Are these closing sentences serious?

"Bush pushed democracy, pushed the constitutional powers of his office, and pushed conservative ideology to its limits, with some success and some notable failures. I’m still waiting for a Democrat who will try and do the same."

What might be the results? Even more divided government? What does absolute power do? I'd rather wait for Godot, thank you.
 

Shag,

I think the point is not about unlimited power, but about the fact that liberals are often unwilling to push for an agenda which could be seen as testing the limits of liberalism, instead choosing to play for a compromise, the result being that the "center" moves inexorably right as Republicans push further and further without shame.
 

Wait Wait Wait Perhaps we need a definition of success and failure. In my humble opinion, any President who leaves his country in shambles economically, militarily, diplomatically, and even psychologically is a failure no matter how many of his/her goals have been met. RLN
 

I'll worry about rehabilitating Bush and Cheney after they've been tried and convicted for their crimes, including the MURDER of everyone who's died in Iraq the last five years. I read stuff like this and have a hard time believing the sheer cluelessness: read the indictment of the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and count up how many of their crimes Mr. Bush and his gangsters have committed. These people are the most demented and dangerous criminals in the history of the United States, and how any competent LAWYER or LAW PROFESSOR could be unaware of that FACT at this late date is astounding.

And don't kid yourself I'm overstating anything. The United States has been taking a grand intelligence test the last eight years, the entire legal profession has been taking a grand bar exam, and both have flunked. We live in a failed state with a government of CRIMINALS who have literally declared war on the entire world, including the United States -- on the theory that the US Constitution gives the President of the United States more powers than James I or Caligula. It just doesn't get any more dishonest, stupid, or corrupt than that.

The Republican Party is literally a criminal organization of terrorists in exactly the same sense that Al Qaeda is. The only real differences are that the Republicans are a lot more dangerous and a lot less rational.
 

The Dems' visceral hatred of Bush because they never got over losing the 2000 election in the electoral college (not in the Court as the myth goes) colors their entire take on this Administration.

I laugh every time I hear libs call Bush a far right President. In fact, in many ways, Bush is the most liberal President of the Reagan Era.

1) Bush never wanted to advance Reagan's domestic agenda. Compassionate conservatism was a variation on Clinton triangulation. Even so, Bush ended up being far more liberal domestically than his predecessor Clinton. Increasing spending by a third, MCLB and creating a drug entitlement is the antithesis of Reagan's domestic agenda.

2) On taxes, Bush has enacted two useless Dem/Keynsian tax rebates in 2001 and 2008. He only got the supply side theory right when he cut income tax rates across the board in 2003. Even that bill had an expiration date.

3) Bush came into office campaigning on a "humble" and passive peacetime foreign policy. He only shifted to a variation of the Reagan Doctrine when war was thrust upon him. However, once he went to war, one can genuinely say he prosecuted a conservative foreign policy.

4) Even in his choice of judges, Bush had to be compelled by his base to select conservatives. Anyone recall the Meiers fiasco?

For a point of reference, Reagan and Gingrich are the standards for modern conservatism. When compared to these standards, Bush is pretty much lacking.

As to his legacy, Bush will most likely fall into the mid range. Apart from the tax cuts, his liberal domestic policy was awful. However, history will also observe that Bush prosecuted and won his wars over some significant domestic and military obstacles with a minimum loss of life.

This should really set off the posters here, but the parallels with Lincoln are actually rather obvious. Both were prosecuting wars which started off popularly, but declined in popularity when the military brass could not figure out how to win. The opposition Dem parties then and now wanted to surrender to stop the blood letting, although only the Copperheads actually had a great deal of blood letting to cite. Amidst this, both Presidents ended up making the unpopular decision to fire the generals who could not get the job done and hire new ones who could. In both cases, many of those fired generals blamed the President for their failures and joined the Dem political opposition to actively undermine the war effort. However, in the end, both Presidents found their generals (Grant/Petreus) and won their wars.

What stunned me about Woodward's "War Within" were the parallels with the war politics of the Civil War. While it is written from the viewpoint of the Iraq War's version of the Dem Copperheads and George McClellan, the situation and how Bush dealt with it could have come from a book about Lincoln and his generals.

History looks kindly upon that kind of moral and political courage and I believe will do so upon Bush's prosecution of his wars.

Now, I await the comments of the modern day Copperheads.
 

"Bush pushed democracy, pushed the constitutional powers of his office, and pushed conservative ideology to its limits, with some success and some notable failures."

He did succeed in expanding the power of the executive beyond what those a king would enjoy, but with respect the the three listed, that's it. I'm sure there are conservatives who would contend that "W" was a true conservative, and as for 'pushing democracy', that's a plaintively inaccurate assertion by any stretch of the imagination. He may have been a verbal cheerleader for democracy (something not bad in and of itself), but that's the extent of his push for democracy.
 

While I appreciate the argument, in general, that Bush has been more successful at achieving his own goals than he is given credit for, I don't think that is the sort of failure that we liberals criticize or that history will judge harshly. The major criticism is that he has precisley the wrong goals, and that he has been incompetent in administering areas of government that do not interest him. (I also would argue that he has blundered badly even with respect to issues that are dear to him, but I grant the overall thrust of this post.)

In fact, the achievement of his goals is the disaster we fear - expansion of executive power, dismantling of regulation, etc. The argument of this post is a little like saying that we shouldn't judge harshly the driver who took the bus over a cliff because his focus at the time was on making it to Denver within the next hour - and on that score, pace of transit, he had actually been doing fairly well.

