Wack a Bush

[Minor Axis]

From Newsweek: What Happened? How Should I know?

Reputable people until the day they crossed "W"...

The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind Jan04
Paul O'Neill, Sec of Treasury 2001-03
O'neil accuses Bush of searching for a reason to invade Iraq mere days into his presidency. "It was all about finding a way to do it." Paul O'Neill describes cabinet meetings as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people".

Against All Enemies by Richard Clark Mar03
Richard Clark, Chief counter-terrorism adviser 1992-2003
Clark faults Bush for ignoring pre-9/11 intell on Al Qaeda and writes that by invading Iraq, "Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted... It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long range mind control of George Bush.

At the Center of the Storm by George Tenet, Director of CIA 97-04, Apr07
Tenet attacks Bush's inner circle of neocons "obsessed with Iraq' even as the CIA was intensely focused on Al Qaeda. The chapter titled "No Authority, Direction or Control" describes a disjointed plan for war with no strategy for when U.S. forces hit the ground.

What Happened by Scott McCellan White House Press Secretary 03-05, Mar08
McCellan drubs the Bush Admin, writing that it "confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.

 

[Minor Axis]

From The Onion: Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency.

 

[Minor Axis]

The Resume of our President.

Some accomplishments:
*Either lied or used extremely flawed intelligence against the advice of many of our own militiary, most of our allies, and most of the church leaders of America to waste much of our wealth and many of our soldiers lives on an unwise and unjust war.
* Spent the huge surplus left him by the Clinton administration and bankrupted our nation’s treasury.
* Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
* Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history (25%).
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
* Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in U.S. history.
* In just two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
* Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in U.S. history.
* Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
* Presided over a 45% increase in the loss of home ownership in America since the year 2000.
* Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in U.S. history.

For the full effect see the entire list at the link. And I thought Republicans are supposed to be good for business? Silly me.

And if you're looking for outstanding Bush background material: Looking Behind the Bushs.

 

[Gomjabber]

Oh my God, someone post the list of dead people that have crossed the Clinton's!

:gives:

 

[Tim]

Oh my God, someone post the list of dead people that have crossed the Clinton's!

:gives:

Why do you feel the need to bring up the Clinton's when someone is attacking George?

If I was talking about the millions Hitler killed, would you feel the need to justify it by how many people Stalin killed before him? Makes the same kind of sense.

 

[Minor Axis]

Oh my God, someone post the list of dead people that have crossed the Clinton's!

Feel free to point out any errors in this list as I want to be sure it's correct. Thanks!

edit: Oops I see an error. Actually two record deficits occurred under Bush's watch. Sorry about that.

Why do you feel the need to bring up the Clinton's when someone is attacking George?

His witty come-back? And attacking George? The last post was his accomplishments.

 

[Gomjabber]

Why do you feel the need to bring up the Clinton's when someone is attacking George?

If I was talking about the millions Hitler killed, would you feel the need to justify it by how many people Stalin killed before him? Makes the same kind of sense.

Wow, a little sensitive about the Clintons are we?
I bring it up only because it is business as usual in this country's broke dick government.

BTW, STalin was a dick.

 

[Minor Axis]

I bring it up only because it is business as usual in this country's broke dick government.

You're bringing up partisan smears to counter substantiated facts? That's fair.

 

[pinky]

I can't wait to see how the media handles Obama (if he gets in). Will anything negative, be considered racist? Can't wait to see what the comedians do. I guess look for another job.

 

[Gomjabber]

I can't wait to see how the media handles Obama (if he gets in). Will anything negative, be considered racist? Can't wait to see what the comedians do. I guess look for another job.

Without a doubt. Fawning just get old after a week or two.

 

[Minor Axis]

There's has never been anything wrong with criticizing policy regardless what color the politician's skin is. Obama would not be the first black person to hold public office.

 

[Minor Axis]

Very interesting article from Newsweek on What Bush Got Right- by Fareed Zakaria. Mostly it is a litany of leadership failures but it shows that the Bush Administration has altered some of it's stances for a more favorable outcome. All of this was cheered on by most of the Republican Party. Excerpts below. The entire article is 4 pages long.

A broad shift in America's approach to the world is justified and overdue. Bush's basic conception of a "global War on Terror," to take but the most obvious example, has been poorly thought-through, badly implemented, and has produced many unintended costs that will linger for years if not decades. But blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. The administration that became the target of so much passion and anger—from Democrats, Republicans, independents, foreigners, Martians, everyone—is not quite the one in place today. The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush's first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed.

On Afghanistan, there is a more compelling case to be made that the administration mishandled the most important front in the War on Terror. The central critique that Barack Obama makes—that American attention, energy, troops and resources were wrongly diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq—is devastating and hard to dispute. But it's a criticism of Bush policy in 2003. The policy that the administration is currently pursuing is less vulnerable to easy attacks.

