The Bush Conundrum
We have had the final press conference - prepare for the Bush legacy programmes.
I have even done one myself (for BBC Radio Four and the World Service) in which a member of his extended family talks frankly about how upsetting they have found the last few years. Others tell us he got what he deserved.
If you hate him or love him, the fair-minded programmes will be a disappointment. But for the dispassionate, disinterested observer one question seems to me to rise above all the others, and still be worth asking: why is there such a clash between what he appears to believe about human beings and what many of his fellow human beings believe about him.
At the presser he was warm - typically warm - about everyone: the press, Barack Obama, even the "opiners" who have been opining bad things about him.
He threw in some pointed lines about how the Republican party needed to be inclusive and welcoming to immigrants.
And he seemed genuinely to get why Mr Obama's inauguration is such a big deal in America's racial history.
Yet for many people, this man is an ogre whose willingness to gamble with other people's lives and wellbeing is matched only by his cocky inability to understand why people might not approve.
This is the Bush Conundrum: humane Bush versus cowboy Bush. Both exist.
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Justin, I think you overplay the conundrum a little. It's surely perfectly possible for a politician to be a thinking, empathetic individual who, due to external pressures, an inability to drive his own team down a particular path, or through simple wrong-headedness, pursues disastrous policies. I don't believe George W. was ever really the master of his ship. The figurehead maiden is rarely also a ship's captain. The disaster of the Bush years has been his willingness to allow darker and infinitely less accountable forces to pilot his vessel.
Complain about this comment
for all his faults racism wasn't a big one.
why is his love for all misunderstood?
Probably because he let the war mongerers lead him into wars.
He was maybe a nice guy but his underlining americaness took over and he started to kill when compassion would have done more good.
He has always been a keen observer the of kill someone it makes things better attitude.
His ignorance is his Bliss
Complain about this comment
"This is the Bush Conundrum: humane Bush versus cowboy Bush. Both exist."
A pity then that the cowboy was in evidence for most of the last eight years. More like schizophrenia than a conundrum.
Complain about this comment
I heard the whole press conference this morning and I found it to be well done.
I think the clash exists because GW often speaks in simple terms with very little grey, hence people either agree or disagree with him and his policies.
Bush's more simple and direct speaking style usually causes him to speak as either humane Bush or Cowboy Bush, but I think this was one of the few times where both personas appeared.
Complain about this comment
There will be a percentage like Joe Klein or anyone working for NBC who will say he did nothing right.
But a couple points:
He did help lead the fight against Islamic terrrorism which does exist.
He did donated more than anyone to fight AIDS in Africa.
Jimmy Carter was far worse
Complain about this comment
The conundrum I find is people who claim to love freedom, but hate the man who actually brings it to 25 million people.
Complain about this comment
Id say the worst President in history was Pres. Johnson (D) for the failure of Presidential Reconstruction after the Civil War, hands down.
Complain about this comment
3 David_Cunard
Oh Dear!! That is the funniest thing I have read on this blog to date!!
Not sure if this Red Rose Tea commercial was only in Canada but it showed two elderly upper class Brits drinking tea. One asks what kind of tea it is and the other responds, "Red Rose but you can only buy it in Canada." The other, "Only in Canader, you say, pity."
(In this case Canada is spelt correctly.)
Most Canadians, if they were television watchers twenty years ago would associate the word "pity" with that commercial. I find your remark hysterical.
FYI I am taking your lessons to heart and making an effort to not use the word "get".
Complain about this comment
6. NoahtheStud wrote:
"The conundrum I find is people who claim to love freedom, but hate the man who actually brings it to 25 million people."
Do you mean the people of Iraq?
If so, can I come to your world for a bit and see how those liberated Iraqis are enjoying their all-new all-American freedom?
Complain about this comment
There's no conundrum for me. He is a good guy who (on balance) did a lousy job.
Complain about this comment
Hello, Justin: I'm certain your comments will bring out all the rabid Bush-haters, piling on the invective just once more, for old time's sake.
He presided over an extraordinarily challenging eight years, in part because he was handed some essentially unforseeable events. 9/11/2001 comes immediately to mind, the horror of which no longer seems to shock. Hurricane Katrina was a meteorological confirmation of Murphy's Law, as well as Kelly's Corollary (Murphy was an optimist!). The final year was spent dealing with a time bomb that had been planted in the financial system long ago. We all should have seen it coming, and he did (unsuccessfully) try to head it off in pushing for reform of Fannie and Freddie.
Only time will tell about Iraq. I suspect history may be a bit kinder than current commentary, because he did succeed in taking the fight to the enemy on their turf; which is much preferable to them bringing it to us on our own.
But, it will be some years down the road before we know.
Complain about this comment
My thoughts on the Bush Conundrum....
I remember hearing a quote about Bush shortly after his 2000 "victory" ..... can't remember who said it though, but it went like this
"People think Bush is stupid, but nice ..... they're wrong twice!"
The actions of this man have done more to destabilise the world than anyone in my 40 year lifetime. He allowed the greatness of the USA to be diminished and he squandered the unqualified support of the rest of the world after the 9/11 attacks.
However in the interests of balance (I'm not unreasonable) I was quite impressed by his call for an illegal immigrant amnesty a couple of years ago. Shame it wasn't ratified ..... or did he only propose it knowing it would fail????
Complain about this comment
#8. timewaitsfornoman: "#3 Oh Dear!! That is the funniest thing I have read on this blog to date!!"
The simple-minded are easily amused.
Complain about this comment
#5
Magic,
In order to lead something one has to take it in the right direction. Spending a wad of cash and military resources to pursue failed policies isn't leadership.
Policy Sam
Complain about this comment
A professional was required but we got an amateur.
Complain about this comment
5. MagicKirin wrote:
"He did donated more than anyone to fight AIDS in Africa."
_____________________________
I agree, Magic.... (words that rarely spring to my mind) .... but with reservations.
This worries me about the aid plan:
".... there is a catch. Pepfar aid is only released if there is an emphasis on abstinence. The slogan "abstinence until marriage" underpins the philosophy of the project. Life saving condoms play no part in Aids education supported by the programme, while religious organisations are used to deliver care."
taken from the following linked article
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10293
...... and before a whole raft of replies come in saying that it must lies as it is from the "Socialist Review" ..... answer this.... "Is it true or not?"
Also there is a big business angle ......
"The lion's share of Pepfar funding is used to purchase life-saving anti-retrovirals (ARV) from large US pharmaceutical corporations that make massive profits in the process. So in 2006, for example, 73 percent of ARVs for the fund were purchased from the big corporations, this was 20 percent of Pepfar's entire aid budget for that year. By refusing to be bound by World Health Organisation guidelines on drug efficacy, few of the much cheaper generic ARVs are used. So US foreign aid to combat HIV is making vast profits for US firms."
Now I don't want to be looking a gift horse in the mouth, but why sometimes can't these things just be done right?
Still as I said at the beginning of this post, I do agree that he has done more than anyone else .... which should put everyone else on the spot!
Complain about this comment
Oldsouth @11
"Only time will tell about Iraq. I suspect history may be a bit kinder than current commentary, because he did succeed in taking the fight to the enemy on their turf; which is much preferable to them bringing it to us on our own."
Actually Iraq was not the "enemy's turf". Afghanistan (and bits of Northern Pakistan) were.
Bush has even finally admitted that there were no WMD and no Al-Quaeda in Iraq.
That military action has proved to be the major recruitment factor for the terrorists.
Complain about this comment
Can not help agreeing with AndyPost # 10.
Bush is a good guy who just got confused along the way.
The guy had a sad early life. Death of youngest sister, Not accepted at various schools and Universities, Helped in unsuccessful campaign, alcohol abuse for 20 + years, married and found god. Unfortunately as Governeur of Texas he got the bug so bad that support of faith based organisations and his Texas " religious day" successes pushed him over the top. Managed to become President, [perhaps like Palin's achievements, with a lot of prayers]
Not only god's servant, but god's friend, and during their many conversations he both followed the words he heard and even sought to protect his god with specific actions or non-actions to help out. Ignoring calamities, global warming, floods and pestilence to America and the world, he took them to be god's rulings against we sinners, neither a fluke of nature nor our man-made failures. A thought
In everything the guy did, I am sure he felt he was doing his best, however misguided some of his decisions were, and the resulting actions ended up.
Loved and hated, the humane being and the gunslinger.
I realise that this comment will provoke many who have religious beliefs so I have not used upper case letters to highlight the god he made contact with.
I never found the Almighty celebrated by the church, though I respect God in my own way. Perhaps you will denigrate me and my response as being mean and even blasphemous, to which I must reply that perhaps I am praying to Bush's god as well, though we are not on chatting terms..
Some ex-alcoholics see pink elephants, and others......?
Complain about this comment
13 David_Cunard
Did you perceive my comments as mocking or critical of yours? As you have been telling us the choice of words is important, so perhaps I should have used wittiest or most clever to date.
I thought you were "brilliant" to sum up eight years in one sentence.
Complain about this comment
#9. timewaitsfornoman: "13 David_Cunard; Did you perceive my comments as mocking or critical of yours? As you have been telling us the choice of words is important, so perhaps I should have used wittiest or most clever to date."
I took the post to be sarcasm, so please accept my heartfelt apologies. The trouble with e-mails and blogs is that the intonation of the words cannot be heard, and we don't need cute emoticons here!
"I thought you were "brilliant" to sum up eight years in one sentence."
Praise indeed! Thanks again - and I'll try not to be so judgemental in future.
Complain about this comment
DC, don't make promises you've no intention of keeping!
Complain about this comment
20 David_Cunard
Thank you. There is a lot of sarcasm, but usually from happylaze or sam so to be expected. I must keep in mind my comments might be misinterpreted and choose my words carefully.
I really did laugh out loud - I thought, "How clever."
Complain about this comment
Hello all,
I read somewhere (can't remember where, it was a long time ago, and it has been a long day . . . ) that Bush, while not necessarily a stupid man, does not govern by thought as much as by "feel." He doesn't "know" so much as he "believes." And I think that was the point of the Oliver Stone flick, as well.
He seems genuine enough as a human being, i.e., sincere in his feelings. This might explain why Americans were able to re-elect him, in spite of his many other shortcomings.
Because of this sincerity, and this, well, simpleness, history may be far kinder to G.W. Bush than it will be to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Wolfowitz, et al. who were those who did the thinking, such as it was.
I think the real scorn should be saved for the ideological principles of neo-conservatism, and the thinking practitioners of that ideology, who were the true anima of the Bush Presidency.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
#21. seanspa: "DC, don't make promises you've no intention of keeping!"
I would never promise - I said I would try!
Complain about this comment
24 David_Cunard "I said I would try!"
That's what I thought of writing. "He only said he was going to try!"
Complain about this comment
Gary Trudeau nails (as usual) the Bush belief thing with another Doonesbury cartoon here.
Note also the little quote from Lincoln Chaffee re: the "Cheney years."
Dat's what I'm talkin' 'bout.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Sam, about your comment that all that LA
has is I5, burritos, and porn...
Now we know why you love the place!
Complain about this comment
#7, Bien, you make a compelling case.
I have a new idea for a novelty item: a dart board
with the most unpopular presidents in our history
in residence.
I'm not sure how many points you get for
Bush, but he's definitely on there.
Complain about this comment
I find it most ironic that Bush's several defenders on here portray him as a victim of disasters that were waiting to happen as this is very much how many view the man himself.
His passing is most presciently typified by the following remark:
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."
Washington DC, 12 May, 2008
I am hopeful - although I suspect in vain - that his departure does not signal an acquittal of his time in office. He is responsible for some of the most atrocious political, economic and sociological outrages in modern Western history which cannot be excused simply as 'disappointments' or 'mistakes'. Maladministration is one thing, and in itself bad enough; his presidency and cabinet deserve minute investigation and, if impropriety is proven, the consequences of their actions.
Complain about this comment
I don't think there is a 'conundrum' at all. It's what happens when you elect a 'conviction' politician.
Some of his convictions may be good; and for some he should be convicted.
Complain about this comment
And now, just when we need it, a new national
poll is available rating the worst presidents of all
time.
I'm eagerly anticipating the results of the
poll so that I can have my dart boards made
up. We could have a dart board where the
space apportioned to each incompetent is
proportional to his unpopularity.
Complain about this comment
Justin - the cowboys I know are of the better sort, decent, modest, generally quiet, wouldn't hurt a stranger's grandmother.
My assessment of the Bush-Cheney administration is that they gave away the farm.
Either W is a great scoundrel, or he is a simpleton chosen to be the tool of a genuinely malevolent cabal. He seems to believe what he says - so is he a true believer (and a simpelton), or is he as good an actor as we have had on that stage in a long time? (Clinton wasn't that kind of actor - he implicitly believes everything he lusts after.)
One thing I do see - Either he has no idea who the majority of American wage-earning, consuming, taxpaying citizens are (the middle three quintiles), or he is a heartless scoundrel like his minders. They clearly have only scorn for those who pay their wages and consume their products, and have no awareness at all of the lowest quintile.
I can't decide.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
10. At 11:04pm on 12 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"There's no conundrum for me. He is a good guy who (on balance) did a lousy job."
I think this is the same way I feel. I don't think he is a bad person but, his inability to get it (as simple as I can put it) is and was astonishing to me. This in turn made him look like a bad person. He did more than a lousy job, he really set us back; but he gave us more proof that republican economics do not work. The last 8 years have been a disaster and I think he felt like he was up to the job; but then became paranoid after 9/11. I am glad to see him go, and I am ready for the next chapter in American history.
Complain about this comment
One more thing, Cheney is evil. I have no doubt about that.
Complain about this comment
A nice guy? Are you all serious or just having a laugh?
This is a guy who dragged America into a stupid war.
This is the guy who through the Bill of Rights out the window.
This is the guy who believes the constitution is just toilet-paper.
This is the guy who believes in kidnapping, torture and prision without trial, (all for the good of America, of course).
This is the guy who openly mocked a woman on death row the day before she was executed.
This is the guy who flew to Bagdad with a plastic turkey for a 'cool' foto-op.
This is the guy who insulted America's long-term allies because they wouldn't lock-step with his stupidity.
This is the guy who has destroyed the American economy and dragged millions in the rest of the world back down into poverty.
and, and, and...
This guy should be either in jail or an asylum.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
35.
"This is the guy who through the Bill of Rights out the window."
lol... Such highly intelligent commentary... threw and threw.
Words that sound the same but are spelt differently, and have different meanings are called "homonyms". It's not anything to do with homosexual.
Examples are:
There - Their
Your - You're
Through - Threw
See if that gets referred to the mods.
Complain about this comment
18 watermanaquarius
While Bush's early life with tragedy, alcoholism etc are terribly sad, he did not grow up on skid row, but had every helping hand possible in every aspect of his life.
His finding "religion" is all well and good .... but perhaps he should have become a preacher and not a president!
Once you go into public office, your actions & faith, if you use it as a political tool without seeming to do more than lip-service to its ideals (actions not words make a Christian in my mind) will be held accountable.
Complain about this comment
I see my post is referred again. Here it is again rephrased.
Good riddance to Bush I say. You can talk up about 'humane' Bush as much as you like - judge him by his actions. He's responsible for thousands of deaths, many of them innocent women and children. He left New Orleans to rot because 'only' black people were there.
To paraphrase Churchill: ' . . . the live of one has cost so many'!
Complain about this comment
39.
Friends, Romans and countrymen
"actions not words make a Christian in my mind"
I don't think that you get to be the judge of what makes a Christian. I think that's reserved for God.
In my mind, God is far more concerned about the state of your spiritual heart. Even Paul the apostle struggled with his actions not living up to his intentions.
Complain about this comment
#41 R-Snail
If I was still a Christian my overriding axiom in life would be: what would Jesus do?
Even Jesus would find it hard to forgive Bush for his killing spree.
Complain about this comment
12. RomeStu wrote:
"He allowed the greatness of the USA to be diminished and he squandered the unqualified support of the rest of the world after the 9/11 attacks."
I think you over play the level of support we had form the rest fo the world immediately post-9/11. The support was NEVER unqualified and was only in evidence provided we did nothing and took it as just one of those things.
There are states and groups that are our enemies, regardless of what diplomatic varnish some may wish to paint over it. I felt he was brutally honest to strip that away and just tell it like it is.
The new guy coming into office? Just another slippery lawyer from what I see.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu # 39
Spare the rod, spoil the child.
Why is it that so many people born with a silver spoon in their mouths go off the rails in one way or another.
I do not condone anything that Bush did, and was just offering an explanation of how he could have become a President with two faces.
Eyes wide open or held tight shut, he sure had an odd way of making his decisions.
Maybe ignored by his Dad in the past he thought that he had a chance to make it up and make good, and finish the work of three "fathers" together in his 8 year tenure. Unfortunately on one's knees all the time, you do not see the bigger picture around you.
If Obama can walk the walk in the depressing days ahead, maybe we will look back and wish we had a POTUS who tripped over his own words more often than not, instead of having our noses rubbed in the reality of the problems we now face, by a more eloquent speaker.
Complain about this comment
The "humane Bush"! Really? Mmnn - never having met the guy (and never wanting to either) there has not been one single thing event of his entire presidency that I could even begin to think of attaching the word "humane." With the direct responsibility for the death of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands, the only half way decent response would be for him simply disappear from public view and spend the rest of his life in atonement. The "humane Bush" indeed!
Complain about this comment
I think history will show Bush did the right thing regarding the fight with terrorists. Given the intellegence availabe to him at the time about WMD, he also did the right thing to invade Iraq. Sadam was a menance to the world. I also think we have to be bold enough to say who else is responsible for the anarchy and suicide bombing which followed the Iraq war until these days.
Well, regarding Obama, we have to see what happens on the ground. We should not praise him yet because all he said so far is he will go back on all the hard decision that conservatives made and pu in place for which liberals are always criticizing them.
Because cabinate posts are shared among the widest group possible - to show that everybody is part of the governing process - does not mean there will be an effective government.
It is like benefitting from public opinion by saying that other countries will no longer hate us since will no longer be touching an inch of their interest. If that is so, that is when the real decline of American power and prestige will start.
Complain about this comment
I cannot take Bush seriously. The world will be a better place with him back in Texas.
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning
stages and accepting donations.
The Library will include:
1. The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
2. The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
3. The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
4. The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
5. The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
6. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
7. The National Debt Room, which is huge and has no ceiling.
8. The Tax Cut Room, with entry only to the wealthy.
9. The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.
10. The Iraq War Room. (After you complete your first visit, they make you go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth
visit.)
11. The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete with shooting gallery.
12. The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.
13. The Supreme Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
14. The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your
favorite Republican Senators.
15. The Decider Room, complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
Note: The library will feature an electron microscope to help you
locate and view the President's accomplishments.
The library will also include many famous Quotes by George W.Bush:
1. 'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.'
2. 'If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.'
3. 'Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.'
4. 'No senior citizen should ever have to choose between prescription drugs and medicine.'
5. 'I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.'
6. 'One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.'
7. 'Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.'
8. 'I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.'
9. 'The future will be better tomorrow.'
10. 'We're going to have the best educated American people in the world..'
11. 'One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.' (during an education photo-op)
12. 'Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it.'
13. 'We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.'
14. 'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
15. 'I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.'...George W. Bush to Sam Donaldson
Complain about this comment
#46 berken09:
"I think history will show Bush did the right thing regarding the fight with terrorists. Given the intellegence availabe to him at the time about WMD, he also did the right thing to invade Iraq. Sadam was a menance to the world."
Even if one accepted that as true the inept way the invasion was handled and the lack of any coherent plan for Iraq's future beyond 'overthrow Saddam' is more than enough to damn the Bush Whitehouse.
Complain about this comment
42.
I find the axiom of "what would Jesus do" is rather egocentric as it opines that we should strive to act like God. If one truly believes the message of Christ, then the tasking that was laid before us was not "Act like me." but "To love God with all of your strength and to love your fellow humans as ourselves."
... but you are not, and I draw from your tone that also do not hold the Native American philosophy of "Do not judge a man until you've walked a mile in his mocassins."
Rather you've moved into the "I am God, and I hold the absolute right to judge, because my perspective is omniscience."