But finally, I actually don't even think that the argument here goes to whether Bush has achieved more of his *goals* than we give him credit for. Rather, he has consistently been able to get his way with respect to *means*. He got the war he wanted, the tax cuts he wanted, the surveillance powers he wanted, the detentions he wanted, etc. But he wanted those things, I think, in order to expand America's influence in the world and to increase its security. My best guess is that his means have and will fail utterly to achieve those aims - and have and will continue to backfire.
 

Bart writes:
Now, I await the comments of the modern day Copperheads.


Preemptively insulting those who point out your sad offering of historical record and head-in-sand view of current events in no way generates any credibility for your 'arguments'. What is fascinating is your obsession with political divisiveness, to the exclusion of even basic rational thought. One can only wonder from where such an emboldened "us versus them" arises, as from time to time you somehow manage to close to a mark or two. Either that, or you're obsessed with mixing truth with dishonesty, apparently not understanding that you don't succeed in strengthening spin, but rather only discredit yourself.
 

And what of Gen. Douglas McArthur after he was relieved of command? Where did he land in the political spectrum re: Democrat Truman? How did Republicans react to McArthur's dismissal - did they reject him?

The pile is too high to look for a pony. In fact the pile might be big enough to hide a herd of neocon elephants. It's time for copperheads to bite. The heading re George W should be:

"BAD, BADDER OR BADDEST PRESIDENT?"
 

Besides the pesky fact that the candidates waged an electoral contest and not a popular one (i.e., in terms of deployment of resources, etc.), making the popular vote utterly irrelevant...

...As many as 46,000 illegal votes were cast in Florida by individuals who were simultaneously registered to vote in New York (several thousand also in New Jersey). Think those intentionally law-breaking "snowbird voters" were Republicans?

So please get over it with your uninformed sophomoric screeches about the 2000 popular vote. Because if you really try to answer the question of "who almost stole Florida from whom," you would definitely not like the answer.
 

History looks kindly upon that kind of moral and political courage and I believe will do so upon Bush's prosecution of his wars.

Now, I await the comments of the modern day Copperheads.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:48 AM


Given that there was no WMD, no Iraq connection with Al Qaeda, and the obscene cost of this disaster, I feel quite certain that history is not going to be as kind as you are hoping. It seems far more likely that history will see Dumbya as the worst president in our nation's history.
 

KipEsquire said...
...As many as 46,000 illegal votes were cast in Florida by individuals who were simultaneously registered to vote in New York (several thousand also in New Jersey). Think those intentionally law-breaking "snowbird voters" were Republicans?

According the the source:
---------------------------------
Computer records analyzed by The News don't allow for an exact count of how many people vote in both places, because millions of names are regularly purged between elections.

But The News found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

...

Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party.

Nearly 1,700 of those registered in both states requested that absentee ballots be mailed to their home in the other state, where they are also registered. But that doesn't raise red flags with officials in either place.

...

How News made the match

To check for voters registered in both places, the Daily News matched computer records from election officials in New York City and Florida.

Records of the city's 3.7 million registered voters were matched against a statewide Florida database of 10.7 million registrants based on first and last name, gender, birth date and middle initials.

The comparison revealed 45,882 people who appear to be registered in both places.

It is common in comparisons of this magnitude that some apparent matches would be false hits. For example, two women named ­Maria Rodriguez who were born on the same date could appear to be the same person.

But even eliminating the 200 surnames that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, are the most common in the nation leaves 33,746 matches, suggesting dual registrations are a significant problem.
----------------------------------
Yes, there was a serious snowbird voting problem in Florida in 2000. However, claiming that as many as 46,000 illegal votes were cast is plainly inaccurate.
 

Oh, "Bart"?:

The Dems' visceral hatred of Bush because they never got over losing the 2000 election in the electoral college (not in the Court as the myth goes) colors their entire take on this Administration.

You're wrong. I thought Dubya an eedjit long before his buddies on the Supreme Court installed him. It's there in his freakin' record!!!.

What happened since is no surprise in the least.

As for "Bush Derangement Syndrome", I think you're projecting. That fits your opinion of Clinton far better.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

I laugh every time I hear libs call Bush a far right President. In fact, in many ways, Bush is the most liberal President of the Reagan Era.

1) Bush never wanted to advance Reagan's domestic agenda.

A pile of patooties off the south end of Reagan's northbound equine.

Even Reagan wasn't the most "Reaganesque" president. From "Borrow and Spend" federal growth to raising taxes to actually wanting to do nuclear disarmamanet with Gorby (contrary to his hawkish neocon cadre), Reagan was also "All Hat, No Cattle" ... we still have the Department of Education, for instance.

Let's not pretend that Reagan was anything other than what he was, a senile actor reading applause lines having nothing to do with reality past the silver screen.

Cheers,
 

KipEsquire:

...As many as 46,000 illegal votes were cast in Florida by individuals who were simultaneously registered to vote in New York.

Even your article says no such thing. It says that people were registered to vote in both places (was this statistic aarrived at by the same methodology as the ChoicePoint/DBT "purge list", do ya think?).

But even if they are the same person, that hardly means the people voted in both places. And if they did, that is a crime, isn't it? Where's the prosecutions?

And also, care to show me a "voter un-registration form"? Even if such a thing exists, I wouldn't be the least surprised if 90+% of people don't bother with such.

OTOH, the Rethuglicans are out in force again this election trying to deny as many people they can (of suspect inclination) the right to vote. I'll try to put together a post on my blog in the next week with a rundown on all the Republican efforts at disenfranchisement.

Cheers,
 

shag from brookline said...

