Simply The Best - Bush Assessment
W'S MISTAKES doesn't dwell much on Bush's accomplishments, though Mr. Lowry does mention that the Bush Administration had the fewest scandals of any in our lifetimes. In fact, if Libby is it, then the Bush Presidency could be certified scandal-free.
And while the title may sound quite negative to the President's admirers, what Lowry has done is itemize Bush's mistakes calmly and rationally. The list is low key, yet stunningly accurate, and so much so that I think every future President should read it before the start of each new day and pay close attention to what reads like a Ten Commandments for the job.
Comments
1. Not the only example of this, but the first I found. Halliburton and subsidiaries ripping off taxpayers:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/12/politics/main588216.shtml
2. Granting mercenary agencies legal immunity in Iraq by granting CPA orders the force of law and then proceeding to write it into their *Constitution*.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf
(PDF)
and
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/government/TAL.html
The first link is the CPA order itself, the second is the Iraqi Consitution. If you really care, I'll even provide the relevant Article.
3. Literally throwing away billions of dollars:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0631295120070207
4. Allowing mercenaries, foreign and domestic, with questionable legal status to operate on American soil. Bush doesn't hate blacks, he hates common sense.
5. Administration-endorsed (verbal) attacks on dissenters.
6. Using his executive authority to write law allowing whatever president has the sand to do it to turn this country into a dictatorship, via Executive Order 51.
That's not the whole list, just what immediately comes to mind. Every item on the list strikes me as far more scandalous (except #5) strikes me as far more scandlous than some moron lying about his ability to keep it in his pants. Much of that (1 to 3) was done under a veil of serecy, and others, while not exactly secret, were done in a manner as to suggest that he didn't really have an interest in subjecting himself to the risks of scrutiny by pulling it out of his backend. Any criticism of his administration's behaviour was handled by incidents like #5. Who was it again? Rumsfeld or Ashcroft that likened any American who dared to dissent (against the action in Iraq) as the modern day equivalent of Nazi apologists?
If scandal is defined soley by media reaction, then I suppose that sure, he's just about scandal-free with all that flying under the radar. Deserving of that status? No.. That they aren't being showcased doesn't mean they're not there.
Long-winded, I know, but that is what I'm getting at. It was originally intended as an aside about what you wrote.
I don't know with whom you're used to discussing these sorts of things, but I have standards of logic and evidence, none of which you've met.
Let's start with your opening comment which I chose not to criticize owing to the distinct possibility that such criticism might have caused you to forgo your "proof" under the guise that I'm biased when in fact, there is no one less biased than I, and I wish I could say the same about you.
That answer was wholly non-responsive and would have been objected to in court. It's also a non-sequitur, but even if it made sense, you are not in a position to know how if it's "hard... when..." That's mere speculation.
In addition, How would you know how secretive the Bush Administration was both in terms of its own operation and relative to other administrations? Answer: you don't - more speculation. In fact, the Bush administration may be far less secretive, but better able to keep those few secrets than Clinton was, and it could be argued that Clinton's public "secrets" were far more damaging... we could argue that if we knew what to compare them with.
But we (meaning: you) don't. Because if you know Bush Administration secrets, they aren't secrets. Nevertheless, you then provided a list of supposed secrets that have been uncovered and designated as fact. And you've gone further by implying that they are not only fact, but they are damaging to Bush or to us, or... who knows?
Regardless, I asked you for examples and you were certainly not short on listing what you consider examples of Bush secrecy and of attacking those critical of the Bush Administration, but before I get to them, I have to take note of your preposterous claim that "Clinton's not smart enough or doesn't have the right kind of support"
Which begs the question: how old are you? I mean, were you old enough to be aware of Clinton and his gang of thugs? And to claim that he's not smart enough must have eyes on both sides rolling. He was touted as a genius, and only during the recent campaign did loony lefties realize what we knew all along - that there's nothing special there. So you may be using hindsight in claiming he wasn't smart enough, but fools on the left were dancing merrily in his later years as President because they felt he was so adept at outsmarting everyone.and circumventing the law.
Now I'm certainly not going to devote this much effort to your list which is also filled with opinion and speculation and short on evidence, but then you're probably one who claims "Bush lied" and you can prove it despite the fact that you can't.
Also, I am not going to follow your links. I asked that YOU provide examples, and the last time I asked one of your lot to do that, I did allow him to present links, and after reading them closely, he turned out to be a moron. if you look back on this blog, you'll find the episode, and like you, this fellow (the name "David" sticks in my mind for some reason) thought he was very perceptive and rational when he was anything but.
And despite saying all that I read the first few paragraphs of your first link which offers nothing whatsoever to substantiate your point. What were you thinking? I asked you to show how Bush was secretive and/or how he attacked his critics, and your first example is about Haliburton and how they MAY have overcharged the Pentagon, but that they didn't profit from it because THEY were overcharged? Are you crazy? Not only has that got nothing to do with Bush, but it wasn't even an attempt to defraud, though the article seems to want to portray it as such.
So one down...