To say that Jesus would not forgive makes it appear that you judge His sacrifice as inadequate.
I only hope you never find yourself in a postion of authority over me. I don't think much of that particular worlview.
Complain about this comment
Phillipe Sands was interviewed the other day on NPR. Mainly talking about war crime investigations. I think the most important thing he said is that the 'War on Terror' was a big mistake, it must be reframed. Like the experience of the British in NI the terrorists should have been called and dealt with as criminals not 'warriors'. This was the huge mistake in principle. The invasion of Iraq and the thousands of deaths (possibly hundreds of thousands) are huge and I don't think history will ever look at this sympathetically. If Obama moving forward rather than looking back means that no one will ever face personal consequences for their actions then I think that will be a huge mistake. Sands seemed to focus more on the legal advice Bush was given then on Bush's himself. Obama seems to have surrounded himself, including on the legal counsel side with more able and principled people. But some admission of past mistakes is required. Even Nixon apparently fessed up - (going by the movie - I don't remember the original interviews).
Complain about this comment
He was not misunderestimated - he has always appeared to me to be unaware, unintelligent, insulated, childish and divisive - once removed from reality. He also appeared to be a puppet for corporate interests without conscience, who can't quite get his lines right. He personally seemed to treat his role in politics and government as a game., heh heh.
Complain about this comment
George W Bush is someone who simply should never have been elevated to the lofty position of "decider" ("I am the decider, and I decide what's best..."; April 18, 2006).
He is, to use a phrase derided by the great George Carlin, "minimally exceptional". Either that or, as has been mentioned earlier, he is a consummate actor (which admittedly I think gives far too much credence to the suggestion that he is a nefarious plotter and usurper).
He is effectively part of a dynastic system of power, which bears worryingly similar traits to those of royal bloodlines. That one person should have risen to lead a country does not mean their son, or wife, or any other blood relative shares a similar aptitude for, or 'right' to, such a position.
His legacy at best will be governance by mediocrity. Personally, when taken in context with the outgoing administration, I think it is much worse.
Complain about this comment
16 has some notes on Pepfar including:
- a concern that too much of the funding is concerned with abstinence. The slogan "abstinence until marriage" underpins the philosophy of the project. Life saving condoms play no part in Aids education supported by the programme, while religious organisations are used to deliver care.
- The lion's share of Pepfar funding is used to purchase life-saving anti-retrovirals (ARV) from large US pharmaceutical corporations that make massive profits in the process.
Well, it's supposed to be the test of a first class intelligence to hold two contradictory ideas in your head simultaneously. You passed.
Congress has determined that over half of the Pepfar funds are to be spent on treatment programmes, including antiretroviral treatment, care for associated opportunistic infections and nutritional support for people living with HIV/AIDS.
In countries with generalised HIV epidemics, at least half of all money directed towards preventing sexual HIV transmission should be for ?activities promoting abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy, fidelity, and partner reduction?. If this is not complied with then the Global AIDS Coordinator must report to Congress within 30 days on the reasons behind the shortfall.
So both the points have some validity but is the "abstinence before marriage" bandwagon getting in the way of the treatment dog? Not if the guidelines Congress has set out are followed.
As to the other point, would you rather that the programme did not offer anti-retrovirals to people already living with HIV?
This seems to be a complex programme which attempts to deal with the problems of HIV spread and transmission as well as those who are already living with the disease. It has already been amended once and no doubt will be modified in future years as the environment changes.
Complain about this comment
The biggest conundrum is how is ever got elected in the first place
Complain about this comment
47. bcmhall wrote:
"The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning
stages and accepting donations."
Will it have a poodle creche? And can we donate a stuffed Tony Blair to it?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, the the Bush 'Libary' will only contain picture books, and secret memos nobody can look at, plus family albums from the Saudi royalty.
Complain about this comment
47 bcm:
lol very funny!
Complain about this comment
49
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried.
People who stop and ask whether Jesus (or MLK, or Ghandi or some other exemplar) might have reacted more wisely are anything but egocentric. They are admitting their own fallibility from the outset.
It is the people who think that their own immediate, impulsive reaction to a situation must be the right one who imagine themselves to be something like God.
Complain about this comment
50. AAPrescott wrote:
"The thousands of deaths . . ."
The most conservative figures for numbers of civilians known to have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Iraq: 90, 318
Afghanistan: 3,485
There are much higher figures to be found, but they are estimates.
"We don't do body counts": in General Tommy Franks' words; presumably only Americanbodies count . . .
Then there are the deaths in Somalia and Palestine resulting from American policies and Congo and Darfur from the lack of any.
(For comparison: number of civilian deaths in the whole of World War II: UK: 67,100; USA: 1,700.
I fail to see why, if it was possible to keep a count of the numbers of civilians killed sixty years ago, it should, apparently, not be possible now.)
Of course, other elected leaders, notably Tony Blair, also bear some responsibility. Since both are professed Christians, I trust they are at ease with their consciences.
Complain about this comment
Ref 46
"I think history will show Bush did the right thing regarding the fight with terrorists. Given the intellegence availabe to him at the time about WMD, he also did the right thing to invade Iraq."
The only way history will judge President Bush's foreign policy favorably is if it is written by Republican historians.
His decision to launch an unprovoked attack and occupy Iraq may have impressed those loyal and naive citizens who believed the insinuations made by Dick Cheney about Saddam Hussein's complicity with 9/11, and the ruse about WMDs after UN inspectors, al Baredei, and our own CIA tried desperately to tell the Administration in unambiguous ways that there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and that all the WMDs that the Reagan Administration and Russia had provided to Iraq had in fact been destroyed. Their assurances were dismissed with statements such as: who are you going to believe Saddam or the US government? And with insinuations that UN inspections had been ineffective because Saddam was transporting his lethal weapons from one warehouse to another in the trucks that Gen Powell showed the world in one of the most embarrassing episodes in the last 8 years. No, the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with poor intelligence; it was deliberate and concocted long before 9/11 in response to Saddam;s decision to turn down the contract bids presented by Cheney and Rumsfeld on behalf of Halliburton and Bechtel and giving them to French and Russian firms, not to mention the invasion of Kuwait and the potential destabilization of oil supplies from the Persian Gulf.
Considering the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists that carried out the attack, their leaders, planners and financiers I think historians are going to have a difficult time explaining the logic of invading Iraq with a straight face:
Saudi Arabia: 16
Egypt: 1
UAE: 1
Lebanon: 1
Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia and his top lieutenant in Egypt.
According to the CIA most of the financiers were Saudi Wahabist princes, with some Pakistani involvement, and the tacit complicitly of the Taleban in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
#27
Yeah baby.
Now we're talking.
Beach Bum Sam
Complain about this comment
The "conundrum" of which you speak, Mr. W., is easy to explain, if you're from Texas, which I am (born and raised there, but, luckily, escaped at an early age!).
What Dumbya is doing is called "slow playing" -- a common practice in the old-school South, whereby a person tries to outwit someone he/she percieves as being shaprer than he/she is, by attempting to appear less-intelligent than he/she actually is.
Confused? That's why the South is as messed-up as it is -- they relish exercises in tortured logic.
The problem with the "slow playing" strategy is, the person who pretends to be dumber than nature originally intended, usually turns out to be exactly that: dumb as a rock -- a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.
Call it Celebrating the Joy of Low Expectations, or Pride in the Weird and Bizarre, but that's the way Texans think. Like their boasting about having the biggest, meanest mosquitoes of anyone elses in the whole wide world!
They live a chimerial existence.
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin "He did donated more than anyone to fight AIDS in Africa."
-------------------------------------------------------
A few points ...
Politicians have ensured that companies in Alabama won U.S. government contracts to make billions of condoms over the years for AIDS prevention and family planning programs overseas, although Asian factories could do the job at less than half the cost.
The wheat to feed the starving must be grown in United States and shipped to Africa, enriching agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. The American consulting firms in Washington that carry out anti-poverty programs abroad - dubbed beltway bandits by critics - do work that some advocates say local groups in developing countries could often manage at far less cost.
A third of US money for HIV/AIDS prevention must go to promoting abstinence. Many of the clinics where people WERE tested and treated for HIV/AIDS, or got condoms to protect themselves, no longer offer these services because of cuts in US aid due to the Mexico City policy (the "global gag rule"). The Mexico City policy was introduced by Reagan in 1984. One of the first things that Clinton did was to suspend the policy. On G W Bush's FIRST day in office he reinstated the policy! The US blanket refusal to fund any agency that so much as breathes the word "abortion" is undermining its entire global strategy for health.
For many women and children in Africa, family planning clinics are the sole contact with healthcare professionals. In some cases, the same clinic that offers abortion counselling also provides prenatal care, childhood immunisations and protection against malaria. When clinics close or are scaled down, it is not just abortions that fall by the wayside. Public health suffers too. It undermines the whole health infrastructure.
Complain about this comment
I'm with the Pinko and the Curmudgeon.
Ish, Stuffed indeed. The man who single-handedly changed the postural image conjured by "shoulder to shoulder"!
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
IMO the damage done by the Bush Administration - and Dick "Machiavelli" Cheney in particular - is unprecedented and worthy of prosecution, but I fear that the revelations that would come out from an investigation into the policies, actions and misdeeds of this Administration would cause irreparable damage to the Office of the Presidency, our system of government, and our image abroad.
Consequently, I believe the best course of action is to let the infamous scoundrels that are about to depart 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue live with their conscience for the rest of their miserable lives, and focus instead on the future which looks precarious thanks to their greed, arrogance, cultural intolerance, contempt for our Constitution and our laws, and their sheer incompetence.
Complain about this comment
Students of American history know that a presidency, especially one which lasted two terms is a complex multifaceted thing to analyze which can only be viewed objectively after the passage of decades when the emotions of the moment are gone and we have all moved on to other things. This notwithstanding, I think history will judge him as follows;
The war in Iraq was a correct decision supported by the majority of Congress and of the American population. He will have been seen to have acted in good faith on the best available information he had been given. When he announced "mission accomplished" that was the end of one war and the beginning of another. The second war, that of the insurgency was not well handled at all. In the end, victory or defeat was deferred to another president and the apparent turnaround only came late in the game when failed strategies were finally abandoned.
In the war on terror, he will be proven correct. The tactics so despised by some now will be seen as exigencies of war, inevitable atrocities and in some cases necessary to protect American lives and interests. The events of 9-11 will be seen as the consequence of both parties during the Clinton Administration failing to appreciate the risk the country was at and failing to take effective preventative measures. If there was one failing he'll own, it will be judged that he failed to mobilize the nation and keep it on a war footing where it should be now but isn't.
In Katrina, he will be judged to have failed because during the first 60 hours after the storm, the federal government failed to take massive effective action it was capable of and prepared for. He will get the blame. This will also be viewed as the reason his party lost control of both houses of Congress in 2004. One can only speculate what would have been done differently if the victims had been his wealthy supporters in someplace like Hiltonhead Island where he was playing golf at the time instead of impovrished Louisiana. Bush fiddled while New Orleans drowned.
In support of Israel, he will be judged as correct and fully in line with American principles and longstanding policies of prior presidents.
In aid to Africa especially in fighting AIDS he will be judged to have been the most generous and most foresighted president possible. His appreciation that a destabalized Africa would be a dire security threat to the US will be one of the high spots of his presidency.
In the economy, his policies will be judged to have been a disaster, a repeat of the Coolidge Hoover period when laissez-faire capitalism led to a financial market crash and a depression. But his administration and party will share the blame with the Democrats and the prior Clinton administration who also played a major role.
In relations with Europe, it will be judged that they may have not been handled as well as they could have been but it will be judged unimportant. His foreign policy will on the whole be judged as mixed with good relations with much of Asia and a notable improvement in relations with India.
In policy towards Iran and North Korea, his policies will be seen as a failure having stopped neither in their quest for nuclear weapons which would destabalize the entire world.
On the environment, he will have been judged as correct not to enter the US into treaties which would have been ineffective at stopping global warming but very damaging to the US economy. It will be judged that he could have done more to promote development of alternative sources of energy.
A mixed record as with all presidents. Some plusses and some minuses. Having prevented an expected second attack on the US by foreign terrorists during his watch, he will on the whole be judged to have been good because this was the most important accomplishment and issue of his presidency. His successor should be that lucky.
Complain about this comment
35 Hurley totally agree me.I was not being serious when I said "nice guy".
I am glad that for the first time in many months someone has heard that GW executed innocents ,but I think it is because he is thick as a brick and cannot read or comprehend little details .
I was digging at the fact that no matter how nice his underlying American attitude of an eye for a eye,crime and punishment,Gun Ho,got in the way of what the rest of us might see as nice.
Complain about this comment
41 R-Snail wrote:
"I don't think that you get to be the judge of what makes a Christian. I think that's reserved for God.
In my mind, God is far more concerned about the state of your spiritual heart. Even Paul the apostle struggled with his actions not living up to his intentions."
I don't believe in God .... but why can I not judge a person who professes a certain faith (love thy enemy, thou shalt not kill etc etc) and then acts consistently in opposition to these beliefs.
I know this is the real world and difficult decisions must be made .... but a leader shouldn't trumpet his faith if he does not wish to be judged according to its standards.
God, if he existed, would I'm sure be wringing his hands over the state of Bush's "spiritual heart".
Complain about this comment
49 R-Snail wrote
"... but you are not, and I draw from your tone that also do not hold the Native American philosophy of "Do not judge a man until you've walked a mile in his mocassins."
Lovely bit of Native American wisdom, but are you seriously suggesting that only a former POTUS can make judgements of Bush.
It kind of closes down Justin's blog ..... unless you are really George H W Bush using an alias!
Complain about this comment
38 Sluggo Sam got offended when I questioned your service.
What would the mods do without you trolls.
You make no statement except to ridicule some ones spelling with no understanding of the possible hurdles they jumped to get there(or not).Maybe they learned a new language.
So as you mock them I will mock you for being what you rare not .Courageous.
You are a coward for not addressing his points but resorting to complaining about his spelling.
Pathetic wimp
Complain about this comment
"Given the intellegence availabe to him"
that is the problem.lol
Complain about this comment
Ref 7 BienvenueEnLouisiana
Good point.
Andrew Johnson has always held the worst position on my list of Presidents. Johnson created a terrible wound to our re-formed nation that still festers after a 140 years. His administration and policies kept our nation divisive at a time it needed to become united and start to rebuild.
Many times I have wondered how our nation would have turned out had Lincoln's reunification plans been carried out by Johnson. Would the South have been so cruelly subjected by Copperheads and Carpetbaggers? Would there be a Ku Klux Klan? Would the freed slaves have been guided through the transition of servant to free citizen?
Complain about this comment
43 Schwerpunkt wrote
"I think you over play the level of support we had form the rest fo the world immediately post-9/11. The support was NEVER unqualified and was only in evidence provided we did nothing and took it as just one of those things."
Ok, I used the word "unqualified" in a general sense, not a political-military sense - wishing to imply that support for the PEOPLE of the USA in this terrible time was unqualified, not support for the potential actions of its President.
I absolutely do not overplay the support for the USA after 9/11 ..... the whole world was shocked. No one could believe what they were seeing on the TV that day, and it is always worth remembering that it centred on the WORLD Trade Centre and roughly 500 foreigners (including 67 British) died in the Twin Towers.
Support for the USA was strong all over Europe - even France .... Yes, the whole issue with France didn't go sour until they (rather wisely it turned out) refused toplay ball over Iraq.
Afghanistan was never a problem - it was where the Taliban and Al-Quaeda were .... but if you still can't understand the damage the Iraq invasion did to the US reputation, and to the world's security, then there is little hope of rational debate with you.
Complain about this comment
George H W should have used a condom.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
66 Marcus
"The war in Iraq was a correct decision supported by the majority of Congress and of the American population. He will have been seen to have acted in good faith on the best available information he had been given."
Au contraire, I believe it will be viewed as a knee-jerk reaction to long-standing political and family issues regarding Sadaam Hussein.
Please do not confuse Afghanistan (justified) with Iraq (not)
_________
"When he announced "mission accomplished" that was the end of one war and the beginning of another."
This is a facile reinterpretation of what was nothing more than shallow politicl grandstanding.
___________
How history interprets Bush will have alot to do with who writes the history .....
Complain about this comment
RomeStew
How many times do you think you can beat this dead horse? It will never run. There is no doubt that the overwhelming evidence presented to President Bush by intelligence reports including CIA assessments such as by the Director George Tenet appointed by Clinton who said it was "a slam dunk", by Vladimir Putin of all people who told Bush his intelligence agencies thought Iraq was planning an attack on US soil, by M5's dodgy dossier came to the same conclusion and that is that Iraq had WMDs and was planning to use them possibly on the US. The mood of the country was one of extreme fear having been attacked only months earlier. Erring on the side of caution meant attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime. (It was long overdue anyway.) Congress voted for it overwhelmingly in both houses (including Senator Hillary Clinton) and the polls showed the American people supported it. Even as recently as last weekend, Ehud Barach said in an interview with Leon Charney that Israeli intelligence believed it at the time also. So did every other major intelligence organization in the world. Even Saddam Hussein's own generals believed it.
You may not like these facts but that is what will determine how history is reported, not your emotional dislike for what was done at the time. Personally, I think the US wasted an opportunity to overthrow Iran's government as well. We had troops on two sides, Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat of Iran now looms as the most dangerous situation in the world. That is partly President Bush's fault. He did not deal with it decisively. He didn't deal with it at all. Eventually we will pay a heavy price for that mistake.
Complain about this comment
73 RomeStu
"support for the PEOPLE of the USA in this terrible time was unqualified," I agree. The support from Canada was overwhelming. Hundreds drove to NYC to offer their assistance.
Canada participated in the invasion of Afghanistan - we are still there. Relations turned "frosty" after we refused to send troops to Iraq.
We felt "freedom fries" was a little over the top and found the pouring of Beaujolais on the ground, incomprehensible. Maybe someone could enlightened me as to why France was singled out.
"Mission Accomplished" was difficult to watch, so I didn't!
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#75) "How history interprets Bush will have a lot to do with who writes the history ... "
Yes, but by "the judgment of history" one generally means the collective judgment of the many historians in generations to come who will have had no personal stake in the decisions of our time, and who will have the great advantage of knowing how things turned out in the decades following the term of their subject.
Complain about this comment
bush as hugo chavez so aptly put it is the 'devil'.arguably the biggest war criminal since adolf hitler.this man has invaded two countries with potential economical benefits for america under the guise of 'the war on terror'.he and his advisors diliberately misled and misinformed america and by extention the rest of the world through mass media that have fed a steady diet of lies or tainted facts to garner support and simpathy for an unjust and unpopular war, which can be dubbed 'veitnam 2'.if there is any justice in the international arena then mr bush should be brought before the hague,i doubt we'll ever see that happening though.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
I think it is very simple.
Lord help him, he's just not that bright.
Simple Sam
Complain about this comment
How little it takes to stir hope
Fingers crosseded
Complain about this comment
Bush was never in charge
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
74. At 3:19pm on 13 Jan 2009, Ed Iglehart wrote:
George H W should have used a condom.
----------------------
but he couldn't figure out how it worked.
Complain about this comment
#58 fatfox
Agreed. If every Christian used that axiom then the world would be a much better place.
#59 Brit-ish
Indeed, Crony Blair isn't innocent in all this.
Complain about this comment
Time it did seem that the world was with the US for a while there.
But that gun ho attitude got in the way..
Complain about this comment
#76 MAII:
"You may not like these facts but that is what will determine how history is reported, not your emotional dislike for what was done at the time. Personally, I think the US wasted an opportunity to overthrow Iran's government as well."
I'm sorry but given the expense, overstretch, and general ineptitude of those directing the USA's military campaign in Iraq/Afghanistan you seriously think taking on a third front would have been a wise move?
Oh and as for the comment about facts and emotion? I admire your rampant optimism.
Complain about this comment
#76 Marcu
You forget that all the intelligence agencies used the same source!! It was some Iraqi dissident (picked up from the German intelligence services) who hadn't been in Iraq for years and was known to be unreliable. But everyone used his story anyway!