And what of Gen. Douglas McArthur after he was relieved of command? Where did he land in the political spectrum re: Democrat Truman? How did Republicans react to McArthur's dismissal - did they reject him?

It is the purpose for which the President relieves his general that provides the analogy between Lincoln and Bush, but not to Truman.

Lincoln and Bush fired their generals to find more qualified commanders to win their respective wars. The Dems in both eras embraced the fired generals in their campaign to undermine the war efforts and to surrender.

In contrast, Truman was not looking to fight and win a war with China nor was he looking for a more qualified general to do so by firing McArthur. Rather, McArthur was insubordinate in that he wanted to fight and win a war with China against Truman's policy. While Truman had every right as CiC to fire McArthur, he did not do so for the same reasons Lincoln and Bush fired their generals. Also, the GOP did not embrace McArthur because they did not want to win in Korea. Quite the opposite.
 

I'm sure there are conservatives who would contend that "W" was a true conservative, and as for 'pushing democracy', that's a plaintively inaccurate assertion by any stretch of the imagination. He may have been a verbal cheerleader for democracy (something not bad in and of itself), but that's the extent of his push for democracy.

Bitswapper, I read that sentence as Paul saying that Bush pushed all of those things to their limits (I admit the "its" throws some doubt on that reading). If he was indeed saying that Bush pushed democracy to its limits, I have a feeling you'd agree emphatically, no?
 

Bush began his presidency by joining Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison as the only presidents to win the Electoral College without winning the popular vote.

John Quincy Adams did this also.

This post strikes me as akin to the defenses of Hitler on the ground that he restored the German economy and made it a great power again. Or that Stalin won WWII. Or something.
 

Quick addition re JQA: He didn't win the EC, but he did win the presidency in the House. That puts him in roughly the same situation.
 

Also, the GOP did not embrace McArthur because they did not want to win in Korea. Quite the opposite.

They didn't embrace him because they wanted Eisenhower to sign an armistice?

You're going to have to explain that one in more detail. I don't understand GOP surrender monkeys enough to figure it out. (I know, I know, the Philippines, but what have you done for me lately, o ye of timetables for withdrawal?)
 

Bart,

Visceral hatred MY ASS -- I just know criminals when I see them. Or in your case: a demented self-deluded fanatic who's a pathological liar. Facts are facts.

In reality, you are merely projecting your own paranoia.
 

pms_chicago said...

The GOP had been in the political wilderness for so long that they were looking for a war hero to run as President, his policies be damned. This was the FDR Era where the GOP was playing the "me too, but less so" party. That did not change until the Reagan Era, when the Dems became the party of "me too, but less so."

The GOP has NEVER campaigned to lose a war. They certainly were not doing so by embracing the arch hawk McArthur.
 

The GOP has NEVER campaigned to lose a war. They certainly were not doing so by embracing the arch hawk McArthur.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:50 PM

Are you aware that the GOP actually elected Eisenhower, and not McArthur? And that Eisenhower proceeded to surrender to North Korea/China?
 

There's a nifty online copy of Eisenhower's October surprise speech available here.

Eisenhower: "The first task of a new administration will be to review and re-examine every course of action open to us with one goal in view: to bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end."

Nixon: "I have asked for this radio and television time tonight for the purpose of announcing that we today have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia."

compare:

Chamberlain: "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is 'peace for our time.' Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

No, the GOP may never have said "let's lose a war!" in so many words. They are really good at saying things like "let's end the war honorably!" where "honorably" means making peace with an undefeated enemy. It's not losing, but it isn't winning either, is it?
 

PMS_Chicago:

Damn, you beat me to it. Have to be quicker on the fingers:

["Bart"]: The GOP has NEVER campaigned to lose a war.

"Peace with honor."

Of course he was lying....

Cheers,
 

It's not losing, but it isn't winning either, is it?

# posted by PMS_Chicago : 1:59 PM


It's only losing if a Democrat is doing it.
 

pms/bb:

There is no analogy between the Civil War/Iraq War and the Korean War.

Victory in the Civil War involved reuniting the Union. The Dems in 1864 ran McClellan to cut and run from the South, surrender it to the Confederacy and cede the war.

Victory in the Iraq War involved defeating the Baathists and al Qaeda and leaving behind a pro American democracy. The Dems in 2006 campaigned on cutting and running from Iraq, surrendering it to al Qaeda and ceding the war.

In contrast, victory in the Korean War was simply to prevent the North Koreans and then the Chinese from conquering South Korea. Eisenhower accomplished what Truman started.

Eisenhower did not believe in extending the war to China as did McArthur. Extending he war to China to preserve South Korea was no more necessary than extending the war to Iran was to protect Iraq in 2007.
 

There is no analogy between the Civil War/Iraq War and the Korean War.

Actually, when you read the quotes the analogy is quite obvious.

The Dems in 2006 campaigned on cutting and running from Iraq, surrendering it to al Qaeda and ceding the war.

No, the Dems campaigned on ceding Iraq to the Iraqis, which is exactly what is going to happen.

In contrast, victory in the Korean War was simply to prevent the North Koreans and then the Chinese from conquering South Korea.

Yes, it's funny how the definition of victory changed after the Chinese drove UN troops all the way from the Yalu to Seoul.
 

pms_chicago said...

You really need to start paying attention to how Presidents act and not merely to what they say.

Eisenhower: "The first task of a new administration will be to review and re-examine every course of action open to us with one goal in view: to bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end."

Act: Preserved South Korea. Victory.

Nixon: "I have asked for this radio and television time tonight for the purpose of announcing that we today have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia."