2) As Michael Scott might say, restate that so a five-year-old can understand it. Then I doubt it would sound anywhere near as ominous as you'd like.
3) Huh? What do you think Congress is doing right now? But again. How was Bush secretive about it? Oh, and while I'm at it, even if there was secrecy involved how does that involve the President himself? Waste is terrible, but it is not, in and of itself evidence of secrecy, much less criminality.
4) I won't even deal with. It's both nonsensical and apparently your opinion, which is now suffering greatly in the credibility department.
5) This is EXACTLY what I asked you to prove. And you answer with a restatement? Don't tell me, you went to public school, and later got a GED?
6) While you finally said something which can be understood, it assumes facts not in evidence. Bush has issued Presidential statements, and some or all of them -could- be bad things, but he's not the first to do so, nor are any of them turning America into a dictatorship. Hyperbole never works when you're asked to prove something. Not to mention that they are not secret,
So it would appear that you've struck out - twice!
But here's what I've learned - that despite your protestation, you are a far left loon, which I already knew, but I was more than happy to allow you to demonstrate that you were moderate if you could. Ironically, it wasn't your "points" about Bush that ultimately did you in it was your assertion that your gripes about Bush were "far more scandlous than some moron lying about his ability to keep it in his pants."
They might have been - or they might be if you could make your point with any one of them, but failing that, you have completely mischaracterized the Clinton debacle as leftists are so determined to do. So I declare that I'm saying this for the last time, and from now on, anyone who voices such nonsense will be immediately dispensed with...
Clinton lied under oath - a violation of his own oath and the laws of this country, and he was found liable for doing so, not by the Congress, but by a judge. And in doing what he did, he attempted to deprive another person of the justice she was seeking. The actual act which Clinton lied about is irrelevant since his lie had much greater importance, and people who have lied under similar circumstances about things of similar consequence have served jail terms.
Now let's tidy up... I noticed your spelling of "behaviour," which I presume was not a typo. In which case, before you say anything else, please tell me why am I even talking to you?
Finally, there's this:
"Who was it again? Rumsfeld or Ashcroft that likened any American who dared to dissent (against the action in Iraq) as the modern day equivalent of Nazi apologists?"
How dare you. provide the actual quote and attribution, or don't come back.
Liberals want to force all of us to join a society like "Animal Farm" & that they will have the same outcome doesn't trigger a thought in their little minds. It's frightening to me just how close to "Brave New World" we have become!
Because we certainly aren't "one," and that sort of talk makes me feel that we'll be "runners" trying to avoid capture in the not-too-distant-future. There's nothing going on that's not scary.
And Barry just came out of Commercial saying, "We are one... Bubinski, do you feel like one?" Michelle Larson said, "I'm not quite there... because he wasn't so much elected as he was anointed."
And Barry just pointed out that February is Black History Month.
I wrote a piece yesterday that I didn't post because it read too negatively, but I don't see any hope whatsoever. it's the thirties all over again but with far bigger stakes, and we're gonna have to go through it. I also wrote two columnists, John Stossel and Jack Kelly about their nonsensical prescriptions for fixing the financial mess.
Both decry the bailouts and the deficit spending, but both see more spending by the consumer financed by lower taxes as the answer, and Stossel thinks that the answer is less government regulation and more "buyer beware," when ti comes to investment. It's not the first time Stossel said something insane, and it's spending of all kinds that got us where we are.
So the only long-term solution is for people to learn that saving is good for its own sake, but that is not only not likely to happen if for no other reason than a lot of people will now have nothing to save and nothing left in their savings. I don't see anything but a long period of contraction, but if the politicians avoid that with the bailout mentality, it would seem that we'll just be putting off a collapse for a decade, more or less.
And just think, the column I didn't post was far more negative than this...
I like Stossel too. But he's an idealist libertarian (is that redundant?) He even made some very good points - then came to the wrong conclusion.
As for your suggestion, I'm on it. But first, and it's my perennial problem, I have to get past the gripes. Luckily, that doesn't mean I have to voice them all first, it just seems like that.
I'm happy for you! The truth of the matter is that what you read here is not how I am in person. I may seem totally focused on the negative and it seems even to me that I'm ranting incessantly, but in reality, I can
't wait for The Office tonight... and the Suns getting creamed by the Denver Nougats, and the ton of forensics shows I have recorded.
But I want you to know that I'm here for you, and I actually mean that. Anytime you think I can be of assistance, just let me know, because I see you, madam, as the best of the best.
LOL! It's basketball. I'll have nothing to do with football. And no, it's the Nuggets, but don't you think Nougats is catchier?
Yesterday,I made my wife read an article about Cleveland, and she couldn't believe it. Then we saw a show on TLC about someone with a condition that required they live in a cooler climate, so I said to my wife who thinks Phoenix is too cold in the winter, "If I get that, will you come with me?"
Wife:
Me: Hey, If I had to move to a cold climate, are you with me?
Wife: I'm thinking...
Me: Oh that's great.
Wife: It doesn't have to be THAT cold.
Me (thinking north): So how far would you go?
Wife: Hawaii?
I swear!