Complain about this comment
The obvious question to the allegations that Iraq may not have destroyed all the chemical and biological weapons provided to them by the Reagan Administration during the Iraq-Iran war would be...so what?
We don't seem to have a problem with the Zionist State of Israel having nuclear weapons and, allegedly, using chemical weapons against civilians during the current campaign. Why so much emphasis on the probability that a Muslim state - and old ally - may have had a fraction of the lethal weapons that Israel has, while we look the other way at the inhumanity of the acts being perpetrated by a State founded by people that we once considered terrorists"
Complain about this comment
#60 DominickVila
Nice post. Bush's axis of evil was never going to 'liberate' Saudi Arabia was it.
#65 Dom again
I don't think you can equate Machiavelli with Bush and Dick. If we could then the Republicans wouldn't be in the mess they are now.
Complain about this comment
I think most of you are giving the man to much credit. Knowing his history before 2001 and seeing many interviews, I truly do not believe he had a clue about what was happening or how to solve it. He always talked like someone who had studied for an exam, albeit badly.
I don't believe for a second that many of the decisions that he made came from his own mind. I believe he was heavily influenced and made decisions based on the arguments presents to him.
Even if you are a bad presenter or have issues talking to a crowd, you can generally sell your own ideas and thinking. He was never able to do that and sometimes struggled to present the basics.
To me, what I will remember most about the Bush years is the use of the Nazi tactics of fear, followed by restrictions and laws removing certain rights.
"You are either with us or against us" is the Bush legacy.
Complain about this comment
Ref 87 dceilar
"But everyone used his story anyway!"
I think the operative word is "used" because that is exactly what the Bush Administration did with the convenient "evidence" offered by an unreliable defector, instead of listening to the categorical reports offered by international inspectors or the words of caution from our allies before our decision to attack a developing nation that had done nothing to threaten our security was made.
Iraq, and the policies that contributed to the despicable acts that took place at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have tarnished our moral standing worldwide to the point that we look like hypocrites when we impress the need to respect human rights to other nations.
Other "legacies" for historians to consider include acts that violated and/or weakened our civil liberties and Constitutional rights, not to mention the irresponsible fiscal policies and tax breaks to the top 10% of our population who hold 90% of our wealth.
Complain about this comment
deceilar, even if what you say about all of the reports ultimately coming from one flawed source is true, President Bush had no way to know that. Therefore, his decision based on what appeared to him to be a multitude of reports from different sources led to one inescapable conclusion. This is why Congress investigated it. Are you sorry Saddam Hussein and the Baathists are gone? Frankly, I think not just jostling the political applecart in the middle east but turning it upside down and sending all the apples hurtling in all directions at once was just what it needed. Saddam Hussein was in no position to challenge the ascendency of Iran. Only the US could do that. The mess that's there now is a major shift from the glacial pace of change in the past and I think Iraq had a lot to do with it. Too bad we didn't steal the oil. If you are going to be accused of a crime by the entire world, you might as well be guilty and have gotten some benefit from it.
Complain about this comment
Ref 81, Ed
Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State nominee, also stated that the USA will not engage in negotiations with Hamas until they recognize Israel's right to exist and abandon violence. In effect, Hamas, and by de facto the Palestinians, must surrender their most fundamental grievance and behave submissively before we allow them to negotiate the terms of a settlement that could, presumably, increase the number of crumbs they currently get.
So much for change!
Complain about this comment
While the US citizenry is free to debate the Bush legacy, it should be remembered that we are really debating our legacy. Is the conundrum posed by Justin one of reality or perception? I suspect the later.
Complain about this comment
#76
Marcus,
By M5 do you mean the car or the Motorway? The car is cool, sort of, but I didn't think it produced dossiers. Nor the Motorway?
Or are you referring to the thing Tony Blair had written to support his policy decision? That wasn't intelligence, in fact MI6, responsible for overseas intelligence in the UK, specifically stated they found the presence of WMD unlikely. Unless you count chemical shells, which were hardly a threat to the US.
Then there was Curveball, who everyone discounted, including many in the CIA. But Cheney hired a bunch of chums like Richard Pearle to 'interpret' the data and that was what we got, a political document to support policy.
The only Intelligence facts in your statement are George Tenet said it was a slam dunk (he didn;t do too well on 9/11 either) and Vladimir Putin, who as we know has our best interests at heart, encouraged us to go into Iraq. And Afghanistan. He didn't send troops to help us though. Hmmmm.
As for your other idea of invading Iran, a more powerful enemy than either the Taliban or Iraq, nice one. Like our military isn't over stretched now. Of course we could reinstate the draft and spend 2 years preparing while they buy or borrow a nuke from Pakistan and start a real big war.
That's the problem with armchair chickenhawks. They just don't think things through.
Top Gear Sam
Complain about this comment
I'm relieved to see him go. He's done enough damage to give many people decades of job security to fix his problems.
I do give him credit for one phenomena: thanks to him, it looks like us Americans got over the idea that our President should be someone we can have a beer with. Bush may be a decent guy, but that's no criteria by which to elect a man for President. (Once, by the way. Elected once.)
I saw that press conference too. While I appreciated his candor about mistakes made, he still doesn't get it. As someone with friends from New Orleans, I can't believe or forgive his defense of his handling of Katrina. Those helicopter and sea rescue workers he crowed about had nothing to do with him, his beloved Brownie or his Dept of Homeland Security. It was mostly thanks to then-Gov. Blanco and her authorization of Lousiana Dept of Fish and Wildlife, the Coast Guard, and countless volunteers that IGNORED FEMA and went in anway.
Not only did FEMA deny aid workers access to the area, it declined offers of assistance, and grounded firefighters and search/rescue teams by forcing them attend sexual harassment training/passing out leaflets in the week after the flooding.
Bush also said a great tragedy about Katrina was that Karl Rove's long-torsoed nephew left his special golf clubs in New Orleans, so his golf game was disadvantaged by having to use standard golf clubs.
Ummm, hello?????!!!! Can't leave soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
Complain about this comment
Happy,
He mistook it for a conundrum.Complain about this comment
The Republican party seems to be split into two operationally divergent ethical groups. 1. Those that want to present"Joe" or "Sarah" everyperson as being capable of running the country whilst the real power behind the throne rules in secret and undertakes an agenda devoid of most normal human compassion. The prooof that Bush was this type was clear when he declaims faults as being not his own and decries criticism as being personal (ie should not have been directed at him; it is not who he thinks he is). Palin is the successor to this Republican party, a part very vuch still in control (ie Joe the Plumber being their spokesperson now).
2. The party that wants to present its philosophy and elitism openly and desires to earn respect and approval because of a force of logic. This is the party of Newt and serious conservatives. Like it or hate it, it is clear, open and honest. You may disagree, vehemently, and will be met with discussion and disapproval, but never with suprcilious disdain (a la Cheney).
Complain about this comment
91 Dominick
Well said - eloquent and succint.
Complain about this comment
He's still got a lot to learn...
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Ref 90
"I think most of you are giving the man to much credit."
The only thing I give him credit for is his ability to use his Daddy's wealth and influence to graduate from a prestigious university (albeit with a C average), his ability to avoid serving in Vietnam, his skills in bringing a relatively prosperous oil company to the verge of bankruptcy, his inept management of a baseball team, his death penalty conviction record as Governor of Texas, and the good fortune of having his brother Jeb as Governor of Florida in 2000.
Other than that, he has been a puppet to the machinations of Dick Cheney, the true force in the Bush Administration.
I am convinced, however, that holding hearings on the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney would be counter productive since the revelations that are likely to emerge would cause irreparable damage to the Office of the Presidency, our system of government, and further diminish whatever little credibility we still have abroad. The best thing we can do is let those responsible for the debacle we are seeing reflect on their decisions, live with their conscience for the rest of their miserable lives, and focus on the challenges ahead.
Complain about this comment
#92 Marcu
Call me cynical, but I don't think it worked the way you suggested. I think the decision to invade Iraq was already taken and then the 'intelligence' was used to justify it.
Considering how closely monitored Iraq was (with no fly zones, sanctions, and almost daily bombings) I find it unbelievable that they still managed to make more WMD including being able to launch attacks on Europe and Israel within 45 mins, and being not far away from possessing nuclear weapons!!
Complain about this comment
Ref 89, dceilar
"Bush's axis of evil was never going to 'liberate' Saudi Arabia was it."
No, the Bush Administration in its infinite wisdom actually rewarded the homeland of most of the terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attack by declaring it a "Most Favored Nation" for trade purposes.
Never "misunderestimate" the power of money. Sorry, for the cheap shot but the only thing I am going to miss are the Bushisms that made Comedy Central and Las Vegas look so irrelevant. The main beneficiaries of the impending change in leadership "is" the children.
Complain about this comment
Dominick, and all,
A faint hope of influencing change? to avoid more of this
;-(((
ed
Complain about this comment
priva4221 (98),
Speaking of Joe... Watch out! Joe's about!;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
98, priva4221, us "serious conservatives" have
long been pushed out of the party because we
are not extreme enough.
If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he would
be chased off the convention floor with mobs
yielding torches and pitchforks.
This was really McCain's problem - Bush and
Rove let the horses direct the carriage off to
the extreme right and into a ditch.
Of course, it remains to be seen if the Democrats
can do any better. They have their own horses
pulling them.
Complain about this comment
Just pausse for a minute to consider the meaning of that.....Complain about this comment
Some of the criticism of President Bush is just extraordinarily over-the-top, ill-conceived and lacking factual accuracy.
For good or ill George W Bush served 2 very eventful terms as USA President.
Complain about this comment
British-ish ....
Is the Squirrel Party aware of this ?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090109/tuk-britain-nuts-over-squirrel-flavour-c-a7ad41d.html
Complain about this comment
Collateral damage? Not all of it is to be regretted.
In Schadenfreude,
ed
Complain about this comment
bcmhall,
To your list of rooms must be added:
The Budget Deficit Room, where they have to keep tearing down walls to add more space.
The Wall Street Tsunami Room with the flotsam and jetsam of the great financial malfeasance wave that swept the world still sloshing around. Waders and gas mask provided.
Complain about this comment
#106 Guns
I believe that conservatism is more of a pragmatic movement than an ideological one (speaking of my knowledge of the British Conservative Party).
Moreover, the sheer fact that 'neo-conservative' is such an obvious contradiction, it should have set alarm bells off at the start.
If I was in retirement age and a life long member of the Tory Party I would have been a socialist (with a small 's' and by US standards) during the fifties and sixties; a monetarist neo-liberal during the seventies, eighties, and nineties; and now, in the naughties, supporting the nationalisation of credit and banking!!
Complain about this comment
At the end of his 8 year tenure of the Oval Office the USA Constitution still holds true and the American public at large have enjoyed the democratic process that enables them to effectively cast their vote on the success or otherwise of the Bush era.
Complain about this comment
108 ikamaskeip wrote:
"Some of the criticism of President Bush is just extraordinarily over-the-top, ill-conceived and lacking factual accuracy."
Please can you be specific, and offer a counter-argument.
____________________--
"For good or ill George W Bush served 2 very eventful terms as USA President."
And the point of this post by Justin is to discuss the "good or ill" .....
Do we take it that your view is that his 2 terms in office were a good thing for the USA and the wider world?
Complain about this comment
Iggy, I paused...for about one millisecond. What part of it didn't you understand. The President of the United States had been presented with a large consistent body of evidence that Iraq had WMDs and was going to use them against Americans possibly on US soil. So after every possible warning to Iraq to stand down and in the last 48 hours for Saddam Hussein to give up power, when that didn't happen, he did the only possible thing he could, he attacked. Gore would have done the same. So would Obama. The French would have surrendered. So would Neville Chamberlain. We are not like them. It's to Blair's credit that he isn't either. And some in the UK actually agreed even though they are loathe to admit it now.
dceilar 102, the US had been bombing Iraq all along. In December 1998 I distinctly recall the Republicans claiming that Clinton was bombing Iraq to divert attention from the impeachment hearings. Bombing Iraq, the no fly zones, and the US monitoring was going on for a long time. So were Iraq's violations of the cease fire conditions. That's where the US made its mistake. After the cease fire in 1991, the first time the UN inspectors were denied immediate unrestricted access to a building, the US should have flattened the building and warned Saddam Hussein that the next time the cease fire would be over and the coalition would come right to Baghdad to finish him and his regime off. That weakness and lack of political will was what Saddam Hussein exploited for over a decade. President Bush ended that indecisiveness much to his credit. I think that is how history will see it.
Complain about this comment
1) He opened the first Gulag Camp of the C21st.
2) He killed over 0.5m innocent civilians in Iraq, and found no WMD whatsoever - they were a complete lie.
3) He killed so many people in Afghanistan that it remains a State Secret how many.
4) He deployed a new range of missiles against Russia in Poland, in breach of every agreement signed by the United States.
5) He established a network of secret prisons and toture centres around the world
6) He brought the US Economy to its knees
7) He made America the most hated country in the world, and Americans the most hated people. He made a country everyone loved into the country everyone loved to hate.
George W Bush hasn't just been an abject, useless failure to his own people. He has become the world's new Stalin - a vicious, mass-murdering, contentration-camp running thug whose name will go down in history with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the most vile dictators ever known.
Complain about this comment
OldSouth wrote:
"Only time will tell about Iraq. I suspect history may be a bit kinder than current commentary, because he did succeed in taking the fight to the enemy on their turf; which is much preferable to them bringing it to us on our own"
Yes, it's better to fight on the enemy's turf than your own. But here's the logical flaw with that argument: it presupposes that there's a finite amount of conflict in the world (or at least anti-American conflict), and that our only choice is the arena where the battle is fought. That's not true.
Many of the people who we have fought in Iraq were fighting us ONLY BECAUSE we were in Iraq. They would never have gotten on a plane or a ship to come over here. Some were fighting us because they felt humiliated to have foreigners destroy their country's army and occupy it -- and they had a point. Some were fighting us because they didn't like to see "infidels" occupying "Muslim land" -- and they had a point too, if you accept the idea of land as having a religious "owner". Some (mostly Shiites) were happy to see the last of Saddam, but were angered that we didn't just step back and let the most numerous faction (i.e., them) run the country -- and when you consider Iraqis had no experience with representative government or respect for minority rights, they had a point. A few bought in to the idea of global jihad, but found Iraq a much more welcoming battlefield than Western Europe or North America. Very few would have ever made it to the US to fight us "over here".
Saddam was a bad leader, but the US has tolerated, and even supported, many nasty leaders over the years in the name of political expediency. Iraq was a war of choice. It wasn't preemptive, or retribution against a regime that aided al-Qaida. Time will tell, but I suspect the verdict on President Bush will be harsh, regardless of what the future holds for Iraq.
Complain about this comment
If Pres Bush is the tyrant & oil-baron-dominated ineffectual mouthpiece of the so-called neo-cons how come Barak Obama steps into the ring on January 20?
Complain about this comment
Much like every predecessor Pres Bush made policy choices: In some he was right, some he was proven wrong and in many the judgement of History is still some way off. This future conferring of the good or bad evaluation is particularly relevant to the critical issues on which it appears so many have already made up their minds.
Complain about this comment
3 critical policy issues that await the verdict of the future are Afghanistan and anti-terror measures, Iraq and creating a stable democracy in the Middle East, and the debates on the efficacy of Kyoto's Global Warming protocols.
Much as the widespread anti-Bush element may dislike and disagree it is my contention that the 3 above topics will have to be revisited many times in the next 2 decades before a definitive view of the Bush Presidency will be possible.
Complain about this comment
Having met President Bush several years ago, the impression I got was that he was a decent kind of person who would get on with almost anyone on a certain level. However, I also got the impression he was kind of child-like in some aspects of understanding things. It seems he genuinely believes everything is totally black and white, with no room for grey. Something was either good or bad. I think his Presidency leaves that impression, planning and details were not his forte.
Neither do I think was hardwork amongst his virtues. He wasn't prepared to go to Washington and solve problems, he was far happier in Crawford, Texas.
The social security problem is good evidence of this, where he just blundered in with a plan that his own Republican Senators ran away from and promptly left it alone. Again Iraq, swift overthrow of Saddam Hussein but no aftermath plan was ever thought about. Nothing was ever really thought about or planned is the impression that is left by the G.W.Bush Administration.
As a result, one feels that Bush was always unable to grasp events and how to problem solve on many levels. It was his way or no way. I think that leaves him a polarising figure.
When you look back on his eight years, it is difficult to find what he achieved domestically outside of keeping America safe from terrorist attacks after 9/11, but we can't be sure this is due to anything done directly by this administration.
In short President Bush comes across as a prisoner to events, rather like Prime Minister Brown.
Complain about this comment
Neutrino @ 117
"Many of the people who we have fought in Iraq were fighting us ONLY BECAUSE we were in Iraq."
That hits the nail right on the head.
The Bush/ Iraq War supporters are using false logic to retro-fit a line of reasoning that justifies the war in Iraq.
The conflict in Afghanistan was justified and widely supported .... and it may have gone very differently if the resources wasted in Iraq had been used there instead.
Complain about this comment
118. ikamaskeip wrote:
"If Pres Bush is the tyrant & oil-baron-dominated ineffectual mouthpiece of the so-called neo-cons how come Barak Obama steps into the ring on January 20?"
What do you mean? There is a 2 term limit for Presidents.
Evidently it is because Obama won the election ..... and even had more people voting for him!
Complain about this comment
Reiner_Torheit you have written so many factual inaccuracies I wonder if you actually bother to with any proper journalism at all!
1:Guantanamo was not the first Gulag of the 21st century: Much worse Camps already existed all over North Korea, China, some African states and in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.
2:As for the 500,000+ deaths in Iraq the most recent UNO reports quantify some 75% of those as being inter-faith mass murders and nothing to do with any Coalition forces.
3:Afghanistan has never submitted numbers on civilian or Taleban terrorist casualties so what do you know that's different from the rest of us?
4:No USA Missiles are currently based in Poland but there are plans to do so which President elect Obama will review.
5:President Bush cannot be held accountable for torture/prisons in independent nations whose Governments may or may not condone such places and cruelty.
6:The American economy is suffering from an economic downturn caused by inadequate Housing, Banking and Investment funds which are the responsibility of the Federal Regulatory authorities and not the Oval Office.
Complain about this comment
119. ikamaskeip wrote:
"This future conferring of the good or bad evaluation is particularly relevant to the critical issues on which it appears so many have already made up their minds."
Well I make up my mind quite easily on things like torture, illegal prison camps and rendition. For me these are absolutes in a civilised world - I don't need to wait for the judgement of history.
Complain about this comment
47. At 10:59am on 13 Jan 2009, bcmhall
"Note: The library will feature an electron microscope to help you
locate and view the President's accomplishments."
This comment is great, this is really great. I hope we the tax payers aren't going to be paying for this microscope, because they are pretty expensive. Anyways, the man is just primitive in his way of thinking. He doesn't use his brain; he only goes by his heart, adrenaline or gut blah?blah I don't know. You just shouldn't give an idiot like that power. I think Cheney was running more than we all knew about and spoon feeding his ideology to GB; who was stupid enough to eat it. Dick Cheney is the devil is disguise and GB is or comes off as a wolf in sheeps clothing. What a deceptive 8 years we have had. Bye, bye George.
Complain about this comment
The curious thing about Bush was that he was stern, dictorial and unapproachable until it was obvious that he caused the Republicans to be swept from power. Now he is smiling and friendly and, surprise, surprise, human. Or so it would appear.
Is this his approach to the rewriting of history?
Complain about this comment
109. RomeStu wrote:
British-ish ....
"Is the Squirrel Party aware of this ?"
It is now.
"no squirrels were harmed in making the crisps."
Maybe not. Just their feelings hurt.
Complain about this comment
Reiner_Torheit 116
1) There are many thousands left over from previous centuries still in full operation all over the world. Gitmo is an excellent place to warehouse terrorists until the war on terror is over.
2) Unknown how many but lots were not innnocents but insurgents. Many were victims of the insurgents. Relatively few were innocent civilians killed by US forces as collateral damage.