Act: Surrendered South Vietnam to the enemy. First wartime defeat in US history.

Chamberlain: "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is 'peace for our time.' Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Act: Surrendered Czechoslovakia to the Nazis.
 

Act: Preserved South Korea. Victory.

So that retreat from the Yalu was all part of the plan to preserve South Korea?
 

This is an insane viewpoint. Getting a lot of what he wanted does not mean the Bush has not been a disaster. Do we define "success" only terms of achieving one's personal goals, ignoring the tragedy ensuing from those policies? Maybe we should give him a 21 million dollar separation package for his great success, as the corporate world does with executives who have created carnage and misery.
 

This is an insane viewpoint. Getting a lot of what he wanted does not mean the Bush has not been a disaster.

Exactly. Charles Manson got a lot of his goals accomplished too. Shall we deem him not that bad as well? Put up a plaque, "Charles Manson: Achiever of the Year"? Or would that be, not to put too fine a point on it, insane?

I see no reason to confuse getting with achieving.
 

George Bush is so bad, John Stewart and Steven Colbert have become the most widely followed news programs because we can't handle truth tartare.
 

it seems like a lot of people are missing the point of this post. Objectively, Bush is an unmitigated disaster. But, the author argues that perhaps from Bush's viewpoint, he did okay. It's just a question of perspective. I didn't read this as saying, from an objective, sane person standpoint, Bush did well; instead, from a neoconservative fantasy-land outlook, maybe it wasn't so bad.
 

Well gee nerpzillicus, if that's the point, isn't it just utterly trivial?

You can say the same for Hitler. Stalin or any other criminal: clearly they all thought it was just a fine idea for them to have power and use it however they saw fit for their own gain.

The United States has no worse enemies than the Bush gang.
 

Charles Gittings:
I'm not convinced the analysis is trivial. Don't forget, Hitler got to power through (mostly) legal means. So if the movement thinks its succeeding, that should be a concern to those who are fighting against it. There are still 28% of Americans out there who do not see the abject embarrassment and disgrace this administration has wrought upon this nation and the world. People like Kristol, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh still have bully pulpits; Sarah Palin is far too close to running this country; and our only opposition is the spineless, feckless, craven and callow dems. If you have any hope of taking this country back, you must understand what these people are thinking, and how to confront it, otherwise, you run the risk of the next Bush charlatan winning. Dismissing their worldview and hoping reality and truth will always win out is a leap of faith I'm not willing to take. Have we forgotten 2000 and 2004?

underestimate - or perhaps more appropriately, "misunderestimate" - this movement at your own peril.
 

Victory in the Iraq War involved defeating the Baathists and al Qaeda and leaving behind a pro American 'democracy'....

... of carefully vetted 'pro-American' leaders (including the Chalabi that was leaking our secrets to the Iranians). And they'll stay our 'friend' as long as we keep shoveling boxcar-loads of money to them and cover their back (and front) for free with our big guns. But clue for the blind here; the rulers are Shi'ites and very much in league with Iran (who should be our friend too, but isn't because of what we did to them back in 1953; an event that is hardly lost on anyone in Iraq, either...)

But I'd note that Dubya's still looking for those WoMDs ... I hear he's looking under tables in the East Wing nowadays....

And after 4154+ and $1 trillion down the hole, I don't know what "victory" would look like ... certainly not some 'stasis' that is still not back to the status quo ante....

Cheers,
 

Good Quality Tv Brackets,TV Wall Mounts,LCD TV Brackets
 

Well gee nepzillicus, what exactly do you want to do?

I understand racists, religious bigots, fascists, and greedy corporate robber-barons who are willing to manipulate such people for profit just fine. I can't make anyone think or be honest except me. I started fighting the Bush administration more than full time right after 911, and I've gone right on doing it as best I could for seven years now. My oldest son, two of my nephews, a cousin who was like a surrogate father to me when I was a kid, and my father are all Bush supporters. I'm a former conservative Republican myself (quit in disgust in 1987).

So what do you think I have any illusions about?

I know exactly what needs to be done: Bush, Cheney, Addington, and whole bunch of other folks need to be indicted, tried, convicted, and punished for their crimes to the fullest extent of the law. DOJ needs to be purged of every lawyer hired over the last eight years, and good many of those lawyers need to be prosecuted and disbarred. Same goes for DoD.
 

You really need to start paying attention to how Presidents act and not merely to what they say.

You're absolutely right. My point in the above citation was that there is a great difference between what Presidents say ("victory," "peace with honor," etc.) and the reality of the situation.

"Preserving South Korea" is not the same as winning the Korean War. Frankly, if Eisenhower had won the Korean War, we wouldn't have troops in Korea now.

Similarly, we haven't won the Cold War yet--a point Mr. Putin brought home to us rather clearly recently.

For a more recent example of the disconnect between a President's words and reality, I humbly submit: "Mission Accomplished."
 

PMS_Chicago:

You beat me. My phrase was three words.

Can anyone come up with a one-word example?

Cheers,
 

Why is it that no one mentions Bush's attempts to point out the problems with the sub-prime loans and the massive exposure a few years ago, yet the democratic controlled Congress essentially laughed at these comments? Also why is it not mentioned that the frannie/freddie problems arose in part from the Clinton presidency pushing for more loans for low income housing?
 

pms_chicago said...

"Preserving South Korea" is not the same as winning the Korean War.

What was our national goal when we entered into the Korean War if not that? It was not the liberation of North Korea or China. This was prior to Reagan and the US was on defense with the containment doctrine. This was a defensive war where we achieved our defensive objective.

