good standing (consider it an international "credit" rating) in the world for the sake of petrol assurances and unconditional support of Israel's foreign policy is irrational. This is not speculative.

Quote:
Supporters of Israel are, therefore, irrational?


A sweeping statement, for sure! No, I would say that zealous Zionist proponents and activists may be irrational in their analyses of their own situation and those of others. As Golda Meir noted (PM of Israel in the early '70s), "...there is no such thing as a Palestinian."

Quote:
Those who regard Ronald Reagan as a superior leader are irrational?


See Reagan and Contras (or ex-Somoza guards), Nicaragua 1981. Also, Reagan was bent on Armageddon (see Jerry Falwell); in his first term in office, he noted on various occasions that nuclear war was survivable. Also on Reagan...

President Reagan and his attorney general, Edwin Meese III, whose personal corruption came under investigation, ridiculed the plight of the poor and challenged the Constitution itself, saying that it was only a piece of paper. Meese repeatedly asserted the principle that arrested people were to be considered guilty until proven otherwise. Reagan put his and Meese's California friend Luis Guiffrida in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which laid plans to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, and intern several hundred thousand people without due process. Secretary of State George Shultz lobbied vigorously (with indirect success) for a pre-emptive strikes bill that would give him authority to list "known and suspected terrorists" within the United States who could be attacked and killed by government agents with impunity. Shultz admitted (in a public address in October 25, 1984) that the strikes would take place on the basis of information that would never stand up in a court of law and that innocent people would be killed in the process. He insisted, however, that people listed would not be permitted to sue in court to have their names taken off that list.

There is much more on Reagan.

Quote:
So who is rational?


Those that proceed from rational arguments, but not strictly; that happens on paper, for the most part. In politics, the rational may even be deleterious. So some would say it depends on your context.

Quote:
Supporters of Hamas?


No. They call for the complete destruction of the Israeli state and have carried out heinous terrorist acts that have propagated the conflict instead of establishing a platform for discussions.

Quote:
Denounceres of the Reagan legacy?


In many respects, yes.

Quote:
Supporters of a continued Cold War status with the Soviet Union?


I doubt such a match (in economy and might) will come about any time soon in this rivalry; especially not to the same extent. To say that such a stance is called for between our old (and challenging) adversary is to neglect vital changes in the international arena. We are all in competition (whether or not we are talking about individuals or states), though now Russia is not dominated through communism. A continued cold war stance would be futile.

Quote:
Supporters of high levels of taxation?


That depends on the object of the tax.

Quote:
Supporters of Hezzballah?

Supporters of Islamic Jihad?

Supporters of Al Qaeda?


The entire ME region is transforming rapidly, especially with the introduction of information and communication technologies; and so is the idea of Jihad. Originally the term meant "internal revelation or struggle" for the sake of the self and society, and the Qur'an mentions it on many occasions in this regard. But it became extended outward by various social/religious groups and (jihad bil Saif - or Jihad as warfare) was revamped to a variety of extreme interpretations based on their world-views. For example, the classic manuals of Islamic law (as-sayf) include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas. Modern (extremist) interpretation does not consider this.

The traditional interpretation of Jihad is quite consistent and rational for the Islamic world; the contemporary twists on the idea of jihad are anything but.

Quote:
Who, precisely, is rational?


I have met some rational people (really Shocked! where?). I know some police officers and detectives that are surprisingly rational (given the "idiot" stereotype that is attached to them), and some professors and mathematicians I know personally are rational as well. To be a bit less vague, I would say that an individual is rational if they understand their own arguments and those of others, and especially if they comprehend certain moral precepts.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2008 08:27 am
Maybe a poor attempt at lighthearted humor, but I think one of Bush legacies can be the president with the most interesting photo ops.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eYv1cN0MbcJ8/610x.jpg

Quote:
14 hours ago: U.S. President George W. Bush arrives for a dinner at the private residence of Clay and Ann Johnson in Washington June 29, 2008.


source
Wonder if they ran out of room to park or what.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/images/20070505-1_f050507jb-0110jpg-675v.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/BushDirtyLittle911SecretExposed1_files/Bushresponse.jpg
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:30 pm
revel wrote:
Maybe a poor attempt at lighthearted humor, but I think one of Bush legacies can be the president with the most interesting photo ops.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eYv1cN0MbcJ8/610x.jpg

Quote:
14 hours ago: U.S. President George W. Bush arrives for a dinner at the private residence of Clay and Ann Johnson in Washington June 29, 2008.


source
Wonder if they ran out of room to park or what.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/images/20070505-1_f050507jb-0110jpg-675v.jpg

Do you seriously think these are funny?

OK the third photo might be in a insulting way, but the first two?

Bush getting out of a car while wearing a Hawaiian shirt and a black man holds open the door: F*cking hilarious and so pointed!

Bush holding a bike in one hand! Stop, I'm dying! (must be the grey socks).

Bush looking concerned. Hilarious in itself, but when you juxtapose it against a grade school chalk board --- comic genius!

Wait, I get it you have to have watched that Michael Moore movie to get how funny this image is.

Stay away from the local comedy club - don't quit your day job.

(Find some other photos - there must be only a few thousand from which to choose.)

[If ever an eye rolling emoticon was called for]



http://home.att.net/~south.tower/BushDirtyLittle911SecretExposed1_files/Bushresponse.jpg
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 07:28 am
Your right; i would never make it as a comedian, shouldn't even try here. But every now and then I make an effort..

Anyway, the first i just thought it was odd for a president of the US to have to get out of a car by climbing over an hydrogen. The second was in reference to the Bike incident (was it two?), not really funny but memorable all the same (perhaps too subtle). The third was not funny at all but sad.

The Bush 9/11 Split Screen Video - My Pet Goat - WTC attacks


Legacy in the making.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2022 at 04:42:22