3) Well it may be their secret but we don't know how many. A lot of them were al Qaeda and the Taleban. Those innocents we killed by accident, the Taleban would have killed on purpose sooner or later. The Taleban were just like the Khmer Rouge in murdering their own people. Like Saddam Hussein and his "boys" too.
4) The 20 anti missile missiles to be deployed in Poland are targeted to intercept missiles launched from Iran. The only treaty he broke was the anti-missile defense treaty with the USSR, a country which no longer exists.
5) The network of prisons around the world where terrorists were "interrogated" were already there. He just persuaded friendly countries to make use of them for us. You know, outsourcing.
6) Yes but he had a lot of help from the Democrats, Congress, the FED, and the prior administration. It was far too much for one man to do all by himself even with his assistants.
7) Only in Western Europe where those horrible people were made to understand in no uncertain terms that they have no control and now no influence over America's policies. They may have thought they still ruled the world even though their colonial empires are ancient history but they carry no weight in Washington DC. America still has countless hundreds of millions of friends in many places such as all over Asia for example. America has friends in China, India, Japan, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Israel, and all over Africa where Bush sent 60 billion dollars to fight AIDS and Barack Obamaq will be looked upon as a god. Europe by contrast is hated for its racism, hypocricy, and duplicity. A miserable civilization in terminal decline at war with itself and everyone else. Russia is practically at war with Britain in every way except militarily and I wouldn't want to be a Frenchman in China.
A mixed record. At least he gave full support to Israel. Now there's the real reason so many Europeans and Moslems don't like him. What will they do if Barack Obama does the same?
Complain about this comment
103, Dominick.
"No, the Bush Administration in its infinite wisdom actually rewarded the homeland of most of the terrorists (Saudi Arabia) that carried out the 9/11 attack by declaring it a 'Most Favored Nation' for trade purposes."
I all fairness, the government of Saudi Arabia was not involved in the terrorist attacks. These were carried out by a subversive group that has caused problems for Saudi Arabia for decades. It considered it's government's alliance with America to be anti-Arab.
Complain about this comment
126, lady.
"I think Cheney was running more than we all knew about and spoon feeding his ideology to GB; who was stupid enough to eat it."
I watched an interview with Cheney made long before we invaded Iraq. In it he explains why we should not attack Iraq and inumerated the dismal results that would follow. Very confusing. Cheney knew we should not go into Iraq. What changed his mind, or who changed his mind?
Complain about this comment
Ah, GW Bush.
Mr Webb, is it possible that Bush has actually learned a few things while in office, and given what he knows now, he wouldn't have made the same colossal mistakes as President?
It's not that a dichotomy really exists here. The man has made some serious boo boo's here, and he apparently began learning from them. Too bad it's a little too late in his presidency term to figure such things out! Remember that whole "Axis of Evil" thing, and in the past 2 years he's refrained from that kind of labeling?
Or, he could simply be faking it, and hasn't changed his attitudes at all, he just wants to go out on a more positive note by conforming to the direction of the political wind.
I really don't know for sure, but that may not be something possible to be certain of in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Among the greatest achievements by President Bush which nobody mentioned was that he exposed America's false friends in Western Europe for the true enemies they are. For example, he would not be strong armed by Europe into signing an ineffective climate treaty whose real goal was to wreck America's economy, a treaty that the Europeans signed but didn't comply with. He didn't allow the importation of European meat when Europe banned American meat. American meat was supposedly tainted with hormones and antibiotics which proved a canard to protect Europe's domestic agribusiness. That business sold meat products that actually were tainted with mad cow disease and foot and mouth disease, the result of their careless and filthy agricultural policies. And of course there was Old Europe's efforts to thwart the American led invasion of Iraq even though European intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMDs and might use them. The European governments were protecting profits from circumventing the UN sanctions by friends of officials and officials in high places while they cynically stirred up Anti-Americanism in Germany when Schroeder ran for office and in France when Chirac ran. Why not compare the accomplishments of Bush with Chirac, Schroeder, and Blair and see how they stack up in say the area of....racial harmony? Meanwhile all this time, the subprime mortgage and CDS time bombs were quietly ticking down until.....
Complain about this comment
I don't think there's any conundrum. He's just a modest man with much to be modest about.
Complain about this comment
The conondrum is the American people. In 2001 it was why didn't the President do something to stop the invasion of America. Why didn't he have physic powers. Nearly eight years later the hue and cry is why did he do what he did, why doesn't he have physic powers. Secondly the appraisal of a global figure is determined by the global press and don't begin to give me the crap about the press being unbiased. I for one appreciate the fact that there hasn't been another 9/11 during his watch. Now that the Dems are in charge of both branches let's see what they can do. I'm thinking of beavers in the desert. What would Pelosi do?
Complain about this comment
While Bush is busy mutating into Joe GoodGuy, Hillary is slithering around, giving sidewise answers to senatorial objections to the deal with BillyBoy. Her replies display a restrained arrogance. She knows she will get away with it.
Complain about this comment
The two best, the only 2 great things about Bush were that he proved that there is no limit to what an alcoholic drug addict can attain if he stays clean, and that he could patronise Tony Blair better than Blair could patronise the British public.
Complain about this comment
Ref 130
"In all fairness, the government of Saudi Arabia was not involved in the terrorist attacks. These were carried out by a subversive group that has caused problems for Saudi Arabia for decades. It considered it's government's alliance with America to be anti-Arab."
It is true that no evidence has been provided that suggests a Saudi government involvement in 9/11, but why wasn't that rationale applied to Iraq, a country that was not even remotely linked to that despicable event and whose secular regime was itself a target of Al Qaeda?
Are we to assume that the desire for revenge for unrelated matters, cultural hatred, geopolitical and economic goals, and the need to transform our President into a "War President" to guarantee his re-election were so important that we decided to destroy a hapless nation to achieve them?
Not only were the initial excuses hard to believe, but some of the more recent justifications, such as the goal of fighting the enemy abroad so that we don't have to fight them at home, are particularly embarrassing because of their implicit cowardice.
Like every American I want my homeland to be safe, but I think that advertising our willingness to turn other countries into wastelands to attract and engage our enemies there so that we don't have to do it at home is so cynical and cowardly that I am amazed we continue to repeat it with a straight face.
Complain about this comment
138, Dominick.
Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and so cannot be equated with our treatment of Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi fiasco had to do with power and oil, not the safety of our nation.
Complain about this comment
Saddam Hussein also had an interesting self legacy programme until he was toppled, as did [insert name of bad guy here]. But I think W's spinmeisters will be deserting him -it will be interesting to see if his dad's and Cheney's elderly and now unpopular and going broke crew has enough power left to protect him from war crimes prosecution. BO also seems to want to avoid turmoil and retributions so far - a logical but not very mob-satisfying move in these uncertain times.
Complain about this comment
135, gduwright.
Unless America embraces a more even-handed approach in dealing with Middle East affairs, I guarantee we will see more terrorism.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
You make it seem like there was some sort of European conspiracy to bring down the USA.... Given the sheer amount of constant arguing the various European governments have amongst themselves, do you really think they could keep from taking potshots at one another long enough to nail the US?
Personally, I don't think there was any sort of "plan" on Europe's part to betray the USA in any form. I think they were being their usual argumentative selves, based on what I've read in history and news reports.
Typically, I make a poor conspiracy fan. I look for the simplest, most logical answer after gathering as much facts as possible before making a judgment. I don't honestly believe that Europe could cooperate as quietly as you seem to suggest. They're too human.
Complain about this comment
131. At 11:53pm on 13 Jan 2009, allmymarbles:
I heard on NPR or something that GB didn't ask Cheney or Powel because he knew what they would say about invading Iraq. However, I am confused by the evil interviews he has been doing. That man scares me, and the fear I feel is real.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
143, lady.
"I heard on NPR or something that GB didn't ask Cheney or Powel because he knew what they would say about invading Iraq. However, I am confused by the evil interviews he has been doing."
Maybe Cheney was just a politician who had his last shot at glory before finally bowing out. He opposed the war, but still went along with it. Were you expecting a conscience or a sense of morality? He is in the wrong business for that.
Complain about this comment
146. At 05:26am on 14 Jan 2009, allmymarbles:
I guess I do not expect anything from him or anything else. I just want him to get out of office and that will be happening on Tue. True, he is in the wrong business for that.
Complain about this comment
#115. MarcusAureliusII: "The President of the United States had been presented with a large consistent body of evidence that Iraq had WMDs and was going to use them against Americans possibly on US soil."
Where exactly did you find that information? Stating something as fact is not necessarily true, as the late Josephs, McCarthy and Goebells, could tell us. The latter originated the dictum Tell a lie that is big enough, and repeat it often enough, and the whole world will believe it.
I don't for one minute believe that Bush and Blair (a dupe if ever there was one) thought there were WMDs since none were discovered at the time and none subsequently. It was a very good cover to finish the work his "daddy" started.
Your adulation of President Bush borders on the hagiographic when every thinking person can see his many faults.
Complain about this comment
147, lady.
So Cheney is out and Bush is out. But it still remains to be seen if Obama will put things right in the Middle East. Note that I say "will" and not "can."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MarcusAureliusII
Your reply is so full of empty lies that it doesn't merit any kind of response.
America doesn't matter - it's a bankrupt irrelevant nation.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
They said that satire would die when Bush went - but I see you are determined to keep it alive.
If you can find a world map on the internet, try looking at where IRAN is... then look at Poland, and then look at Russia. ANd then look at where America is.
And if you can show me the trajectory "Iranian" (ROFL!!!!) missiles would take from Iran to America... that would take them over POLAND to be shot down.... then you deserved "Freedom Medal" like Tony Blair, for being able to recycle hopeless lies into some kind of story.
The rest of what you wrote to me (and others) has the same complete lack of credibility, combined with the educational level of a chipmunk and the phenomenal arrogance of an AMERICAN.
Complain about this comment
139.allmymarbles wrote:
"138, Dominick.
Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and so cannot be equated with our treatment of Saudi Arabia."
Except that if 9/11 had never happened would the American people had been fooled into thinking Iraq was a danger to the USA.
9/11 has been used to justify all sorts of things that would have been unacceptable before .... are any of you American posters really comfortable with the Patriot Act, and the freedoms it removes from you?
Complain about this comment
Rome_stu Apologies, unfortunately due to an IT fault on this Blog I am unable to get my Comments published in one go. Hence I have to put everything in small chunk-paragraphs. Suffice to say if you read down through each of my bits it becomes one contribution and actually deals with both your questions about my views.
Complain about this comment
Reiner_Torheit "try taking map to show route of missiles from Iran"
Taking your earlier completely false set of statements about Bush, e.g. first Gulag of 21st Century, and now this nonsense about missiles that are not even in Poland, I take it you are a member of the Flat Earth Society!?
Exactly which part of the term GLOBE do you not understand when it comes to FLIGHT, or do you really belive aircraft (& missiles) travel from Atlas page to Atlas page?
Complain about this comment
ref #141
It's actually the U.N,EU and the Arab league who have to take an even handed approach.
A U.N person assigned only to criticize Israel? A Human Rights Council who only attacks Israel, while there are real human right violators out there including several members of the Arab league.
The U.S is the moral block on the U.N abuse and corruption.
Kudos to the three Medal of Freedom winners from yesterday
Complain about this comment
153, RomeStu, if some terrorist organization
had threatened to kill 3000 Americans unless
we abdicated our freedoms and enacted
something like the Patriot Act, we would
have reacted in horror (and immediately
nuked the ground underneath said terrorist
group.)
Complain about this comment
Dceilar,
Instead, in this morning's news, we are instead inviting and ennobling the bankers and Bankalising the nation. And on and on we go....Consumptively yours,
ed
Complain about this comment
Old South,
A technique long favoured by some of whom we refrain from speaking....Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
Neutrino (117),
Very well put.
#104 (reprise)
Dominick, and all,
A faint hope of influencing change? to avoid more of this
;-(((
ed
Complain about this comment
Stu,
Not by me, at least not in such unneeded haste.Most certainly true. The best Efforts are small and personal . It's also worthwhile checking out Three Cups of Tea .
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
And "had no way of knowing" any better..." My observation stands: What does that tell us?1. The President is a fool
2. The President's systems are seriously flawed.
3. The President is a Tool.
4. All of the above.
Complain about this comment
Dominick (138), Spot on, as usual.
Yes.Complain about this comment
#158 Ed
Re: Mervyn Davies
There's more info on Robert Peston's blog.
Complain about this comment
Ed - 161
I agree about the unnecessary haste.
For me the Taliban needed to be removed as they had demonstrably sponsored terrorism .... however the lack of exit strategy or historical perspective are showing their own sorry results.
Complain about this comment
Stu, Namaste
As in the present "difficulties" and the period immediately following the election of Hamas, and right now>, any constructive or conciliatory gestures and statements from "the enemy" seem to fall on totally deaf ears in the rush to condemn, isolate, and destroy.The Taliban were offering to attempt to deliver bin Laden (not an easy task, even for them), but wanted (not unreasonably) evidence, and a bit of time.
Hamas gave several clear indications of a willingness to enter discussions (including the possibility of accepting Israel's existence), but, instead, their elected representatives were seized and jailed, and the "international community" cut off all aid to punish the Palestinian people for having voted for the wrong party.
As to Israel's "right to exist" Such a right exists for individuals (and "peoples"), but for nations established by invasion, dispossession and conquest? A dangerous idea indeed.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
(sorry for wandering off-topic)
.
Complain about this comment
See how they run!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
163. Ed Iglehart wrote:
Dominick (138),
Spot on, as usual.
we decided to destroy a hapless nation. . .
Just the one? There appears, from some posts here, the think-tank propaganda of the right, and American media 'op-eds', a strong desire among some Americans to destroy, one way or another, or seriously damage, nine that I can count.
At least Obama and his administration seem rather less war-hungry and bloodthirsty than his predecessors. But we shall see whether that lasts even as far as the next Christian festival of good will.
Complain about this comment
Ref 139, Marbles
"Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and so cannot be equated with our treatment of Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi fiasco had to do with power and oil, not the safety of our nation."
I am in full agreement with your conclusion. My point, which perhaps I did not articulate clearly enough, is that it would have been easier to justify an unprovoked attack and invasion of Saudi Arabia, because of the nationality of most of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, their leader's, and financiers than launching one against a country whose government was itself a target of the very terrorists that attacked us. Obviously, neither country deserved to be destroyed, but at least it would have been easier to explain the infantile logic used by the departing Administration to carry out an act that is bound to have a pre-eminent place in the annals of history.
Concerning comments about Cheney having nothing to do with the decision to attack Iraq and, allegedly, opposing the decision to do that, my assessment of his modus operandi is that he is not the type that advertises his plans. He works behind the scenes and lets others take the heat while he relishes in his accomplishments. He had the good fortune of serving under an intellectually challenged President who could be easily manipulated, and Dick Cheney didn't hesitate to do just that. His ability to collect college deferments to stay out of Vietnam should tell us something.
Complain about this comment
Rome Stu, "I don't need time to make up my mind about torture etc."
But you do!
Anastasia: Survivor of Ekaterinberg or not?
King Edward: Nazi sympathiser or not?
Pearl Harbour: Pres Roosevelt knew?
Katyn Massacre: Russian or German?
UNO creation of Israel: Good or bad idea?
Nuclear Weapons: MAD or saved World?
PM Thatcher: 'New epoch' or 'Throwback'?
Putin: Positive or negative for Russia?
Iran Nuclear sites: Sensible or..?
Okay, granted we all are entitled to make choices but that is not to say Pres Bush made the wrong ones as history unfolds.
A little true story: In early 1930s Mr Mitchell developed a Merlin Arcraft Engine; in 1936 despite huge economic and political pressure to cancel, Mr Rowbotham, a Civil Servant at the Ministry of Defence, insisted the money be spent on putting the Merlin in a new fighter called Spitfire... The rest as they say is History... if it weren't, you and I would not be discussing it... Now!
Complain about this comment
do not go, G. W Bush. the world need you as you are an unique person to our world. peace up
Complain about this comment
His face never helped him. He should have had an operation to remove the smirk. It irritated everyone and in some cases invoked hatred. His BIGGEST mistake was his choice of VP who bad so much vested interests in keeping wars moving along. He made BILLIONS and was allowed to lead the country up the garden path. GWB tried to emulate his father and not fail where his Pappa had failed - it didnt really work out that way did it. I for one, am glad to see him go, his last gesture with Tony Blair made me want to vomit.
Complain about this comment
Alas, some of you don't understand war! Being nice to the enemy doesn't work; they will always come back to try to kill you. When are you going to get it? History will vindicate Bush; he is one of the best Presidents we have ever had. mpb
Complain about this comment
Regarding my prior posting #173. I should have remembered - you don't read history; you don't remember appeasement and kindness didn't stop the 20th centuries worst butcher.
Complain about this comment
What is all this stuff about a 'legacy' anyway? It sounds more like a 'living will'.
It amuses me no end that what Bush has actually presided over, and what probably will be his historical 'legacy' is an economic collapse that Marxists only dreamt of.
Now if only the KGB had encouraged and supported a few New York bankers, stockbrokers and Harvard Business School professors, instead of bothering with spying, they could have brought about the collapse of the USA years ago.
They have done far more damage to the US than any terrorist attack has.
Perhaps at this moment, some of the favourite 'state sponsors of terrorism' are considering that very lesson . . .
Complain about this comment
170 ikamaskeip wrote:
"Rome Stu, "I don't need time to make up my mind about torture etc."
But you do!
Anastasia: Survivor of Ekaterinberg or not?
King Edward: Nazi sympathiser or not?
Pearl Harbour: Pres Roosevelt knew?
Katyn Massacre: Russian or German?
UNO creation of Israel: Good or bad idea?
Nuclear Weapons: MAD or saved World?
PM Thatcher: 'New epoch' or 'Throwback'?
Putin: Positive or negative for Russia?
Iran Nuclear sites: Sensible or..?"
__________________________
That is an interesting list of valid discussion points, about many of which I doubt we will ever be certain of knowing the truth.
However my point was about what I consider to be "ethical absolutes", which none of your examples are ..... what I actually wrote was this ....
"Well I make up my mind quite easily on things like torture, illegal prison camps and rendition. For me these are absolutes in a civilised world - I don't need to wait for the judgement of history."
Complain about this comment
The main issue with Iraq is that the evidence was still not enough to do a pre-empted attack on another nation at that time.
Even if you believed everything, it still did not justify the USA attacking another country without an act of war. War should always be the last option and with inspectors on the ground and politicians still taking, it was not even close.
Complain about this comment
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the legality of the Iraqi invasion is now under more suspicion.
About five years too late!
Complain about this comment
Montanaconvert,
The Devil rides the back of the Certain.
Complain about this comment
173.Montanaconvert wrote:
"Alas, some of you don't understand war! Being nice to the enemy doesn't work; they will always come back to try to kill you."
I think some of us do 'get it'. Yours is a recipe for perpetual war, and genocide, if your 'enemy' takes the same stance. And if you leave them no alternative, they will, won't they?
Try substituting, say, from recent American history, 'Sioux', or 'gook' for 'enemy' and you should be able to see where statements like this lead.
Complain about this comment
Justin, the only conundrum surrounding Bush is how such a buffoon could get elected US President in the first place. An even bigger conundrum is how this could possibly happen twice. Everyone knows that even if we were recruiting for someone to work in a newspaper kiosk, Bush would probably not be the first choice - mainly on grounds of incompetence. I strongly believe that this will be the main question pre-occupying historians when looking back at the Bush Presidency: how the hell could someone like that have ever been elected to the highest office in the land? Already, last spring, nearly two thirds of 109 professional historians polled by the History News Network rated Bush as the worst president in the nation's history (please bear in mind this poll was conducted 6 months before the financial meltdown and bailout package. From the historical perspective, I have little doubt that the Bush presidency will be seen as having done infinitely more damage to US interests, influence and prestige than anything Al Qaeda could throw at it.
Complain about this comment
re 8 - timewaitsfornoman
what are you talking about - please explain!
Complain about this comment
173/174. Montanaconvert
And what some people's 'reading of history' fails to tell them, it seems, is that it includes many more wars than the one that occurred between 1939 and 1945.