The only reason we advanced to the Yalu is that McArthur won a brilliant victory and Truman did not have the political guts to tell him to stop ala George I after we defeated the Iraqi Army around Kuwait. This advance was hardly in Truman's plans. A couple months earlier, Truman was worried about having to pull a Dunkirk out of South Korea.

Frankly, if Eisenhower had won the Korean War, we wouldn't have troops in Korea now.

What? Nations usually secure the territory they have won in wars. Indeed, we have troops based in about 600 locations around the world. Have we then lost 600 wars around the world?

You are not going to win an argument claiming we lost the Korean War. It simply did not happen.

Similarly, we haven't won the Cold War yet--a point Mr. Putin brought home to us rather clearly recently.

That is like claiming that the Allies did not win WWII because the Germans came back again a couple decades later. The Soviet Empire is as dead as the Kaiser's Germany was. However, like the Nazi Germany, the Russians are back with a new group of thugs leading them.
 

You are not going to win an argument claiming we lost the Korean War. It simply did not happen.

I think we're arguing past each other again. By pointing out that the Republicans are a bunch of surrender monkeys, I only mean to emphasize the hypocrisy of the "cut and run" label that you are so fond of deploying when discussing Democratic proposals that are identical to GOP strategies in the past. If we look at Republican solutions to similar situations in the past, it was quite acceptable to pull the army from an active battlefield without achieving victory, settling instead for the oh-so-elusive prize of "honor."

Unlike your ongoing caricature of warfare, wars can be fought where neither side wins, and leaving after the objective has been met--even if the enemy is still standing on the world's stage--is laudable. Your GOP predecessors were quite aware of that possibility--why aren't you?

The more you defend Eisenhower and his criticism of the bungling of Korea by the Truman administration, the more you defend those who criticize the Bush administration and ask for structured withdrawal.

If only you could read what you write with another person's eyes!
 

Why is it that no one mentions Bush's attempts to point out the problems with the sub-prime loans and the massive exposure a few years ago, yet the democratic controlled Congress essentially laughed at these comments?

Do you have a site for that? A few years ago, the Democrats did not control Congress.
 

I think when it’s all said and done, George W. Bush will be widely recognized as the worst president in the history of the United States, and it won’t be a close decision. He will be the benchmark against which all future bad presidents will be measured.

But then, what can you expect from a sadistic bully who combines Richard Nixon’s respect for the law with Herbert Hoover’s economic acumen, Lyndon Johnson’s military genius, Ulysses Grant’s talent for selecting subordinates, Warren Harding’s personal integrity, and James Buchanan’s hands-on management style?
 

I am seriously concerned that someone with any reasonable intellectual firepower would think that any form of success can be ascribed to a person who treats the governmental structure of this country as a personal playground tinkering around as if playing with an erector set to rearrange, deform, deconstruct and demolish the structure and function of governance any way that he so chooses as the whim strikes.

Among the techniques used to accomplish these various “successes” were secrecy, blatant misrepresentation, falsification in numerical reports of progress or accomplishment, ideologically driven, lawylerly (but non-scientific) alteration of science and data, secrecy, mafia-style bullying and intimidation of same party Congressional members to maintain ranks and support, deep and offensive politicization of governmental departments and agencies (most regrettably the undermining of the rule of law in the justice department to punish the political opposition).

There can be no presidential success when the top elected official of the country who was sworn to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States systematically proceeded to dismantle and defile that document and its principles that has served us well for centuries.

The basic mission of government is to provide services for the common good. It is not designed to be a test laboratory for a lunatic. Public service is not to be construed as permission to aggrandize power to an extend undreamed of by any rational and sane person.

Our government's agencies dedicated to providing services including healthy and safe food and drugs, clean air and water, working environments with equitable pay for decent work as safely as possible, have been hollowed out as the result of a deliberate desire to make those departments/agencies so disreputable that those services could be privitized. Much of this entire administration has been an exercise in privitizing necessary governmental services to accrue profit to cronies.

The irony of the original post is that is appears immediately following the conference in Andover which were an exercise in due diligence regarding criminal charges against those in this administration. Unlikely that will register historically as success.

All of the above pales compared to deliberately using the tragedy of the attack of 9/11 as a cause celebre to advance a bogus cause for an extracurricular war to fulfill the day dreams of a small cabal of extremists. That all rational thought was ignored or censored on this march to war and as much of the data as possible was exaggerated, buried or warped is strictly amoral.

Even in acknowledging the tragic toll of this war our government cannot be honest. We hear only of just over 4000 war dead. That does not count our fine men and women killed in combat zones that were not deemed “casualties of war” because these was no action at the time. We also do not hear the total number of coalition forces killed which exceeds our own total. Even the war wounded (those surviving are more seriously and gravely marred than ever before) cannot be reported accurately, again with half not being “combat related” and therefore not officially listed.

Government this amoral cannot be considered a success under any circumcstances.

As far as the Democratic next administration demonstrating the effectiveness of his “twins,” that is purely and simply done by returning to the purpose of government: provide the best services possible for the good of the people. That will leave a lasting legacy that will shine after this dark episode in history. Unfortunately, there will always be some who forget the lessons of history and will begin to attempt to undo what was done.
 

It will take a few more years before anyone will be able to write a full Res Gestae for the Bush Administration - there is simply so much we presently do not know - how much torture - how many dead - etc; but I also suspect the full horror of the financial crisis is yet to come.

Yes, that is as nothing as opposed to the war crimes, and crimes against humanity, but it is of a nature that will have effects well into the next administration.

