Things i like about George.W.Bush

tommrr wrote:

Quote:

i guess so..hitler references are useful at times...but he was a really bad guy so one should be careful about name dropping..

How true. However, it is popular here and on many other boards to compare Hitler to Bush. Like I said, you will get used to seeing it thrown around from time to time.

People use the ol' Hitler thing in lots of cases, not just for comparison to bush. I hope everyone that got upset about the comparison in this case also points out the ad Nazium fallacy when the religious right uses it to score cheap points in arguing against abortion.

Physgrad: you haven't heard that brought up in abortion discussions? hmm...maybe you're not on the right far enough... it's actually pretty frequently brought up, you know, "Nazis didn't value life either"... it came up w/ Terri Schiavo too; i heard Michael Savage on the radio and several other fox "news" types use it.

I don't get it. All of America is glued to their TV sets . . . you've got people rushing out of government buildings all across Washington, D.C., and you don't notify the president of the United States? For an hour? Until after it's all over? Because, what, you don't want to disturb his bike ride in Maryland? I'm sorry, I just don't get it. . . .
"After I watched '[Fahrenheit] 9/11,' one of the parts that made me the angriest was the part about 'My Pet Goat.' I thought it was a cheap shot. I said, seven, eight, nine minutes, big deal. But here you have an attack going on -- or something most Americans thought was an attack -- for 15, 20, 30 minutes and the president of the United States not notified. Why?"

Tommrr: You misunderstand. I do not admire Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. Neither do i despise him; i do consider him a fascinating subject of study in American history. In fact, the most valid comparison of TR to the Shrub (which i said i would not provide, but i relent) is that both subscribe to a might makes right policy for American foreign policy. Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge happened to have called it a "forward policy," but it is essentially the same as the policy put forth by the PNAC. Roosevelt and Lodge both pushed for war with Spain long before the sinking of Maine came along as a causus belli. Leonard Wood, who was to be Roosevelt's regimental commander in Cuba, was, before the war, the personal physician of President McKinely. To his everlasting credit (and he sure needs all the credit he can get in view of how he behaved after the war) McKinely was opposed to war with Spain. He would frequently ask of Wood: "Well, Leonard, have you and Theodore declared war on Spain yet?" Wood's reply was usually something to the effect of: "No, Mr. President, but we're hoping you will soon." Roosevelt and Lodge were considered radicals by the rest of the Republican Party, and hence Mark Hanna's disgust with him. Thomas Platt, the Republican boss of New York, was even less enchanted with him. It was Platt's idea to propose him for the Vice Presidency, and it seemed to have been a canny plan. Platt wanted Roosevelt out of the Governor's mansion in New York, and he wanted to neutralize him politically. There are few offices to which one could aspire which were more useless than that of Vice President. Platt thought he would kill two birds with one stone, and get Roosevelt not simply out of the Governor's mansion, but send him off into the political wilderness. As is obvious, the entire plan blew up in Platt's face.

Republicans since Roosevelt, until the time of Ronald Reagan, were isolationist in their view. In that sense, Roosevelt was "ahead of his time," in promoting the idea that America must seek to attain and maintain military and political hegemony in the world.

So, i find him fascinating, but i by no means admire him. I recommend that you read several biographies, because there will always be subtle differences in the assessment of the biographer, and many biographies are, unfortunately, panegyrics, and somewhat less reliable as a result. Another good way to get to know TR is less obvious to those who don't study history obsessively. Read TR's biography of Oliver Cromwell. Not only will you learn about someone i personally consider to be the most fascinating figure in English history (and no, i don't admire him), but you will learn a great deal about TR's world view in the process.

Tommrr: Here you go:

Roosevelt, Theodore, Oliver Cromwell. New York, Scribner, 1900.

There is a serious difference. The right tried for six years to find something on Clinton and came up dry. Bush, even without trying is among the most dull witted, incompetent, dishonest presidents weve had since Warren Harding.
Hes trashed our economy for reasons that the right keeps trying to make up as they go along

Hes inarticulate, a sure sign that hes being managed.

His oil cronies will, Im sure, it will be found later, are cynically manipulating the refining means and supply routes of oil. Those "hurricane platforms payed more to the companies by not pumping"

his lack of morals is also a matter of record as he's an admitted adulterer.

Don't go there on the who's more moral crap. I'll have to post a gazillion links of proof that this was a total fabrication in order to win religious right votes.

Tico wrote
About Clinton

Quote:

his lack of morals is also a matter of record as he's an admitted adulterer.

Unless you are married to him what business is it of yours if he screwed around.

I suppose from the religious rights prospective adultery is worse than the unjust wars and the killing of thousands.

There is no proof for those who's minds are made up against it.