I really do wonder sometimes, given the frequency with which that comes up here, if there's anybody contributing to this blog (Except NRD, who appears to have been succesfully harried out of it, and I hope the people who did that are pleased with themselves) who is under 85.
Or if any have read about any but that one.
Complain about this comment
re 170 - ikamaskeip
:no
:yes
:same outcome either way
:as above
:bad
:so far so good
:was what it was
:negative
:not sensible
there!
Complain about this comment
RomeStu, ethical absolutes..
Point taken and I do of course agree with you on the 'torture' of any imprisoned person whether Al Quida, Taliban, or just some unfortunate in wrong place at wrong time. It is a crime against Humanity.
Complain about this comment
Rendition and Guantanamo Prison camp are surely arguable as to transport a perceived enemy activist to another country willing to take them for interrogation is a practise going back centuries. Naturally, non torture commitments must be firmly in place and monitored. Geneva provides for enemy combatants of a recognised State and for Partisans e.g. the Maquis, Tito's group etc. It fails the task of meeting the challenge of modern-day militant activists such as Al Quida and Taliban for whom dying with their machete, kalashnikov, semtex or indeed nuclear device is de rigour!
Complain about this comment
Jeebers76 #142
You don't read history, you don't follow the news, you don't know what is going on in the world and yet you draw conclusions based on your ignorance expecting me to believe you. Fat chance.
Chirac and de Villepin were clear in saying over and over again that they wanted to "challenge" America because with the fall of the USSR, it had become a "monopolar world." Why else would they not merely abstain in the Security Council but actively work against the US and Britain for a resolution by trying to strongarm other less committed members. Do you recall that Chirac warned several nations who agreed with the US position on Iraq that if they didn't either change their tune or at least shut up that he would block their entry into the EU? Research the news acounts of the time and you will see that this is true. These horrible people are not America's friends by a long shot. They pretend to be when they are on the receiving end but when they have to make even the least sacrifice themselves, they are nowhere to be found. Just look at how they find every possible excuse not to pull anything like their weight in Afghanistan. Some mutual defense treaty NATO turned out to be. It may have been usefull to the US to keep the USSR from overrunning all of Europe but they are gone now. Time to pull out of NATO and while we're at it the WTO. Let's start using our power for ourselves now including our "soft power." This means telling nations like France, Germany, China that if they don't cooperate on matters of extreme importance to us, there will be dire consequence for them...like an immediate trade embargo. You'll see just how powerful America's economy and markets still are even in these difficult times. And I think Obama might do just that if he's true to what he's been saying and his rhetoric is more than just empty words to get him into office.
Complain about this comment
Below is a link to a balanced, fair, objective and totally dispassionate assessment of Bush and his legacy that sadly, Justin has not felt able to provide for us. Taken from last Sunday's Observer newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/11/george-bush-us-foreign-policy
Complain about this comment
seagullblue
Thanks for your choices but for every one of your yes, no, maybe there is a counter argument and History is a long, long, long process with actually no fixed answers.
E.g. Without WW2 no Marshall Plan and no European Coal & Steel Community and no Common Market and thus no European Union, or, no Slave Trade and no black man in the Oval office, or, without Holocaust no Israel, or, without UN Resolution Nov 1947 no Hamas or Hezbollah or IDF.. The conumdrums are endless!
Complain about this comment
#115
"The President of the United States had been presented with a large consistent body of evidence that Iraq had WMDs and was going to use them against Americans possibly on US soil."
Marcus,
That is hilarious. He was presented with conclusions from a small group of people who chery picked data to fit their mindset.
No data or conclusions were ever presented that the US was threatened by WMD or any indication of intent to do so. These guys did a number of things:
- Selected sources which had been discredited by the intelligence agencies and allies (for example, curveball)
- Reclassified chemical weapons as WMD so that data could be presented that Iraq had WMD since it was known they had no nuclear or biological capability
- Selected data that fitted their view of the world, specifically all evidence for WMD was presented, no evidence of their distruction (widely available) was
- Ignored reports from the CIA that discredited some of the sources later quoted as fact, for example the Nigerian yellow cake
All in all a very significant abuse and manipulation of the intelligence services, who were then blamed for the analysis.
But even those guys didn;t say the US was threatened. It wasn't.
Agent Sam
Complain about this comment
182 seagullblue
"what are you talking about"
Which part? I became a little carried away by word association with the word "pity". Please ignore.
Not using the word "get"? David_Cunard was giving unsolicited English lessons on a previous post - as referenced by 183 (Except NRD, who appears to have been successfully harried out of it, and I hope the people who did that are pleased with themselves) so pointed out to him I was taking the lessons to heart.
Complain about this comment
Justin, reading the Top 10 Bushisms on the BBC website the other day i'd say his "warmth" is best applied to retiring quietly to his ranch than leading the US so good riddens!!!
On an unrelated note, i have just returned from an extended trip across the USA trying to replicate Stephen Fry's series and for all its faults and downright craziness, i came back with a sense of hope and excitement about Obama's upcoming presidency, i'd love to live there to witness it unfold.
Complain about this comment
This is the legacy , and the hunt goes on...
;-(
ed
Complain about this comment
174. Montanaconvert wrote:
"Regarding my prior posting #173. I should have remembered - you don't read history; you don't remember appeasement and kindness didn't stop the 20th centuries worst butcher."
And nor did hanging around until December 1941 slow him down much either.
Yes, European governments (and especially Chamberlain) responded way too slowly, but don't come the moral high ground with me.
War is not the answer to everything ... and the reason many Europeans are of the opinion that war should be the last resort, not the first response, is that many people remember it actually happening to them ... in their country - not as some abstract "saving the world" bit of heroism.
Perhaps if we were closer in time to the 1860s more Americans would understand.
And on a statistical note (on the understanding that worst butcher applies to Hitler), Stalin probably would take that award .... and the USA was allied with him along with the rest of the allies in WW2.
Complain about this comment
More legacy? Or just a bunch of Happy bunnies?
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
I find fault with Bush because he refused to accept or acknowlege nuance. He wanted to view an incredibly complex world in stark black and white terms. This was his greatest folly, tragically manifested countless times throughout his administration.
Complain about this comment
181. kjmccann wrote:
"An even bigger conundrum is how this could possibly happen twice"
Actually for me the 2nd election is easy for historians to understand ..... nothing more than insidiously brilliant politics. Machiavelli has got nothing on Rove.
To convince the religious poor (esp blacks and hispanics) to vote aginst their economic interests was sinister and brilliant.
His trumpet call of "faith,family and freedom" was lampooned as "god, gays and guns"!
Nuff said.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
Apparently you (and the others) have ignored my numerous posts about how the alleged Iraqi WMD were CLEARLY shown to be a myth.
This includes:
-The head of Iraq's WMD program, Hussein Kamil, who told the US, UK, UN and CNN in 1995 that he ordered the WMD destroyed. (While the US and UK haven't released their ends of this, the UN interviews with him were leaked pre-war, and CNN's interviews were public.)
-Scott Ritter, one of the US's weapons inspectors on the UN team, stated in 2000 that a case could be made that Iraq was effectively disarmed, and that any WMD it could have were so degraded as to be unusable. He sent a copy of his article to every Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee.
-Finally, the UNMOVIC reports were all publicly available to the world from the time they returned to Iraq until the time Bush and company ordered them out. They went to numerous sites- including the ones mentioned by Colin Powell- and found nothing that could be construed as a WMD program.
Any claim that all the sources said that Iraq had WMD is completely false.
Yes, most nations believed that Iraq did have WMD. This makes it necessary to take intelligence with a barrel of salt.
Yes, most members of the US Congress supported the war, including the Democratic and Republican leadership. This is why we should support third parties, or favor the members of Congress who opposed the war, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.
Yes, most of New Labour and the Tories in Parliament supported the war. This is why they don't need any more support. (I'd add the UUP and DUP, but they can't run the UK.)
A few more comments:
The claim that US missile defense sites in Poland are intended to counter Iranian missiles is ludicrous. Iran's missiles that are now active can only cover a limited area.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif97/pg28.gif
Poland's nowhere near there.
Further, IF Iran develops technology based on North Korean missiles, which it's a long way away from, they still wouldn't have the range to hit Poland, which would effectively render any claims to US missile defenses moot.
The distance between Tabriz, Iran and Rzesow, Poland is over 1400 miles.
(Information taken from the following sites:
Map of Poland: http://www.externalharddrive.com/countries/poland.html
Map of Iran: http://www.mideastweb.org/iranhistory.htm
Straight-line generator: http://www.findlocalweather.com/how_far_is_it/ny/new+york.html )
Of course, Russia did offer a base in Azerbaijan to help the US target Iranian missiles...but we declined.
Also, while the USSR may not exist, under one of the Vienna Conventions, treaties between the USSR and other nations are valid between said nation and the USSR's successor states.
On investigating and prosecuting Bush:
I'm all for it. Who cares if it diminishes the power of the White House? It has too much power already. To change a few words in a Bush phrase, there ought to be limits to power.
I do have one caveat. This investigation should also target illegal activities done by Congress and Bush's predecessors, especially Clinton. This is not just to be evenhanded, but to ensure crimes like these don't happen again. To twist another phrase from one of my favorite BBC characters, sometimes you have to cut off the head to cure the ankle. (Can anyone guess who said that?)
On Hillary before the Senate:
I'm surprised at the "love feast" she's getting. I'd expect Republicans to grill her over her past. I'd also expect Democrats to grill her over her abandonment of her party's traditional positions. And, alas, someone commenting on CNN mentioned how she looked tired...which beat me to my chance to quote another of my favorite BBC characters...
On the Medals of Freedom:
Given their popularity, I think that Bush's medals are going to be another albatross around Blair (and John Howard)'s necks.
Finally, I think the only reason Bush is being civil is either his confidence that he's immune from any prosecution, or his attempts to charm people into getting him out of trouble. He wasn't this civil to John McCain back in 2000...
Complain about this comment
kjmccann from the historical perspective.. have little doubt Bush Presidency..very bad
Yes, but your historical perspective and that of 106 other historians about the present era is just that, a perspective.
Reality is when the proverbial chickens come home to roost some 10 to 20 years down the line for what is happening this decade. For make no mistake your perspective is cluttered and undermined by its very narrowness of being 'in the present'.
Afterall, the invasion of iraq did not occur because of anything Pres Bush did in Office except his reaction to past events. Similarly with 11th September and the Twin Towers: The attack resulted from 2 previous decades of perceived injustice and the actors in it were the response.
Complain about this comment
Shrub on Obama
Complain about this comment
69 #120 what do you know? The President of the United States is presented every morning with a security briefing that is the distillation and analysis of thousands of sources of intelligence information from all over the world including both the domestic and foreign intelligence communities. Do you expect him to spend time doing this himself? Yes only a handful of advisors speak with him directly about it but the web of information is huge. Unlike BBC which sends a guy like Simpson? skulking around the coffee houses in Damascus sharing a hookah with whatever locals can give him the latest scuttlebut they've overheard or in the back alleyways of Rumallah to get their information.
Complain about this comment
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LdbzPT2wuog
LOL...yo, Blair...Bush's funny gesture to Blair in calling him over for his medal.
:-)
Complain about this comment
re: 173 Montanaconvert:
Alas, some of you don't understand war!
Damn right I don't. The sport of Kings? A test of will?
This is not 1939, and, in any event, the road to WWII runs back far, far, beyond poor old Neville Chamberlain.
Some big picture thinking regarding Europe's past and the world's future courtesy of Halewi, here:
Europeans have literally lived through the horrific consequences of nation-state logic a full generation before most in the post-colonial world. This is not an argument for European superiority?far from it. If anything, the opposite. Rather, it?s an argument for the long-term untenability of the nation-state (a gift for which the world can thank the idiosyncratic territorial rivalries of 17th century European power brokers). This is particularly true for regions that have seemingly intractible competing claims.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Ref 173 montanaconvert
Some of us may not know war as well as you do; but do you know the cost of war?
Have you ever visited a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital?
Have you ever sat in on a VA "Vet Center" group session?
Has your spouse or parent ever had trouble getting a job to support the family from a disfiguring disability received in a war?
Have you ever been awakened by terrifying screams in the night when your veteran spouse or parent is just having another little "traumatic event anniversary"?
Has your spouse ever tried to kill you and your children thinking you were the enemy while having one of those little "event anniversaries"?
Have you ever stealthly hidden all the kitchen knives so they were not handy when your veteran spouse has been acting a little flaky?
Does you spouse or parent "self-medicate" and disappear for weeks at a time to avoid celebrating one of those "traumatic event anniversaries"? (The self-medication does not work; but it's a favorite tool)
Have you ever returned home from work or school to find your spouse or parent dressed in full Battle Dress Unifom (BDU) and armed with a loaded weapon under the influence of a full dose of "self-medication"?
Do you know how to talk your war-ravaged spouse or parent back to reality while looking down the little hole in the end of a loaded weapon? You should try it some time. It's very stimulating.
Thousands of us families of soldiers and veterans do know these things and many other unpleasant things, very well. All too well. At least those of us still breathing.
Every now and again you'll hear a news story about another soldier or veteran going berserk. Only every now and again. It is not good for recruitment to give too much coverage to a very severe problem among our troops and veterans.
Every day we may become the next news item.
We may not know much about war. But some of us do know the cost of war.
Hoo-ah
Complain about this comment
Ref 175
"It amuses me no end that what Bush has actually presided over, and what probably will be his historical 'legacy' is an economic collapse that Marxists only dreamt of."
Right on! However, our fiscal irresponsibility, and the aptly termed "voodoo economics", began in the Reagan years. There is no question that the reckless borrow and spend policies of the past 8 years, and the idea that the best suited to regulate corporate America are the people that need regulating and oversight precipitated the malaise that has brought our economic system to the verge of collapse.
I think it is important to note that the fiscal and economic policies of past Administrations, and the oncoming one, reflect the priorities of the electorate. Any politician who dares insinuate the audacious concept of paying for the services we get should save his/her money and not run because failing the borrow and spend litmus test remains the deciding factor for many voters.
Complain about this comment
re 189 - exactly! pouring over history doesn't alter it. And there are an infinite number of possible actions that can affect the future at any one time. My argument is analyse as best you can, and then do the best you can. Over thinking is no more likely to save the world than just getting on with it.
Complain about this comment
Ref 205 -- maybe not all of the electorate...seems that a part of 'us' has been preying upon 'us'... back to the extreme and unhealthy imbalance of wealth issue as well.
Tho Sartre for example might still hold the entire electorate responsible for inaction - yay for getting out the vote...specially this time.
Complain about this comment
Schadenfreude!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
seagullblue 206. It is likely President Bush is one of the prime examples of analysing to some extent and then just getting on with it.
Something many of his detractors do not seem to comprehend is that Pres Bush was not elected by majority vote twice to do nothing at all. The man/woman in the Oval Office is expected to participate and the policies that result are for good or ill defined by History not by their time.
Pres elect Obama will feel that weight of history from January 20th and it is an awesome prospect.
Complain about this comment
204. publiusdetroit wrote on Ref 173 montanaconvert
I presume also that that writer (and others who write so glibly about war, violence and retribution here) has also never known anyone who has been the civilian victim of sniper fire, shelling, bombardment or missile attack. Or even of a single home-made bomb.
Or would they prefer the attitude reportedly taken by General Haig in WW1, though I have always hoped it is apocryphal: "In the end, they will have 100 soldiers left, we will have 1000, and we will have won."
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius, you've overplayed your hand. Each one of your posts increasinly reveals your unashamed Euro-phobia. Change the record, the rest of America certainly has.
Although you did give me quite a good laugh with your thinly veiled 'rationale' as to why history will judge Bush kindly. So thanks for that.
Complain about this comment
#208 Ed Iglehart:
There's a new thread on Blether with Brian that would benefit from some of your input Ed!
Complain about this comment
202. alanskillcole wrote:
LOL...yo, Blair...
At least he looks a little embarrassed at the company he's keeping. "Peace . . .democracy . . .human rights . . ?"
(We haven't seen much of him for a while. Hardly surprising. Fortunate, really, given the current fad for chucking shoes at people. Too cold for us all to be walking barefoot . . .)
Complain about this comment
ref #181
If you are not an America that is the European arrogance that so rankles us.
Bush got elected twice becuase he face:
A phony eco-hypocrite named Al gore
then a phony with no accomplishments named John Kerry
As far your historians: Who are they? Doing a historical perspective now makes no sense.
Jimmy Carter from an American perspective was far worse and a disgrace to this country and humanity
Complain about this comment
Justin, sorry you didn't like my comments on Geithner and Panetta, which I admit may have been over the top; but in the interest of fairness, you may want to consider a threat on Obama's conundrum which is far more pressing and relevant than that of a man who will soon become a short paragraph in the annals of history.
Complain about this comment
Magic
"Bush got elected twice becuase he face:
A phony eco-hypocrite named Al gore
then a phony with no accomplishments named John Kerry"
Your description of Kerry could equally be used for Bush.
However I agree that both in 2000 and 2004 the democrats fielded the wrong candidate (much as the Republicans did in 2008)
Complain about this comment
181 "Bush presidency will be seen as having done infinitely more damage to US interests, influence and prestige than anything Al Qaeda could throw at it."
Was not the Bush Presidency mostly about reacting to what Al Qaeda threw at it? It would seem they set the agenda.
Complain about this comment
re. 204. publiusdetroit:
I think it would do a world of good if prospective recruits had to visit a VA hospital (ALL of a VA hospital) before they could be sworn in.
When I got interested in target shooting in college, my father (who had been in WWII) said that if I bought a target rifle I couldn't keep it in the house. I always wondered why. I guess you just explained it to me.
Complain about this comment
Timewaits,
Indeed, because Shrub and Co let them.;-(
ed
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator](catch it before it vanishes)
Complain about this comment
179. At 1:15pm on 14 Jan 2009, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Montanaconvert,
The Devil rides the back of the Certain.
maybe that should be cretin?
204 from plubiousdetroit nice piece, sorry that you or someone you know have/had to go through that.
219 tim you come from a smart man as well as being smart yourself.
Certainly no Tiiimmmaaayyyy.
Complain about this comment
190 - good reply on WMD. The "large body of evidence" presented to Bush, Blair and Powell was scripted by Cheney after removing CIA analyses that discounted curveball, Yellowcake, 'league of rogue states', etc. Read the book "Hubris" for this story behind the Plame cover-blowing.
Here's a condensed version of my post lost to the ether yesterday:
Bush does seem like a fun guy to watch a ball game with, or do yard work then swap stories with. I'll honor his sobriety by not saying to have a beer with. His wholesome persona was diluted when I heard the open-mike "bigtime" exhange with Cheney. Lincoln was appalled at Polk, for a similar minded president to Bush, but at least one might say we stole part of Mexico to show for Polk's war. There are even fewer silver linings, even ironic ones, to find in Bush #43's Iraq war.
Supporting the military? Not if the multi-Trillion dollar lifetime cost of Iraq could have been better spent. VA scandals. Extended deployments and family strains, plus 10,000's of wounded GIs. The launching of the USS G. H. W. Bush, the latest Nimitz-class carrier, was into a shrinking Navy of curtailed ship procurements that will be felt for decades. Aircraft programs cut in similar fashion. Lost sales overseas for USA business with tainting of Brand America. Republican resistance to more generous 'GI Bill' college benefits. Grinding consumption of land war resources and manpower.
The opposite of FDR as a policy of national fear-stoking; I do not minimize in any way the crime or tragedy of 9/11, but it did not 'change everything', it was just a little more successful than two centuries of many other home-grown and external terror plots against the USA. While there were a few practical steps made to involve citizens, more often homeland security was near-constant orange alert and inroads against the liberties we fight to protect. Read "Fear Less" by Gavin de Becker for historical insights and more practical responses.
As for the "aw shucks, I tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie" at the press conference, that is hard to believe from an executive branch that never saw an industry or business area it didn't think it could improve by de-regulating or self-regulating.
The "government is the problem, no new taxes" legacy is playing out with impacts at the state level that are failing our schoolkids, veterans, elderly and homeless. Now some pundits question Obama tax changes, quite a change in tune from the anti-tax, pro-deficit departing administration. Maybe a federal tax break can be justified better if it affords the states that are in crisis a chance to use some of that Federal refund for their own shortfalls.