Rule No 1 of warmaking is that taxes have to be raised to pay for the war. The Bush Administration has not done so. Further, much of the money borrowed has actually been squandered on non-bid contracts to private contractors.

As a consequence of this fiscal irresponsibility, the USA as a nation has been living well beyond its means for the last 8 years (actually, the phenpmenon is a lot older than that, it has simply got much worse under Bush). For a rough guide visit National Debt Clock FAQ - but remember these figures are out of date - they are considerably worse today than at the start of the year.

Until now foreign governments and corporations have been content to hold US treasury obligations and commercial paper issued by US corporations on the principle that the US economy is "too big to fail". Now there is a crisis of confidence in US paper.

This NY Times story Pain Spreads as Credit Vise Grows Tighter shows the effect of the credit crunch on ordinary people - and these are just the early warning signs.

The Bush Administration has been a devotee of laissez faire deregulation during the last 8 years. They would not be acting now in the final months of the Administration without being forced to do so. But the Administration's hand has been forced - and in a big way.

See this WAPO story Citing Grave Financial Threats, Officials Ready Massive Rescue. The estimates going around of the amount of impaired US commercial paper that will have to be taken out of the global financial system before the banks are able to start lending again varies but the figure is likely to be of the order of US$2 trillion. Some of that commercial paper will be recoverable, in the sense that some underlying assets may be realised, but the need to service the additional debt is going to hamper the ability of the next administration to provide funding for economic recovery.

Very fortunately, the New Deal put in place the rudimentary mechanisms which have thus far prevented a total collapse.

But in the immortal words of Noel Coward: "There are bad times just around the corner, There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky, And it's no good whining, About a silver lining, For we know from experience that they won't roll by."
 

I have to admit I find this kind of Democratic smack talk vastly entertaining. But I've never quite understood the urge to dismiss as remarkably incompetent the guy who beat you twice. And then make up for it by claiming he stole both elections.

Why, it's almost like Democrats are incapable of noticing competence in anybody who disagrees with them...
 

Brett:-

I'm fortunate enough not to be an American, but I do live in a democracy.

I grant you that no political system devised by humankind is perfect, but the one which presently obtains in the USA is far from perfect in a number of important respects among which: the gerrymandered seats in the House which guarantee "seats for life" to some members, the gross disproportion between the numbers of electors in the states which means that the urban millions are effectively disenfranchised in the Senate; the lack of accountability of an over-powerful executive to the representatives of the people and, last but far from least, the obscene amounts of money required to run any US election campaign, which gives the lobbyists such a disproportionate amount of influence.

In our system, political advertising on television is prohibited. During each official general election campaign all TV channels allow the parties to make time limited political broadcasts. For a 4 week period. That's it. But what we do have throughout the year are three or four weekly public affairs programmes where politicians are grilled mercilessly in hard interviews or have to respond-off the cuff to questions submitted by the audience. If you wish an example try: BBC Question Time. So our electorate may be rather better informed about the candidates when the time comes to elect a government.

I fear your system allows any candidate with enough money to "buy" an election from an ill-informed electorate. So the fact that George Bush won two elections is no guarantee that there was any merit in the process, merely that his campaign was more effective. Nor incidentally is it any guarantee that his opponents would have been any better - since they never had the chance to prove themselves on the job, you (and we) will never know.

Our system also produces "wrong-uns": for all his general competence in domestic matters, 'Poodle' Blair joined in the "Enterprise of Iraq" - to our national shame.

But when push comes to shove our system can give a prime minister the boot once he looses the confidence of the parliament - then we either have early elections or the majority party puts up a new prime minister. Short of impeachment, your system gives you an elected dictator with no option for compulsory early retirement if he is not up to the job.

If you think the Bush Administration has been good for the USA and the world - look at the polls - you will find you are part of a very small minority - at home and abroad. A success, this Administration has not been.
 

pms_chicago said...

BD: You are not going to win an argument claiming we lost the Korean War. It simply did not happen.

I think we're arguing past each other again. By pointing out that the Republicans are a bunch of surrender monkeys, I only mean to emphasize the hypocrisy of the "cut and run" label that you are so fond of deploying when discussing Democratic proposals that are identical to GOP strategies in the past.

I know you are valiantly attempting to defend the indefensible with the "you guys did it too" argument, but it is fool's errand because there is no analogy.

The Dem Vietnam template involves retreating in the middle of a battle and surrendering the battlefield to the enemy. In 2006, during the al Qaeda in Iraq's version of the Tet Offensive, the Dems called for retreat from the Iraq battlefield and surrendering that country to the enemy.

In very stark contrast, Dems and the GOP, in one of the last examples of unified foreign policy, both supported defeating and expelling North Korea from South Korea and then militarily secured South Korea.

Unlike your ongoing caricature of warfare, wars can be fought where neither side wins, and leaving after the objective has been met--even if the enemy is still standing on the world's stage--is laudable. Your GOP predecessors were quite aware of that possibility--why aren't you?

Nixon inherited a Vietnam War which was last by 1968. The only way to win that war was to invade North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to defeat the enemy in their sanctuaries. Nixon knew this and tried a limited incursion into Cambodia. The anti-war Dem Congress opposed even this half hearted attempt at victory and thus Nixon was compelled to preside over the best face saving surrender he could manage.

Once again, neither Nixon nor the GOP openly campaigned on surrender in Vietnam as the Dems did in 2006 in Iraq. Nixon was put in a no win situation. In contrast, Bush could and did do what was necessary to win the Iraq War, despite Mr. Obama and the Dem's claims that our troops would fail.
 