On North Korea, the administration's reversal has been near total. Within months of entering the Oval Office, Bush publicly repudiated his secretary of State, Colin Powell, for even suggesting that the administration would continue Bill Clinton's efforts to negotiate with Kim Jong Il. But since July 2005, Bush has pursued a very similar approach, in fact an even more multilateral one than Clinton's—four additional parties are now at the table.

On Iran, the third charter member of the Axis of Evil, the administration has performed a similar about-face. Forget the muttering of various proponents of military action, periodically leaked to newspapers. The efforts of the administration have been diplomatic and multilateral.

The same could be said for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Bush began his term in office vowing that he would not involve himself in Clinton-style efforts at peacemaking. His administration adopted a hands-off approach, allowing resentments to build and conditions to worsen. It gave free rein to irresponsible policies from all parties, encouraging, for example, a thoughtless and ill-planned Israeli attack on Lebanon that ended up weakening Israel, devastating Lebanon and empowering Hizbullah.

And then there is the administration's record outside of foreign policy. Bush 43 has surely been the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, taking surpluses that equaled 2.5 percent of GDP and turning them into deficits that are 3 percent. This is a $4 trillion hit on the country's balance sheet. On the central issue of energy policy—the greatest economic challenge and opportunity of our times—Bush has been utterly obstructionist, recycling the self-serving arguments of industry lobbyists. On the whole, Bush's record remains one of failure and missed opportunities.

 

[Minor Axis]

 

[gLing]

Why do you feel the need to bring up the Clinton's when someone is attacking George?

If I was talking about the millions Hitler killed, would you feel the need to justify it by how many people Stalin killed before him? Makes the same kind of sense.

I suspect because a lot of people who love to attack Bush were Clinton supporters. So to bring up Clinton is to point out the duplicity of the person attacking Bush.
For example, people love to say Bush made up the whole weapons of mass destruction bit, but 5 years earlier Clinton was saying the exact same thing about Saddam and his WMDs.

This goes both ways of course.

 

[Minor Axis]

I suspect because a lot of people who love to attack Bush were Clinton supporters. So to bring up Clinton is to point out the duplicity of the person attacking Bush.
For example, people love to say Bush made up the whole weapons of mass destruction bit, but 5 years earlier Clinton was saying the exact same thing about Saddam and his WMDs.

This goes both ways of course.

Only to the people trying to minimize the stupidity of the BA (Bush Admin). Clinton was much smarter in worldly affairs, not perfect, but they the CA, had a reasonable foreign policy.

Clinton did not do anything wrong regarding Iraq and WMDs. Just imagine if he had been stupid enough to invade Iraq and what the Republicans would have said about it. Just my opinion of course.

 

[gLing]

Only to the people trying to minimize the stupidity of the BA (Bush Admin). Clinton was much smarter in worldly affairs, not perfect, but they the CA, had a reasonable foreign policy.

Clinton did not do anything wrong regarding Iraq and WMDs. Just imagine if he had been stupid enough to invade Iraq and what the Republicans would have said about it. Just my opinion of course.

The only difference between Bush and Clinton in regards to Iraq is Bush actually did something. Clinton just lobbed a few missiles while he was being impeached. However, both made the same argument about his WMDs.

 

[Minor Axis]

It was reported tonight on MSNBC that in Bob Woodward's new book, President Bush was not involved in the Iraq surge decision, that he had no idea how many troops would be sent to Iraq for the surge because in his own words "I had other things to do."

Now that's what's called delegation... and who cares if the Pentagon said they could only afford 2 brigades, when 5 were sent.

 

[Alien Allen]

It was reported tonight on MSNBC that in Bob Woodward's new book, President Bush was not involved in the Iraq surge decision, that he had no idea how many troops would be sent to Iraq for the surge because in his own words "I had other things to do."

Now that's what's called delegation... and who cares if the Pentagon said they could only afford 2 brigades, when 5 were sent.

we saw what micro managing the war did when McNamara sent us down the shitter during Nam.

aside from that I would like to know the context of what "not being involved" means

 

[Minor Axis]

we saw what micro managing the war did when McNamara sent us down the shitter during Nam.

aside from that I would like to know the context of what "not being involved" means

Well, the head of the U.S. military is usually involved in a decision like this, to at least know the details as he is the one who is supposed to give final approval. But Bush is our absentee leader, the lazy President if you will, having taken more vacation days than any other President and was on vacation when Katrina ravaged one of our cities...

 

[Strauss]

was on vacation when Katrina ravaged one of our cities...

That's such a bullshit statement. The President of the United States is never on vacation; he just isn't at the White House. Big friggin deal. He has the complete resources of the federal government at his fingertips no matters where he goes. Everything he could could do while sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue he can do sitting anywhere where else in the world.