Complain about this comment
Bush Defends Record: Katrina Only Hurricane I Messed Up
;-)ed
Complain about this comment
219. timohio:
There are other reasons too, one of which a friend of mine who was an officer in the British armed forces agrees with.
To rewrite the syllogism the National Rifle Association is so fond of without its 'undistributed middle':
"Guns don't kill people. People with gunskill people."
Complain about this comment
70. Happy Jack sorry for not getting back with you sooner, I've had rather a lot of work to do lately...
I'm sorry your post was removed. I have no problem with you calling me anything you want to. It actually amuses me quite a bit.
Rest securely in your cocoon and draw your judgments based upon "facts" gleaned from the internet. I prefer to reserve my opinions until I have some real experience. I do hold a very high regard for intelligence. Perhaps you find it irritating that I denigrated the poster's spelling, but I really don't mind irritating you.
You're not a bad man. Believe me, I've seen bad men. You don't belong in Gitmo. You just lack experience with reality, but you do speak from your heart with your narrow-minded view.
Complain about this comment
I read this blog regularly and I enjoy justin's perspective, but I must disagree strongly with this entry. To use the word "humane" is unacceptable. Whether Bush's major decisions have been right or wrong, he has demonstrated himself to be inhumane. Any person who unapologetically condones torture clearly lacks the empathy required to be described as humane. As a psychologist who has tried to help people with this issue, I can tell you it is the most inhumane act in the world.
The rather moving post 204 gives you the idea of the terrible reaction that the mind has to trauma, and the horror for those around.
I can also tell you that torture yields nothing useful. People simply start giving information, even where they don't know anything, and so time is wasted investigating their information.
I find it incredible that Bush can allow this to go on
Complain about this comment
R snail.
You say narrow I say wide.
Intelligence has nothing to do with spelling.
If that is all you look at you are a fool.
As for believing you, I won't.
Oh and the only experience one can have is with reality.
just not one that advocates murder as a solution.
Care to comment on publiusdetroits letter.
that I suspect comes from someone that has faced reality more than you.
what ever sam thinks.
Complain about this comment
PS being narrow minded about slaughter is OK with me.
you are a bit to open to it from what I read.
Complain about this comment
224, british-ish, actually, bullets which possess
a world line relative to a person in the space-time
continuum which can be solved for intercept
with adequate kinetic energy kill people.
And, as a corollary, falling out of a 60-story
window in a skyscraper doesn't kill anybody,
it's the sudden deceleration event which does.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
semierotic 212
"Marcus Aurelius...Each one of your posts increasinly reveals your unashamed Euro-phobia."
Nice to know I'm improving all the time. I think at least one Euro-basher (me) should counterbalance five hunderd million European America-bashers. Now that seems like a fair match up doesn't it? After all, one person with all of the facts on his side should easily prevail over five hundred million jealous lying tyrannical intollerant fools who cannot and will not allow even one dissenting voice to be heard. (That's why the EU will force the Irish to vote on Lisbon until they "get it right." Imagine anyone not loving the "European project." Unthinkable!) All an American needs to do to win is to know and remember some of those facts. It's a "slam dunk."
I did not say history will look on George Bush's presidency "kindly." (I'm used to having my words mischaracterized by Europeans who react to them with emotions instead of listening to what I have to say. That's what they usually do.) I said from the perspective of history it will be viewed as a mixed bag with some policies which are detested by many now seen in a positive light and some seen as failures. A complex group of issues with many facets that need time to digest and put into perspective by people who are not emotionally wound up in the issues of the moment. I think that fact that he prevented another attack by foreign terrorists on American soil after 9-11 will loom large especially if there is another attack during someone else's presidency when our guard is let down again. I think the courage to stand up to his critics both at home and abroad will also be viewed as positive.
Complain about this comment
Beyond President Bush's obvious targets for all to mock, such as his poor speaking skills, or his social graces he has shown when meeting with his international peers, much about his quality as a president is, at yet, undetermined.
The George W. Bush years had the greatest secrecy of any presidency eras in memory. This President met with the press the fewest times, refused the greatest number of orders for documents with subpoenas, and apparently may have secretly ordered actions against the express will of the Congress. Was this secrecy needed for a real national interest, or did this secrecy cloaked dark deeds for personal wishes?
It is yet to be determined whether George W. Bush took some of the actions of his presidency on the basis of dire national emergency, or did his actions be generated by more base motives. Did he, for example, such as spending much of the money for Iraq into the rich Americans, love power of his position, or did he really believe that Iraq was a threat to America?
History often creates different views of some American presidents between the popularity that they hold in the moment and the honor they hold much later. Lincoln, for example, did not believe that he could win the election for a second term because the war was going badly. Truman was considered a poor president, at that time, but is now considered good, while Jackson has somewhat the opposite.
My money is on the side of President Bush being a bad president when observing that there was a critical period after 9/11 when the White House had no competent in-house counsel (attorney) as it was making many key legal judgments. Neither President Bush nor Vice President Chaney is a lawyer, and there was no usual attorney helping the White House avoiding the weird legal thoughts such as the president being above the law, torture being OK if a practice if defined as not being not torture, etc. Vice President Chaney's interesting ideas about being above the law will, no doubt, be tested in law in the new current era and by history. If the documents from Mr. Chaney's office still exist, this may show us a new view of the Bush era.
We may all learn soon or over a longer period whether President Bush is a bad president, did the things he needed to do by events, or perhaps was a good man, but picked bad people over good ones (possibly Colin Powell?) as counselors. One may have a clue, however, by reviewing the number of generals and admirals who resigned or retired under protest with the White House, to understand how much of a problem there much be under the cloud of secrecy that there is yet to learn.
Complain about this comment
229. gunsandreligion:
Ah, but in the case of the sudden deceleration event, isn't there a difference between an involuntary or accidental displacement through a viscous substance and defenestration achieved through impulsion?
Anyway, due to the curvature of space-time, eventually the bullet will come back round and hit the shooter right between the shoulder blades, and serve him right.
Complain about this comment
re. 224. british-ish and 204 publiusdetroit:
I'm reminded of the lyrics to a song by Gordon Lightfoot from another time and another war:
The patriot's dream is as old as the hills.
It clings like the rust on the cold steel that kills.
It tells of the boys who went down to the tracks
in a patriotic manner with the cold steel at their backs.
The patriot's dream still lives on today.
It makes mothers weep and it makes lovers pray
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills.
Complain about this comment
This Bob Dylan song's lyrics sums up that Bush nicely.
Complain about this comment
Ref 219 timohio
I get the impression you had the opportunity to visit the "special" wards in a VA hospital. Those wards seldom receiving visitors; because the sacrifices of their inmates are the living definition of hideous. They are the forgotten ones because it is almost unbearable to see them. My father took me up to play cards with the "boys" when I was 15 and he was recovering from yet another war-related surgery. I learned humility from those experiences and the men I met. I enjoyed our visits.
Ref 226 aitchin
When I read the report Gonzales presented to the President about how to get around International laws on torture, and became aware that the President endorsed the findings; I started wondering what kind of homelife George W. Bush grew up in that would allow even considering such an endorsement. Maybe de Sade should be celebrated as a well-balanced humanitarian.
Ref 221 happylaze
Thank you for your sympathy.
The events I list in the form of questions to montanaconvert, my child and I have been fortunate enough to survive and strive through the help of others that have also survived, and the VA "Vet Center". My father and my wife are the veterans. Only two of the questions relate to my father.
Ref 226 gunsandreligion
St. Gunnie. You crack me up! If you read my post Ref 204, you will notice that I hid the knives. I was always more concerned about common weapons at hand. They have a way of coming at you while you are making the morning pot of coffee; then a projectile on "a world line relative to a person in the space-time continuum" that I might intercept.
People might be surprised just how many common objects around the home are potentially lethal weapons.
Complain about this comment
#183. british-ish: "NRD, who appears to have been succesfully harried out of (this blog), and I hope the people who did that are pleased with themselves."
The young lady was not "harried out" - she was given advice by a number of posters which she chose to ignore. No-one remarked on the poor education which she had received - a 22 year-old leaving school, in college and unable to spell, even with the tools available to her. What kind of standard is that? It does not say much for her own schooling or the grading of which she was so pleased. I suggest that when British-ish (and others) left school they were able to spell, and if they couldn't, took the time to look it up. Today there are not only spell checkers but dictionaries available at no charge. I don't use any MS applications, but I would guess that MS Word and other MS-friendly word processors have built-in checkers - why can't she and others so challenged use them?
Harry Truman remarked If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, a maxim most posters heed, and which others should. Like old age, blogs such as these 'ain't for sissies'.
Complain about this comment
A few notes:
Dceilar, I'd personally prefer an older lyric, namely a poem by Kipling, entitled "A Dead Statesman"
"I could not dig, I dared not rob,
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue,
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale will serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?"
(I must here add that I hope Bush doesn't have to repent for his actions in the afterlife. I'd much prefer he repent here.)
And I'm sorry that nobody got my Doctor Who references. (The quote I twisted was from Romana I in "The Androids of Tara" ("Count, far be it from me to question this woman's competency as a doctor, but, where I come from, you don't cut off a patient's head if you wish to cure their ankle!"), while the quote I couldn't use was from the Tenth Doctor in "The Christmas Invasion" ("Don't you think she looks tired?"))
Complain about this comment
141, allmymarbles
I agree. In the end it is what the American people think they want that determines what the politicos will do. My heart bleeds for them all, not the politicos but all those babies who will grow up with hatred. I know that for the grace of God go I.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #187,
I'll refrain from laughter on this one. You DO know that not only am I currently in college and studying US history as well as history in general, and that I'm majoring in psychology with an intent for a doctorate?
I wonder, do you happen to remember my predictions about the US election and what Obama will be doing in his first term? I originally predicted the Democrats would win handily over a year before it happened, and even knew which candidates on both sides would end up being the winners in their party races. Want me to predict AGAIN what world politics will look like at the next US presidential race? How much do you want to bet against me?
I have a track record of being VERY good at predicting politics ever since I first came here. Try checking out my profile, and keep turning the page to get to my very first posts. I hate to appear arrogant (it's really distasteful), but really I do appear to know what I'm writing about. Heck, you should have read the responses in this very blog to my posts.
Europe is not the USA's enemy, from what I can see the continent really doesn't know what to think about my native country. Think of them as friends who are more than a little wary of being accidentally squished. Europe is VERY aware of how potent the USA is, but is utterly confused as to why the Americans are so.... gentle, I think, is the word. Any one of them would be throwing their weight around willy nilly, so when Bush began doing so it was just as if the USA was one of the European countries. Now we've utterly rejected not just Bush but his whole damn party. This leaves Europe simultaneously relieved and wholly befuddled as to what's going to happen next.
PREDICTIONS:
Watch for a lot of European caution as regards the USA, since they know we are fully capable of ignoring their opinions, yet for some unknown reason we actually listened. Europe will regard the US more like a adversary in a poker game, a little like how they regarded the old USSR.
Watch for the rest of the globe getting increasingly militant with their neighbors with the intention of becoming alpha. Watch for piracy to radically increase, despite China's attempts to combat it. Watch for Europe and especially Africa being disappointed with the USA's lack of "spreading the money around" far more than they usually do. Finally, in less than a decade, watch for Europe to beg the USA (or at least whine a lot) to return as global watchdogs/security force.
Complain about this comment
#227
Cpt Sensible
I think you are taking things very personal and should check your blood pressure.
Physician Sam
Complain about this comment
#201
Marcus,
But in this case the facts were presented by a specialgroupofneocons that included folkslike Richard Pearle et al.
I agree, had he followed the process he wouldhave been wellinformed. He didn't. The rest, as they say, is history.
Sad Sam
Complain about this comment
Guys guys!
OK, we elected Bush. Twice. We f'd up. But we know that now. Can we put it behind us?
Please? Kiss and make up?
Oh yeah. Now we are talking. The whole of Europe and America kissing and having make up s . . . .
Deviant Sam
Complain about this comment
237
David, your topical posts have always been most worthwhile, but this whole spelling thing did become somewhat chiding.
I still rue the day one grade school teacher told one of my kids "that's what spellcheckers are for" which started a years long battle. At work I closely read reports for the wrong word properly spellchecked by the technical editor...
Perhaps it's also apt to remember Truman's defense of his daughter from the music critic...
Complain about this comment
Jeebers76, do I remember your predictions for the 2008 election? Um let me check my files....let's see...uh......no! In fact until this entry I don't ever remember reading anything you wrote or even your moniker. So I checked your "profile" as you suggested and the earliest entry I could find was November 6, 2008. It didn't take a genius to guess that the Democrats would win this election. Bush was very unpopular, the war was unpopular, the economy showed early signs it was not really doing well even a year ago based on the housing market, and usually after an 8 year term for one president, there's a change of parties in the White House so it happens all the time. When did you first predict Obama would beat out Clinton? Any evidence to prove it? Do you claim ESP or just great wisdom and insight into the future events of the world?
So you are a student of history. I'd probably been around in this world twice as long as you've been alive...before you were even born. I'm probably more than three times your age. And I've lived in Europe and gotten to know these people first hand. Not as a tourist, not on blog sites, but by living with them, dealing with them on their own terms, and observing them in their native habitat. Take my word for it, by and large they're no damned good. But if you won't believe me, go live there for a couple of years and find out for yourself. It's an excellent education and one you can't get in any book or classroom in a college, it's called the classroom of life. By the way, if you are not caucausian, I'd suggest you prepare yourself for a big surprise when you get there. BBC broadcast tonight that a large percentage of employment agencies they contacted in a test said they'd honor requests to exclude racial minorities as candidates for jobs and the same for what they call estate agents for those shopping for a house when requested to exclude minority buyers by the owner. This despite laws prohibiting it which are not enforced. And this is Britain. It's far worse on the continent. Don't believe it? Go to NPR's web site. They did a three part series this week on racism in Germany, France, and Italy. You'll be able to listen to it for yourself. BTW, why not ask a European why the French lost the soccer championship in 2006. See what they say. If they say they don't know, mention Zinedine Zidane. Then ask them what happens when an African or Carribean team plays a soccer match in Spain.
Are Europeans America's enemies? Bookspan TV had an author on about a year or two ago who documented that anti-Americanism in Europe goes back to the American Revolution. They only become our friends when they want something from us. Right now they're scared of a lot of things. Now would be a good time to kick them in the rear and slam the door behind them. The future is in the Pacific anyway. They are a dying civilization.
Complain about this comment
Interesting.
"They only become our friends when they want something from us. "
Absolutely correct! This is how they regard each other nationally, as well. Didn't you know that? Europe is so factional that they spend their time arguing amongst themselves. This is why they could never pull some anti-ANYTHING conspiracy long enough to be effective.
I predicted Obama and Clinton would be the top candidates on the Dem side about 2 years ago, the summer before last. At the same time, I predicted McCain and Romney would be the top two in the GOP race. More recently, I predicted Obama would get the Presidency nod, and if he was smart he'd get Hillary in the VP spot(which of course I was wrong about that). Apparently she DID get a position that allows her to remain, for the most part, out of the public eye. She's great at backroom politics (getting things done effectively), but has an abrasive personality and is terrible at life in the spotlight as a result.
ESP? Nope, I just watch and listen. Want evidence to prove it? Would you care to speak with a man by the name of Scott Wells, the local DFL St Cloud organizer? He can personally vouch for every statement I've made. Also, I made some serious postings on Robotech.com in the Lounge on the Political thread for quite some time.
I still don't regard Europe as an American enemy, sorry to disappoint. I've always been either amused or frustrated with European politics, since they are so alike it's scary, yet they deny any resemblance vehemently. I swear, this bunch LOVES to get into a genital measuring contest! Does that mean I hate or even dislike them? Nope. I just acknowledge their faults, and enjoy it when they do something positive despite their cravings for influence. They aren't practical in the least, but at least they're entertaining, aren't they? Really, they aren't all as bad as you think.
Complain about this comment
Ref MarcusAureliusII
When I was a young man I once worked with an old man who was almost three times my age. He had told me that the Social Security system was upside down.
His idea was that Social Security should begin the day a young person graduated from high school and continue for five years. A passport would be issued to every graduate at commencement. The young could do whatever they wanted with their SS check; but would be encouraged to travel our nation and the world. He felt that the education received through travel would be more valuable than that gained through four years of university classes. The understanding of the peoples of the world would be priceless.
He had been a Merchant Marine as a young man; circumnavigating the globe several times before settling down into marriage and a land-locked job.
I asked him how the elderly would be supported under his plan when they became too old to support themselves through work.
He said, "I don't know. I'm not that old yet. I guess we should have the good sense to provide for our elder years, or just keep working until we die so not to be a burden on our children. If you lived your youth well; you don't fear the grave when you're old."
He was 74 at the time. We were 70 feet above ground tearing the roof sheeting off an old barn in order to salvage the timbers of the framing.
I always thought his plan was a more viable program than the Bush initiative to allow people access to their Social Security taxes to invest in the stock markets.
Complain about this comment
All of the gushing pacifist idealism is quite touching but frankly history will probably exonerate the man. The problem is; those who beat their swords into ploughshares will grow food for those who kept them swords. The west, and I mean the collective west of Europe and America has lost it's will to stand up for it's principles, sacrificed as they were on the altar of political correctness.
Quote Sir Winston if you must, but I think you will find the Cubans, Pakistanis, and Sudanese to have quite a different historical image of him... read up on your history if you don''t know what I am talking about. If he had the attitudes you have now you'd all be speaking German. Rather than compare Bush to Hitler, the historical comparison of Sadaam to Hitler makes more historical sense.
The foe that you are faced with doesn't have the same idealistic pacifism you do. Pray their idealism holds and all you will have to worry about is paying the dhimmi tax. Forget WMDs and Al-Qaeda, that was just poor politics... Bush never should have tried to use that as justification, that was his only mistake. Flouting UN resolution after UN resolution for 12 years was justification enough, and if he hadn't died of natural causes or a coup...we'd be exactly in the same place now as in 2003 if it were left up to all of you who demonize Bush as if he were Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all rolled into one.
Iraq is a sidebar in the greater historical context, it was a bloodthirsty totalitarian regime that deserved to fall, yet it is not the front in the war on terror. That can be found in Gaza with Hamas, Lebanon with Hezzbolah, Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and the remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Radical Islam is the true enemy, and for all your support, all your protests against Israel and the United States, they'd just as soon cut your head off on the internet, as burn the Magna Carta and the Constitution. Like the bully in the schoolyard, until you get the stomach to stand up to them on their own terms, they'll keep taking your lunch money.
Keep petting the rabid dog, and let me know how that works out for you.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII:
Spell Bigot:
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class.
Now...
"I've lived in Europe and gotten to know these people first hand...Take my word for it, by and large they're no damned good."
I find it fascinating that you quite correctly on one hand note the existence of racism across Europe, then come out with something like that.
Oh, and the Zidane/Materazzi incident was initially misreported by the English media as being racially motivated, but this version of events has since been discounted. Although Zidane has never disclosed the precise words that Materazzi said, the Italian defender belatedly confessed that he called Zidane's sister a whore. Though clearly far from acceptable behaviour, it doesn't fit in with your argument.
You see, whether the media is European or American, they are all prone to hyperbole, bias and - dare I suggest it? - untruth.
Complain about this comment
#245. MarcusAureliusII: "I've lived in Europe and gotten (came) to know these people first hand. Not as a tourist, not on blog sites, but by living with them, dealing with them on their own terms, and observing them in their native habitat."
But never in the United Kingdom, as you confirmed many months ago. How you can be so judgmental about an entire continent, including a country which you have never visited, is beyond belief. If your attitude to those with whom you mingled was anything like the baseless and misguided opinions you spew here, no small wonder that they detested you, a fine representative of "the ugly American".
"I'm probably more than three times your (Jeebers76) age."
Let us suggest that Jeebers is around 25, which would put you at 75. It could be assumed that you lived somewhere in continental Europe as a young person, possibly as much as 50 years ago, the same age as Jeebers is now. Life and attitudes in Europe were very different in 1958 - and the reputation of money flashing, loud clothed Americans gave rise to a lot of misunderstanding. I deduce that you were one of the causes.