And just what was the "secret plan" that Nixon had in 1968 to end the Vietnam War? Did he wait until he was reelected in '72 to reveal it? But since he was "Waterboarded" - OOPS! - "Watergated" he could not implement his "secret plan"? Was Cambodia part of his "secret plan"?
 

I was going to mention Nixon's "secret plan" too, but Shag beat me to it (funny that "Bart" didn't see that coming). But as for withdrawing after victory as opposed to "surrendering", I'd advert to PMS_Chicago's two words: "Mission Accomplished".

But it's simple, folks: If a Dem does it, it's "surrender". If a Republican does it, it's ... ummm ... ahhh .. "excusable" ... because ... ummm ... ahhh ...hmmm, what crapola can I come up with? ... oh, yeah, "Nixon inherited a Vietnam War which was last [sic] by 1968."

In the "six impossible things before breakfast" category, "Bart" has 'argued in the alternative' elsewhere that the Vietnam war was winnable.

Cheers,
 

Bart DePalma said:

In contrast, Bush could and did do what was necessary to win the Iraq War, despite Mr. Obama and the Dem's claims that our troops would fail.

Nice Republican talking point. A Democrat cannot oppose a war because it's unnecessary or because the political situation in the country precludes any kind of success, it has to be because they disrespect the military.

Well, our military did everything they were asked to and more. They "won" the war in short order. It was the peace that was lost, because Bush & Co. had no plan for Iraq after the defeat of the Iraqi military, thinking everything would just fall in place. That thinking was exemplified by Bush's "Mission Accomplished" PR stunt.

Republicans accuse Democrats of disrespecting the troops, but it's the Republicans who misuse them and then are unwilling to take care of them when they come back injured or otherwise damaged. Even John McCain, who one would think would have some empathy, has voted against bills to help returning members of the military.

It'll take years, if not decades to recover from the damage this administration has done to the Military, the Reserves, and the National Guard.
 

And just what was the "secret plan" that Nixon had in 1968 to end the Vietnam War? Did he wait until he was reelected in '72 to reveal it?

In a similar vein, John McCain knows how to win the Iraqi War and capture Osama bin Laden, but he won't tell anyone unless he is elected President. That's putting "country first"?
 

Brett said ...
But I've never quite understood the urge to dismiss as remarkably incompetent the guy who beat you twice. And then make up for it by claiming he stole both elections.

Bart's politically childish spin on history (worthy of monty python's 'Black Night' from the Holy Grail) aside, the original poster seemed like he was trying to point out what Bush Jr. was actually good at. While one can go on indefinitely about what an insecure spoiled AWOL-running frat boy has failed at, I think what he did extremely well was to politically lever 9/11 so effectively as to succeed in quelling his detractors almost completely. He had democrats cowed even after they somehow resurged in 2006. I don't think others could have done that so well. I don't see McCain having been able to do it as well, had he won in 2000. Bush managed to turn nearly anything he doesn't like into support for terrorists. He is good at framing the political dialog to his advantage, more so then others. If anything, he seems to be losing that edge lately, which could just be my impression.
 

The notion that Iraq is in any sense a victory for the Bush administration is like claiming that an arsonist who volunteers to put out a fire they started is a hero.

Equally, the notion that Iraq was in any sense about "democracy" is like claiming that a rape was about demonstrating the benefits of marriage to the victim.

When these people say such things, all they are really proving is their own profound depravity, dishonesty, and dementia.

Iraq was and is nothing but a CRIME, and the way it was handled as a military operation is one of the most disgraceful displays of military incompetence since McClellan's bumbling misdirection of the Army of the Potomac in front of Richmond. It's been nothing but a complete waste of time from A to Z -- or more accurately, from A to A to A to A, etc.
 

hank gillette said...

BD: In contrast, Bush could and did do what was necessary to win the Iraq War, despite Mr. Obama and the Dem's claims that our troops would fail.

Nice Republican talking point. A Democrat cannot oppose a war because it's unnecessary or because the political situation in the country precludes any kind of success, it has to be because they disrespect the military.

Nice Dem talking points. However, the time for the argument that the war was unnecessary came and went when Congress voted to authorize the war. From that point the argument was whether we would win or lose the war. Bush and McCain took the former position when it was not popular and Obama took the latter position. Also, the idea that we somehow did not defeat the Baathsists, al Qaeda and the Shia militias because the Iraqi government did not enact enough reform is pretty ridiculous coming from Dems in Congress whose claim to fame is enacting a minimum wage increase.
 

"I fear your system allows any candidate with enough money to "buy" an election from an ill-informed electorate."

I fear your system allows political elites to decide that certain issues will simply be inadmissible, no matter how much the public might care about them. Sorry, I like freedom of speech too much to go with that kind of censorship regime.

We do, however, have a serious problem with gerrymandering, discriminatory ballot access laws, and the like. I liken it to the memory leaks most OS's suffer from when run a long time without reboot; Our political system has run continuously without 'reset' for so long that the political class have accumulated a disasterous mass of destructive 'institutional memory' on how to game the system.

One of the reasons I favor a constitutional convention, despite thinking the current written constitution is pretty good. Doesn't do you any good to have a decent constitution if it's not actually being implemented.
 

"However, the time for the argument that the war was unnecessary came and went when Congress voted to authorize the war. From that point the argument was whether we would win or lose the war."

BULLSHIT.

There can't be anything to win when there isn't any legitimate military objective.

It's like saying that once you started to rob a bank, the only issue was making a profit, and all it shows is just what lying frauds you neo-fascist really are.
 