Complain about this comment
227. Happy
"Care to comment on publiusdetroits letter."
No I don't. My experience has taught me that while the majority of these letters are flagrantly fraudulent fiction, there are a few soldiers that suffer tremendously from PTSD. I will not run the risk of making a judgment as to this particular situation based on one blog entry. Having known the reality of visiting my own father in both military and VA hospitals for the ten years he lived, after returning on a stretcher in '68... I'll pass on the opportunity to belittle anyone's service. They actually stood in the arena a did something worthwhile.
The rest of you are just critics... like the idiot on the blog the other day who spole of his knowledge of President Nixon based upon Oliver Stone's fictional movie.
Complain about this comment
237 David
"Harry Truman remarked If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, a maxim most posters heed, and which others should. Like old age, blogs such as these 'ain't for sissies'."
I value good spelling and grammar, but on this blog ideas and opinions are important, and NRD has made some valid and interesting contributions. It is a great pity that she may have left us over something unrelated to the topics in hand.
The point about spelling had been made, and agreed with by many (myself included) but I looked beyond my own prejudices about education to learn other peoples views and opinions.
Blogs like these ain't for bullies, neither.
Complain about this comment
This "conundrum" is in YOUR head. There's no Bush conundrum. How can you even claim anyone as "humane" who as you write "... whose willingness to gamble with other people's lives and wellbeing is matched only by his cocky inability to understand why people might not approve." This is a self-centered egotist without a brain--and I'm being kind. He has turned the world upside down the wrong way. He wasted eight years destroying lives all around the world that could have been used more positively. So don't give him and out by saying there is a Bush conundrum. PLEASE, don't insult our intelligence. He and those who voted for him have already done enough of that.
Complain about this comment
Guns,
This is a very good illustration of the mathematical use of "continuous" - a wander through the office (or bedroom) follows a continuous path, but there is a discontinuity at the window ledge, followed by a continuous path downward (with perhaps a few minor discontinuities occasioned by balcony rails, flagpoles, etc.), and a major discontinuity at the pavement (which may (or may not) result in discontinuation....;-)
Complain about this comment
DC (237),
Unrepentant snobbery and intolerance
Sad
Complain about this comment
iStupid 253 the conumdrum is very much alive as 255 and rising Comments indicate.
It serves no purpose to call Pres Bush names and try to portray him as some sort of 'brainless' being without any political understanding and a 'thug' whose policies 'turned the world the wrong way up'.
You mention he got elected twice and that indicates he had support for his policies which must have come from somewhere other than 'cockiness' to have had any appeal at all with the American electorate.
11th September, Afghanistan & Iraq all occurred in Bush's first term of Office. So, the voters knew what he was about before the second Pres election, and, they still by a substantial majority elected him for a second term.
It is not an 'insult of intelligence' to suggest Pres Bush must have won the political arguments or he would not have been re-elected. You may fundamentally disagree with those 8yrs' policies but it does not mean those policies were either wrong or brainless, only that you don't agree with them.
Complain about this comment
248 Finntann
"Rather than compare Bush to Hitler, the historical comparison of Sadaam to Hitler makes more historical sense."
Perhaps if this (see link below) had happened to Bush and Sadaam then we wouldn't be in all this mess....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090115/twl-adolf-hitler-is-taken-into-care-3fd0ae9.html
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII as one of those by and large no damned good I find the level of your invective is quite funny.
Complain about this comment
253 1stupid
This is 1 stupid posting! You have a right to think what you like, but if you write a load of rubbish expect to be shot down in flames. Whatever Bush's faults, and I can think of a few, not least poor judgment over a number of things, to say he is "without a brain" is itself brainless. No, he did not turn the world "upside down the wrong way", during his presidency he helped Africa more than any other national leader. He ensured that the U.S. gave Africa more than did any other nation to fight HIV/Aids. After the Far East tsunami his actions did more than any other to help the victims. Yes, I know, and then he screwed up over Katrina!
He stopped the barbaric practice called partial-birth abortion and the allowing of babies to die after failed abortions.
He didn't 'waste eight years destroying lives all around the world", radical Muslims did that, among other things creating a murderous tyranny in Afghanistan, killing thousands with car, train, and suicide bombs, and killing almost 3,000 in their 9/11 assault on the U.S. - but evidently you didn't notice that event.
Bush did what Bill Clinton never had the guts to do after Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. in various places, he hit back hard, not with just a few cruise missiles ineffectually fired into Sudan and Afghanistan. He re-built U.S. intelligence services that had been run down through Clinton's misguided actions, and since 9/11 there have not been any further successful attacks on the U.S. A report last night showed that Osama bin Laden has been reduced to hiding in some cave or backroom.
Read Finntann's 248 posting, you might learn some sense from it, but from what you've written above I doubt it. Demonizing Bush as if he is Hitler or Stalin is worse than absurd. It demonstrates shameless ignorance.
Further, I didn't see much "intelligence" or thoughtfulness in the action of those who voted Obama into office. Never have I seen a U.S. president elected on such shallow, uninformed basis, even if the alternative was unexciting.
243 SamTyler
Sam, the U.S. could have done worse than Bush - by electing Al Gore, a shallow-charactered showman, 'inventor of the internet'. And then John Kerry - nothing would have got done, but his wife's 'refined' outbursts would have made up for his lack of excitement.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Duarte, your definition of bigot fits most Europeans I've met to a tee. So you think that Britain is different from the rest of Europe by being better than they are. Funny, that's exactly what other Europeans in other countries say about their own national culture and other Europeans including Brits. Don't you think for example that the French feel superior to you Brits? Same for the rest. And have they really changed? No, not really. What I see and hear is substantially the same as what I heard and saw there 35 years go. Same culture, same view of the world and of themselves. BTW, by their own words according to Americans I've talked with who've been there over the last 5 or 10 years, although they don't like America's government, they are still very welcoming of Americans....as long as they have brought their credit cards with them. That hasn't changed either.
Jeebers76, when you grow up, you will realize that they'd sell you out in a heartbeat...especially if there was any money in it for them or doing otherwise would entail even the slightest sacrifice on their part. Their friendship is an illusion, a pretense we fall for every time far too easily. It's time we stopped being taken in and hearing only what we want to hear from them. Don't believe it? Just watch how they always sell out each other. How many for example have even suggested let alone tried to help their freezing fellow Europeans by shipping some of their own gas to where it has been cut off by the Russians until the crisis is over? I haven't heard any reports of it? They are utterly without principle or substance. They think the world should revolve around them because they think that they are better than everyone else. And oh yes, they think that they are smarter than we are too. That is why they are always telling us what to do. That is in part why they are so angry that our civilization has come from nowhere and zoomed past them, leaving them in the dust in every meaningful way. Right now Obama is the latest proof. One thing we can learn from them however is that they serve as an excellent example of failure not to follow. Losers can always teach winners what not to do to be like they are but we know that instinctively. It's built into our Constitution, our history, and our own culture.
Complain about this comment
259. At 1:15pm on 15 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
253 1stupid
This is 1 stupid posting! You have a right to think what you like, but if you write a load of rubbish expect to be shot down in flames. Whatever Bush's faults, and I can think of a few, not least poor judgment over a number of things, to say he is "without a brain" is itself brainless. No, he did not turn the world "upside down the wrong way", during his presidency he helped Africa more than any other national leader. He ensured that the U.S. gave Africa more than did any other nation to fight HIV/Aids. After the Far East tsunami his actions did more than any other to help the victims. Yes, I know, and then he screwed up over Katrina!
He stopped the barbaric practice called partial-birth abortion and "
He didn't 'waste eight years destroying lives all around the world", radical Muslims did that, among other things creating a murderous tyranny in Afghanistan, killing thousands with car, train, and suicide bombs, and killing almost 3,000 in their 9/11 assault on the U.S. - but evidently you didn't notice that event. "
Hmm and you didn't notice the Iraq invasion, the slaughter of Afghan civilians, the continuing appeasement of Israeli aggression, trhe equipping of the ethiopian occupying army, etc etc.
Quite a lot of killing all considered
Complain about this comment
The Top 25 from the leaky conundrum
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
260. At 1:54pm on 15 Jan 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
" our civilization has come from nowhere and zoomed past them, leaving them in the dust in every meaningful way. Right now Obama is the latest proof. One thing we can learn from them however is that they serve as an excellent example of failure not to follow. Losers can always teach winners what not to do to be like they are but we know that instinctively. It's built into our Constitution, our history, and our own culture."
What history, what culture? Oh yeh the biggest porn industry in the world. sorry I forgot.
Complain about this comment
259. At 1:15pm on 15 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
"Further, I didn't see much "intelligence" or thoughtfulness in the action of those who voted Obama into office. Never have I seen a U.S. president elected on such shallow, uninformed basis, even if the alternative was unexciting."
You beleive Sarah Palin is what? A profound intellectual?
What a farcical comment.
"243 SamTyler
Sam, the U.S. could have done worse than Bush - by electing Al Gore, a shallow-charactered showman, 'inventor of the internet'. And then John Kerry - nothing would have got done, but his wife's 'refined' outbursts would have made up for his lack of excitement."
As compared to someone who could not even speak his own laguage coherently and whose every major policy has collapsed in disaster.
Bush will go down as one of the worst, most incompetent presidents since Harding, with whom he shares a number of characteristics.
Complain about this comment
Marcus 260
Your latest anti-European rant is quite spectacular in it's ignorance.
You feel free to generalise at will, and with no justification other than your experiences 35 years ago. Do you really think nothing has changed?
Oh, and that whole thing about gas
"How many for example have even suggested let alone tried to help their freezing fellow Europeans by shipping some of their own gas to where it has been cut off by the Russians until the crisis is over? I haven't heard any reports of it? They are utterly without principle or substance."
What planet are you on? Would the USA ship their oil or gas to its NAFTA partners if they were having a tough time? Hmmmm.
Europe is not a country you know.
____________________
However I'm glad to see that you're changing your tune about Obama -
"That is in part why they are so angry that our civilization has come from nowhere and zoomed past them, leaving them in the dust in every meaningful way. Right now Obama is the latest proof."
Complain about this comment
246. At 03:56am on 15 Jan 2009, Jeebers76 wrote:
Interesting.
"They only become our friends when they want something from us. "
Er yes, it is called international relations.
Complain about this comment
Robloop,
Isn't it funny how people put things in quotation marks when they are not true.
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but nor did he claim to. He was the first person to use the word 'internet' as opposed to the world wide web (they are not the same).
On a different point, since Bush has failed on every single policy front, short of a nuclear war it's difficult to see how Kerry or Gore would have been worse.
Happy Sam
Complain about this comment
260 (MAII) and others previously:
The Squirrel Party wishes to inform its adherents and friends (especially in Italy, with which it has many close ties) that it will never make an alliance or associate in any way with the anti-European Porcupine Party currently being formed by MA11 and Jeebers.
(Prickly pair, aren't they?)
It deplores this party's 'values', and especially the influence it has recently brought to bear on an American-owned crisp company in subjecting us to the insult and humiliation of flavouring its potato crisps (chips) with us.
Squirrel posts were recently characterised as 'noinsense' on this blog. In that case, all we can say is that there is no word sufficiently apt to describe the outpourings of the Porcupine Party.
The Squirrel Party further wishes to remind readers that in Europe porcupines are kept out of the way in locked enclosures and not allowed out without a keeper, an example, it suggests, could well be followed profitably in the Americas.
Complain about this comment
#245
Marcus,
By your own admission you lived in Europe in 1973. I have some expertise in that, having lived there myself. It has changed a little bit since then.
For anyone who wants to know how different it was may I recommend the excellent and informative television show 'Life on Mars' (the BBC one, not the lame US knock off). Or visit my old friend Gene Hunt at his retirement home in Bournemouth. And he'll kick your teeth in.
DS Sam Tyler
Complain about this comment
GWB was more of a dumb dumb conundrum son
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"as long as they have brought their credit cards with them."
LOL. How utterly practical of the UK! Exactly what I would have expected of them.
" when you grow up, "
I'm 32, actually. If you're 3x my age, you are one OLD poster online! How do you manage to find the keyboard? ;)
"you will realize that they'd sell you out in a heartbeat...especially if there was any money in it for them or doing otherwise would entail even the slightest sacrifice on their part."
ROFL! Exactly. I never expected Europeans in general to act any differently, assuming they don't know me.
"Their friendship is an illusion,"
Marcus, you goof! They treat us no differently than they treat each other. It's not a matter of friendship. We've been accepted as just another "European country" which is actually the highest form of subconscious compliment possible, coming from Europe.
"How many for example have even suggested let alone tried to help their freezing fellow Europeans by shipping some of their own gas to where it has been cut off by the Russians until the crisis is over?"
And how many times have you heard of the USA doing the equivalent with Mexico or even Canada? Point is, altruistic behavior has always been a rarity. The fact that the USA government is conscious of it is more of a indication of media awareness than anything else. I have no illusions about Congress, Marcus. They think with their wallets.
"They think the world should revolve around them because they think that they are better than everyone else. And oh yes, they think that they are smarter than we are too."
Doesn't everybody? We ARE the new kids on the block, y'know. Barely 200 years old, still in diapers, as the expression goes.
Interestingly enough, the stereotype of Americans is EXACTLY the same as what you think of as European.
Still grinning,
Jeebers
Complain about this comment
236. At 11:07pm on 14 Jan 2009, publiusdetroit wrote:
"People might be surprised just how many common objects around the home are potentially lethal weapons."
I am a black smith and had to laugh when I set up here in Oregon.
The local teens in the small town(not eugene) came to watch.
Surrender by a pile of pieces with pointy metal parts sticking out forged tapers that look like more lethal versions of an Ice pick and they ask me "do you make blades?"
I'd say no
"why"
Who would I sell it to?
Will I end up with blood on my conscience, .No I won't may blades.
But what about self defence.
I just had to touch the tip of a fire poker or candlestick to Point out that many things are dangerous. But then in the UK it is illegal to go down to the pub with a hammer in your pocket.
Without guns everywhere people sometimes get inventive,unfortunately.
I have several friends who have recently served their country in Afganistan and Iraq.
They all have some "issue" (which unlike others I believe is real , in my uninformed unintelligent way) that scares their spouses at times.
Oregon has a lot of vets these days, and those I know I respect and I respect their spouses more.
Good luck to you and your's.
Complain about this comment
264 Simon21
I agree, your's was indeed a farcical comment, the Republican alternative was McCain.
267 SamTyler
Sam, you are wrong and what I wrote is true. Gore did claim to have invented the internet. A couple or more years ago I personally saw him on a t.v. program in which he was asked whether he had any regrets. He said that he regretted claiming to invented the internet.
Further, Bush has "not failed failed on every single policy front" and I think you should know that is nonsense determined by personal bias.
Complain about this comment
251
So did you serve? I still suspect not seeing as you never said yes to that question I will presume you are a bluffer as Marcus is.
PS SPOLE is not a word something you thought was important was spelling and intelligence, enough to get snobby and belittle
"there are a few soldiers that suffer tremendously from PTSD."There are a lot.
1 in 5 apparently.
http://ivaw.org/
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/index.jsp
Complain about this comment
260 MarcusAurelius11
I think you should differentiate between the Brits and continental Europe. I lived in England for a year and a half, have visited many times since, worked with and met some really good people. I invariably enjoy my visits there. The continentals in my opinon, are now, collectively, a rather directionless, gutless lot, have declining populations, not much belief in anything much any more, God least of all, and unless something dramatic occurs in their thinking, in a few decades Europe will probably be swallowed up by the Muslim world. But even among the continentals you still find good, decent, people. Have you ever considered that maybe you attitude is wrong and they they reacted to that?
Complain about this comment
255 well said Ed.
Complain about this comment
Jeebers76, from the naivete' and lack of worldliness and sophistication of your postings, I assumed you are about 17 or 18 years old. Get out into the real world man and find out what's its about. It's long overdo. I hope you don't live at home with your parents. BTW, I'm 60.
Actually they treat us as though we were still their colonial possessions. They lecture to us. That's how they view the world beyond their borders. They live in a world of their imagination somewhere between the 16th and 18th century. Think about grown men and women playing King, Queen, Lord, and Lady but for real. This is their mindset. I wonder if British judges still wear their horsehair wigs and red silk Santa Claus suits on the bench. Boy did they look stupid. Yes my Lord. No my Lord. If your Lordship pleases. Dumb is dumb. Watch Prime Minister's Question Time on C-Span on Sunday nights. You'll get quite an education at the lack of respect they have for each other even in their elected legislature. Their regular meetings in the House of Commons are hardly much more civil. Just compare it to a meeting of the House or Senate. One peep out of anyone not having the floor and the gavel comes down. A second and there's a warning that the sergeant at arms will escort the disruptors outside.
Mexico and Canada are not part of a single nation superstate like the EU is trying to become. NAFTA is only a trade agreement which is what the EU was originally sold as. Therefore we do not make these kinds of sacrifices for them. On the other hand, look at how much help pours in from all over our country, much of it voluntarily whenever there is a local disaster anywhere in the US that local officials can't handle by themselves. Again, a vast difference in the way we view each other. Also look at the real difference in charity we give helpless victims around the world. Don't go by government statistics, much of ours is from voluntarily private sources while none of theirs is. Our generousity is only matched by their stinginess and by hiding the true figures, they rely on lies and hypocricy to disguise it.
BTW, if you can find a copy, read the EU Constitution...if you can and compare it with ours. But don't be discouraged if you can't get through it. So far, no one in Europe who isn't a lawyer has. Lisbon is a re-incarnation of it. They tried to fool their publics by paring it down from 400 pages but the trick was, they reduced the type size, reduced the spacing between the lines, and added about 8000 more words. When Ireland's voters rejected it (most European publics don't get to vote, the UK won't) the EU arranged to have them vote again on it...until they get it right. If you can find it, plod through the UK's red line opt outs. It's only 40 pages but its all mumbo jumbo legalese. When you read carefully, you'll see that Britain doesn't really opt out of anything, it just defers the tyranny of Brussels for five years and pays unlimited penalties if it doesn't comply then. A stunt like that here would start a second American Revolution.
EU law now is that illegal immigrants in the EU are subject to imprisonment. This has raised a storm of outrage from all over Latin America. It seems unanimous. We by contrast are considering paths to citizenship for illegals, understand how vital they are to our economy, and how important the remittances they send home are to their families and local economies. Another area where we have far surpassed them.
Complain about this comment
273. At 3:18pm on 15 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
264 Simon21
I agree, your's was indeed a farcical comment, the Republican alternative was McCain."
And the neophyte bigot Palin who was the choice of this political has-been.
Elementary politics not your strong point clearly.
Fortunately the US electorate had more sense than yourself.
267 SamTyler
.
Further, Bush has "not failed failed on every single policy front" and I think you should know that is nonsense determined by personal bias. "
Instead of bluster maybe you could point to a major policy area where Bush succeded as he intended?
Security - more Americans killed by terrorists since 9/11 (over 4000)
War - failure in Iraq (aacording to his own generals) and disaster in Afghanistan
Foreign policy - no Palestinian state, No solution in Pakistan and Afghanistan, relations with LA deteriorating, goodwill after 7/11 completely disapted.
Domestic initiatives - medical care- chaos, New Orleans, catastrophic, stem cell research- atrophied, climate change initiatives, few or none, US justice system/constitution (which he was pledged to uphold)desecrated
Politics Republicans lose control of legislature and the presidency
Game set and match
Complain about this comment
277. At 3:48pm on 15 Jan 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Actually they treat us as though we were still their colonial possessions. "
If the US had remained a British possession it would have been a lot better off eg Australia, Canada.
The War of Independence was a disaster for the country.
" You'll get quite an education at the lack of respect they have for each other even in their elected legislature. Their regular meetings in the House of Commons are hardly much more civil."
Just compare it to a meeting of the House or Senate."One peep out of anyone not having the floor and the gavel comes down. A second and there's a warning that the sergeant at arms will escort the disruptors outside. "
Unless, this being the US, the disruptor has a gun and shoots one of the security officers.