Charles:

How can I possibly rebut a contention that bringing mass murderers to justice, decimating al Qaeda and establishing the first Arab democracy are illegitimate fascist military objectives?

You have my sympathy.
 

How can I possibly rebut a contention that bringing mass murderers to justice, decimating al Qaeda and establishing the first Arab democracy are illegitimate fascist military objectives?

Bringing mass murderers to justice?

Bin Laden is still out there, while your boy took his eye off the ball.

Decimating al Qaeda?

Last year U.S. intelligence analysts concluded that al Qaeda's operating capability was very nearly at the level it was just before September 11, 2001.

Establishing the first Arab democracy?

That democracy, such as it is, is going to last exactly as long as we are there to prop it up. When we leave, it'll collapse like most unsupported puppet governments do.

Even if your assertions were true, at what cost? We've killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. We've lost thousands of our best military personnel, and many more thousands are maimed and damaged for life. The military has been stretched to the breaking point.

We've lost respect and moral authority with the rest of the world. Bush is a joke with the rest of the world when he chides Russia for doing what he's been doing for years. How long before the U.S. can legitimately complain about another country using torture?
 

Well Bart, that's obvious enough:

You can't, for the very good reasons that:

1) I haven't made any such contention.

2) Your lying BULLSHIT excuses aren't anything like truthful, let alone anything that could be described as a contention of mine.

3) One cannot bring mass murderers to justice by committing mass muder the way the Bush administration has done in Iraq the last five years.

4) You can't decimate Al Qaeda by operating a global recruiting drive for them. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before you fucking criminal idiots destabilized it and created a vacuum in which terrorists could operate at will.

5) A puppet government imposed on a foreign nation by armed aggression is not a democracy.

6) You disloyal neo-fascist subversives don't have any real belief in democracy here in the US let alone places like Iraq. You're just a gang of murderous criminals looking to tyrannize other people for the sake of profit and power.

7) The truth is that you and George Bush and all the other disgraceful neo-fascist gangsters who advocate this nonsense are nothing BUT terrorists.
 

Charles' comments may be a little overheated, but they are essentially correct.

The distillation of Bart's philosophy as expressed on this blog is that deadly force is legitimate when used by Bart or his proxies, and illegitimate when used by anyone else. That's the credo of a gangster.

It was amusing to hear Bart advise a while back that Jesus' counsel didn't apply to worldly matters. That puts Bart firmly in the camp of Jay C. Smith, one of the stars of the Mainline murders of Philadelphia:

"This earth is ruled by Satan."
 

However, the time for the argument that the war was unnecessary came and went when Congress voted to authorize the war.

OIC. They are foreclosed from rectifying their mistakes -- on the basis of any new developments or additional information (or just coming to their senses) -- because "Bart" thinks that's a very rational way to run a gummint ["... into the ground! No turning back now, folks! Over the cliff we go!!!"]. That's quite the argument.

Cheers,
 

[OT]

Brett:

I liken it to the memory leaks most OS's suffer from when run a long time without reboot....

If by "most OS's" you mean simply that Micro$ux is run on more platforms than any other OS, you may be right. If you mean "most OS's" by types and releases of OSs, you're wrong. The memory leak problem exists in systems that don't do a good job separating system and user activity and allow user processes (or bad kernel handling of user resources in exceptional circumstances) to lose memory. The kernel tends to be the most stable, least complicated, least hacked, and most debugged part of the OS. As long at that is solid (and it is for most OSs I've seen with the glaring exception of MIcro$ux), the system will run forever as long as badly behaved user processes can be cleaned up.

I had Unix systems that had "uptimes' of years; being rebooted only on the occasional power outage or need to load drivers.....

But a contemporaneous Windows 98 system did the BSOD regularly, and a list of known bugs said that the system will halt after 47 days regardless. The response from Micro$ux? "If your system stays up of 47 days, you ought to thank your lucky stars, so kwitcherbitchin'...."

Cheers,
 

establishing the first Arab democracy...

?!?!?

Cheers,
 

"But in dismissing Bush’s success as a president, are we missing something?"

Yeah, apparently you missed the fact that Bush started an illegal war of aggression based on a despicable hoax that led to the deaths of 4000+ Americans, a million Iraqis, and the displacement of millions more -- based on a HOAX.

He also instituted torture as an official policy of the U.S. government and committed numerous war crimes as well as simple violations of U.S. Code.*

Yeah, I'd say you missed something. Bush is not only the worst president ever, he is the most evil -- and I do not use that word lightly -- president ever. And being evil makes you a failure in my book. Maybe not yours.

*not that anybody cares, but he also stole the 2000 election.
 

The Fool:

Yeah, apparently you missed the fact that Bush started an illegal war of aggression based on a despicable hoax that led to the deaths of 4000+ Americans, a million Iraqis, and the displacement of millions more -- based on a HOAX.

Actually based on deliberate falsehood. As Ron Suskind (and others) have pointed out, the Dubya maladministration knew they were going to war on false pretenses, thanks to the only successful penetrations of the Iraqi government by Western intelligence services (in the Sadri and Habbash operations).

Cheers,
 

"Habbash" should have been "Habbush".

And here's info on Sadri.

Cheers,
 

"Overheated" Mattski?

I don't think so in this particular case.

You do remind of a question I've asked the contemptible troll in the past though...

Do you believe in god Bart?

He's never had a snappy answer for that one.
 

Charles,

The question I recall you putting to Bart was,

"Are you a Christian?"

I thought it was well put. And Bart made haste for the exits.