Or attempts to beat a fellow senator senseless
Isn't senility awful? But so is ignarance about one's own country
Complain about this comment
241 I think you have been defending a real prat of a racist war monger who I still believe is a fraud .
And seem to have got really Uppity about it considering we have a long relationship here. Discussing whatever.I would say you have shown another side Sam not one very attractive.
I think some comment I made back in that"obama's republican fans" debate on gaza must have wound you up.
I do find it interesting that a fellow with so much to say on such a wide range of topics has never entered that debate but remained silent during this Brutal, Repressive, assault on a democratically elected body.
Did you see any claim by r snail to have served. He talks of his father, not vets he knows.
I think you have been taken in, and here Sam is the sad bit.
If I am angry it is with you because I think it shows your otherwise clear regard for human life and rule of law has limits.
It seems to me that by falling for his story , despite it being worded like most republican lies, so as to allow him to say I didn't lie, a bit disappointing .
I asked you berated ,R snail suckered you .He seems to have little regard for those suffering from the effects of war which is sad if he did serve and disgusting if he didn't.
And you are still a coward.
on the ditto front.
Disappointed in Sam
Complain about this comment
275 rob
"Have you ever considered that maybe you attitude is wrong and they they reacted to that?"
they failed him at medical school, he has never forgiven"Europe" for that, he had to go back to America. enough to drive most sane people mad.
I suspect that if he had travelled to Europe in recent history anti American sentiments would be up , for exactly those reasons.
Complain about this comment
I, of course, forgot to add re: Bush, incipient economic collapse.
In fact in terms of actual results his admin may run fair to be one of the worst the US has ever had. Even Harding presided over a boom.
Complain about this comment
I wonder why Marcus had a bad time in Europe. Maybe they saw him first?
Complain about this comment
Simon21
"The War of Independence was a disaster for the country (America)."
Yes that is the British view, the European view. Thank you for making my point for me. Game, Set, and Match. BTW, do you think Gordon Brown will make an obedient poodle for President Obama? The last one we had was very agreeable. Nice temperment, shiny coat, good teeth. Knew instinctively what to do, hardly had to snap the leash at all. Britain is America's colony now. Heaven help us.
Complain about this comment
275. At 3:40pm on 15 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
" The continentals in my opinon, are now, collectively, a rather directionless, gutless lot, have declining populations, not much belief in anything much any more, God least of all, and unless something dramatic occurs in their thinking, in a few decades Europe will probably be swallowed up by the Muslim world. "
Fascinating insight. Could you perhaps tell us what you mean by "continentals"?
Some of us would be intrigued to know how Poles, Irish, Portuguese and Finns can all be lumped together as "directionless and gutless".
I beleive the US is full of half educated, religous fundamentalists who do nothing but sing blues songs, wear blue overalls and say things like "hornswaggle my corn toads" occasionally shooting up the odd school.
But then I am basing my opinion on a recent VP hopeful.
But it is true all Mexicans wear huge sombreros and sleep in the sun, sometimes shouting "caramba" isn't it?
Complain about this comment
#279,Simon21..
As they would not fight fair,ie, come out of the woods,I reckon that the outcome of 1776
should be declared null & void.They still have
not paid for the tea in Boston.Can you tell me MA11s address I have a large bill for him....
Complain about this comment
277 MarcusAurelius11
I won't pretend to agreeing with all you say, but do with some things, not least the following:
"BTW, if you can find a copy, read the EU Constitution...if you can, compare it with ours. But don't be discouraged if you can't get through it. So far, no one in Europe who isn't a lawyer has. Lisbon is a re-incarnation of it. They tried to fool their publics by paring it down from 400 pages, but the trick was they reduced the type size, reduced the spacing between the lines, and added about 8000 more words. When Ireland's voters rejected it (most European publics don't get to vote; the UK won't) the EU arranged to have them vote again on it...until they get it right. If you can find it, plod through the UK's red line opt outs. It's only 40 pages but its all mumbo jumbo legalese. When you read carefully, you'll see that Britain doesn't really opt out of anything, it just defers the tyranny of Brussels for five years and pays unlimited penalties if it doesn't comply then. A stunt like that here would start a second American Revolution." And so it should!
I haven't read the EU Constitution, suggest it might be found on Google, but have read a lot about the EU and the dictatorial behaviour of scumbags like the Marxist, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, not least recently when trying to batter the in-coming EU President Vaclav Klaus, of the Czech Republic, into accepting the Lisbon Treaty.
Klaus later did a fairly good job of telling the EU representatives to, in effect, get stuffed with the rough end of a pineapple.
Also accurate was your comment about the EU forcing Ireland to re-vote "until they
get it right" - and accept the Lisbon Treaty, a document that evidently promotes a form of dictatorship - the reason the Irish rejected it in favour of liberty!
Nigel Farage, British Member of the European Parliament, recently said the EU "is a thug and a bully" that ?despises democracy? and ?cannot cope with any alternative point of view.? He also said that
"Europe (i.e. the EU) is a thug and a bully that despises Democracy?. My quotes are from LifeSiteNews, on Dec. 17, 2008.
We will see how long this E.U. holds together. I've come to appreciate why Margaret Thatcher rejected it for Britain, but Gordon Brown just doesn't have her gumption and convictions.
Complain about this comment
282 Simon21
Simon, you brought Palin into the discussion to suite your contrived point of view. Now you are just bleating on pitifully. It's pathetic!
Complain about this comment
283. At 4:44pm on 15 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
I wonder why Marcus had a bad time in Europe. Maybe they saw him first?"
I strongly doubt he has ever been to Europe.
He cannot grasp his own country's identity, politics and history, much less anwhere else.
Which is a pity. The US is a fascinating place and its institutions and history are well documented.
It is just amazing that so many who live there cannot be bothered to learn about them, yet mysteriously claim to be "patriotic".
Sarah Palin was the most glaring example of the type. Reaching for high office, yet she could not even be bothered to look up her nation's constitution to see what was involved.
The abject failure of hte US education system has always impeded the development of the US.
Complain about this comment
284. At 4:45pm on 15 Jan 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Simon21
"The War of Independence was a disaster for the country (America)."
Yes that is the British view, the European view."
No sorry read carefully, disaster for America, not for Britain.
Britain was extremely fortunate to be rid of the place.
No mass lynchings or regular Columbines here thank you.
Perhaps a better set of glasses?
"BTW, do you think Gordon Brown will make an obedient poodle for President Obama? The last one we had was very agreeable."
Good question, not sure. But as long as he succeeds in getting the US to get all the flack not Britain, then he will be doing very well.
Nobody minds if the US wants to get its people killed everywhere while bleating at others to help.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
285 simon21
If you don't know what in this context I meant by 'continentals', you've got a serious problem. However, I concede that I should have been more explicit about the
'continentals' and confined my comments to Western Europe. It's the East Europeans who lived under communist tyranny, Poles, Czechs, etc, who now resist the EU's dictatorial Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
"Marxist, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, not least recently when trying to batter the in-coming EU President Vaclav Klaus, of the Czech Republic, into accepting the Lisbon Treaty.
Klaus later did a fairly good job of telling the EU representatives to, in effect, get stuffed with the rough end of a pineapple.
Also accurate was your comment about the EU forcing Ireland to re-vote "until they
get it right" - and accept the Lisbon Treaty, a document that evidently promotes a form of dictatorship - the reason the Irish rejected it in favour of liberty!
Nigel Farage, British Member of the European Parliament, recently said the EU "is a thug and a bully" that ?despises democracy? and ?cannot cope with any alternative point of view.? He also said that
"Europe (i.e. the EU) is a thug and a bully that despises Democracy?. My quotes are from LifeSiteNews, on Dec. 17, 2008.
We will see how long this E.U. holds together. I've come to appreciate why Margaret Thatcher rejected it for Britain, but Gordon Brown just doesn't have her gumption and convictions."
Or bigoted ignorance.
How long the Eu holds together?
Didn't they say this about the US?
Right up to 1865?
EU constitution - hilarious, keep looking tell us all when you find it! I think it is near the Loch Ness Monster
Why do you comment on such things, it makes you look silly.
Complain about this comment
re. 236. publiusdetroit:
"I get the impression you had the opportunity to visit the "special" wards in a VA hospital."
No, I just know they exist. I knew someone who worked in a military hospital during WWII who said that there were some casualties whose families were told they had died. Apparently the government was worried about the impact on civilian morale.
It doesn't take an experience like that to make me understand that war is evil and that young people get suckered into the military with no idea what is really going to happen to them.
Complain about this comment
re. spelling and spell-checks
I agree that one should make an effort to spell correctly and use correct grammar in comments, but I remember an older colleague at my job who once said that it was a poor man who could only spell a word one way.
I am more concerned with the quality of a poster's thinking than with their spelling. There are some people here who spell wonderfully well but whose thinking is based on a number of outdated stereotypes rather than a clear analysis of reality.
Complain about this comment
Regarding Europe ....
It seems that some contributors to this blog are seeking to undermine any criticism of the Bush years, or American policy by shooting back with criticisms of Europe, the EU or individual countries.
This is not relevent at all.
Europe is not a single voice.
The EU currently consists of 27 independent nations, each with their own foreign policy (and the right to it).
It is utterly facile to try to hijack this discussion with sweeping (and often insulting) generalisations about "Europe".
There are many Europeans (indeed in some countries the majority) who do not agree with the EU, but as we saw in the 2000 election, the majority does not always get its way.
If you wish to debate the EU, go to Mark Mardell's blog.
Complain about this comment
robloop 287
"Nigel Farage, British Member of the European Parliament, recently said the EU "is a thug and a bully"
FYI Nigel Farage is a member for the UK Indepence Party, whose stated aim is withdrawal from the EU.
Your comment is as relevent as quoting an Alaskan seperatist on his views of the US federal government ..... I know, let's ask Sarah Palin what her husband thinks!!!
Plus in the US you have any number of whacko loonies like the Montana Freemen who would say the same of your government.
Get some perspective please
Complain about this comment
To all Commentators responding to MarcusAurelius may I suggest you consider the term WUM as in wind-up-merchant and desist from replying to someone who clearly takes delight in just be provocative for the sake of it and whose genral level of comment is without any merit or quality.
Complain about this comment
286 ukwales
"not paid for the tea in Boston"
Don't forget to include the tax!!
Complain about this comment
Simon21, I actually had a good time in Europe. It was really quite pleasant. That had nothing to do however with what I learned about it, about the world, and about myself. If you recall, I advised Jeebers76 to spend time living there so he can see it first hand for himself.
You could read the EU Constitution....if you can find a copy of it. Or you could try to. No one has ever succeeded....unless he was a lawyer. Funny, even the MPs in the various Parliaments that voted for it had never read it. But like their constituents, unless they were lawyers, they couldn't have understood it either.
Now what makes you think I don't know quite a lot about my country's history, politics, identity...or yours for that matter? The fact that I don't agree with you....or most of the other Euros? See, what did I tell you all along, Euros are tyrants intollerant of dissenting views and you just proved it. More proof that I'm right.
Complain about this comment
People seem to fail to realize that if they hate the U.S. President's policy's or what he has done during his term, then they hate the Congress as well. Congress must approve any President's decisions, especially going to war and continuing war. I think people just love to point the finger at George Bush because of his personality more than anything. People should get over it and realize that they simply do not agree with the U.S. foreign policies and hate the fact that we have so much influence in the world. Personally, I think the U.S. should leave other countries problems to themselves. People should take a look at their own country's leaders first before blaming ours.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7830285.stm
lol mostly erroneous, remember when you were trying to prove what a failure europe was and as an example pointed out how doomed to failure the euro air bus(which you had a problem noting the difference between it and a C5 ) was compared to the Boeing.
"Brussels has accused the US of giving Boeing almost $24bn in state aid.
The US has accused Britain, France, Germany and Spain of supporting Airbus' development to the tune of $15bn - which, it argues, has saved Airbus as much as $100bn over the years."
Look at that for a laugh, are they saying that "we spent more and got less results, that is unfair"
Lucky they have all those military contracts to keep them going.
Unlucky that obama might require less bombs (if we are lucky).
Seems like If Bush had figured out healthcare
and the growing(no thanks to clinton) disparity in wages, instead of wars maybe Boeing would have been in a better place.
Still it is boing so they will probably rebound at great expense.
Not all your (well very few) predictions are right though they do have a consistency to them that seems to make them valuable , consistently wrong is useful.
ps I'f bush got anything right it is a fluke and he probably regrets his decision, cause he is mostly wrong as well.
Complain about this comment
292 Simon21
'Silly' to you because you wallow in blind ignorance. And yes, the EU Constitution is there - and the Treaty of Lisbon - isn't it hillarious!
Complain about this comment
Simon21, if the UK is Eden, why have so many Brits (about 10% according to BBC) fled already? Why are so many British ex-Pats over here in the US? Why do so many more want to leave the UK? Don't think so? I'll tell you a few people who seem to want out.....Scotland. That's right the entire country. They want a divorce from England. And they're being subsidized by English taxpayers just to stay in and they want out anyway. Do you think Wales would be next? But don't feel the place will empty out. New immigrants are coming all the time..from Pakistan, Jamaica, Poland, and even France.
Complain about this comment
Just like a rodeo cowboy lassoing that calf. You can justify its humaneness all you like, it doesn't make it so.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"Jeebers76, from the naivete' and lack of worldliness and sophistication of your postings, I assumed you are about 17 or 18 years old. Get out into the real world man and find out what's its about. It's long overdo. I hope you don't live at home with your parents."
I find this insulting. You have no idea just how much I've endured, how much I've experienced, do you? I've been living on my own for 12 years now, sorry to disappoint. And in that time, I've been homeless, occasionally suicidal, got myself into college (twice over) without any form of aid or acknowledgment from my family. Please, DO tell me more about my lack of sophistication? (that was sarcasm) That is a tiny fraction of what I've experienced.
Never make assumptions as to the nature of who you are posting online to.
"BTW, I'm 60."
Then, I think you've fallen into the common trap of nostalgia, idealizing the USA and demonizing Europe(based on the evidence you've presented me over time). You have rose tinted memories of your youth, and you've failed to investigate whether your memories are still accurate. Basically, you are seeing exactly what you want to see in the rest of the world. I for one refuse to do so. Every time period is just as good or bad as another, it's just different. I view the world in a radically different way from you, and possibly the rest of the blog as well.
Oddly enough, I'm rather jaded where politics are concerned the world over. The whole thing seems damned pointless what with the massive egos. That attitude you mentioned is quite common here in the USA too. Y'see, we never executed our nobility as the French did. We now call them "East Coast Old Money" and they compose the vast majority of our Congress and House. Take a look into Bush's roots. He's not Texan at all! That's just ONE example of what I mean.
I have in fact noticed everything you mentioned in your letter years ago, back when I was a teenager(I'm a little on the bright side). None of what you wrote surprises me in the least. However, nobility comprise a tiny percentage of any society, therefore the condescending attitude you mention is actually quite rare. If it was endemic to all of Europe, then how do you explain the outpouring of condolences Justin Webb received when he announced the reason for his absence?
"Mexico and Canada are not part of a single nation superstate like the EU is trying to become. NAFTA is only a trade agreement which is what the EU was originally sold as. Therefore we do not make these kinds of sacrifices for them."
Cute, but how does this differ in any real net result from Europe and how it treats itself and everyone else?
"On the other hand, look at how much help pours in from all over our country, much of it voluntarily whenever there is a local disaster anywhere in the US that local officials can't handle by themselves."
That's not much different from European behavior either, or haven't you noticed?
"Our generousity is only matched by their stinginess and by hiding the true figures, they rely on lies and hypocricy to disguise it."
And you think this isn't present in America? Does the name Rod Blagojevich mean anything to you? How about GW Bush? Our VP Dick Cheney and Halliburton? Senator Stevens? Want me to go on listing names?
"We by contrast are considering paths to citizenship for illegals, understand how vital they are to our economy, and how important the remittances they send home are to their families and local economies. Another area where we have far surpassed them."
Do we really have any other choice, given just how porous our borders are?
Moreover, this country was founded on immigration (Give me your tired, your poor...) so this behavior is actually true to form. What was European nations founded on? Gee, they just grew that way over time, they weren't deliberately set up like the USA was. We are an artificial nation unlike any other. Does that make us better than the rest of the world? Nope, just different.
I did however agree with your post 284. It was rudely stated, but the truth as far as I can see.
I just think that you've spent so much time inside your own skull thinking intensely, that you've failed to noticed that the rest of the world no longer conforms to what you think it is. Maybe it did once, but it doesn't now.
I bear you no ill will, Marcus. But I am worried that unless you open your own eyes to both the good and evil in all of humanity, you will die a bitter, unhappy man. Don't idealize the USA, nor demonize Europe or anyone else for that matter. Simply allow your judgment to form based on a case by case basis for every human being you meet. Don't lump them together for convenience' sake.
Complain about this comment
rob
"'continentals' and confined my comments to Western Europe. It's the East Europeans who lived under communist tyranny, Poles, Czechs, etc, who now resist the EU's dictatorial Lisbon Treaty."
What?
you said Brits are different from "continentals".So no france no netherlands no spain , italy, belgium ........
(oh look my spell check says capital letters are needed for all except Italy,seems a bit off that(bigoted program))....no germany ......
As for " The continentals in my opinon, are now, collectively, a rather directionless, gutless lot, have declining populations, not much belief in anything much any more, God least of all, and unless something dramatic occurs in their thinking, in a few decades Europe will probably be swallowed up by the Muslim world."
That also sounds like Britainespecially if listening to a BNP member.
maybe we want Muslim states, the EU is not there to protect Christianity (though some think that is the case and many would be upset).
Complain about this comment
Simon21,
"No sorry read carefully, disaster for America, not for Britain.
Britain was extremely fortunate to be rid of the place.
No mass lynchings or regular Columbines here thank you.
Perhaps a better set of glasses?"
Oops! Did you forget about Northern Ireland?
Want me to go hunt up MORE examples of British violence, or would you rather it was just all of Europe I looked for specific examples? Kinda the pot calling the kettle black, ain't ya?
Complain about this comment
Ref 293 timohio
Knowing these wards exist is more than the majority of our fellow citizens are aware of when they wave the flag on Memorial Day. It would not surprise me that none of our Presidents have ever visited one of these wards.
So much for the romance of yellow ribbons bedecking trees and lampposts across America in support of our troops. We are only interested in celebrating the ones that can walk off the plane unassisted. We turn away from those who had to be led off the hospital ship; like my father, or carried off the plane on a stretcher; like your father.
Complain about this comment
To#59Britishish
I am late to this blog but thank you for reminding us of the actual "body counts." So many have died to enhance the power and the riches of so few, all over this world.
I will say this:
For mothers who lose a child or children, the only bodies who count are the ones we bury. We have compassion for ALL those who have died but these numbers are lost in the grief we feel for our own children.
I am sister to every woman who has lost a child to the "dogs of war."
Complain about this comment
To #298Timewaitsfornoman
On a more silly note after my post #309:
I need all the 'silly' I can get in these very trying days. If I spoke my thoughts to some posters, I would be banned for life!
I have enjoyed your posts and I love Red Rose tea. I will confess that I have been able to obtain it outside Canada. However, I may not reveal the source.
Also to you and #286Ukwales:
Can you not forgive US the sales tax? We are so much like poor Oliver Twist who asked so sweetly "Please sir, may I have some more?"
Complain about this comment
#255. Ed Iglehart: "DC (237), Unrepentant snobbery and intolerance."
The world has come to a pretty pass where the matter of correct spelling is dismissed as "unrepentant snobbery"; you would want a now young person to go through the rest of life being branded semi-literate? The job market is tough enough and only those whose communication skills are better than average will make the grade. If achieving literacy were difficult, then it might be understandable, but since the tools are there to be used, at no cost, the refusal to make use of them is simply pig-headed and very short-sighted.
"Intolerance" - You are the very last person to concern yourself with intolerance; your posts with regard to the politics of the Middle East demonstrate it to the Nth degree. I suggested a solution to the poster concerned - you never posit a reasonable response to the problems that beset Palestine and Israel, and trot out you familiar accusations that the latter is not legitimate.
Complain about this comment