December 4 Sources: You Will Miss George W. Bush

Does hatred of Bush make people act against their principles? The President’s attempt to bring democracy and reform to the Middle East is not enjoying immediate success, but rather than mourn the lost possibility many progressives dismiss the goals as invalid, says one article. Those interested in the origins and effects of the war may want to read Intelligence Estimates: How Useful to Congress? (pay attention to page 6) & Iraq Civilian Death Estimates. Other sources are below.

d.a.n. may be enjoy the article on the budget deficit, while Philippe will find some information about U.S. attitudes toward European defense in the bottom article. If Charlie Rangel reads this, he may want to take a look at the case against the draft.

Action Plan for Capital Markets
AIDS Threatens India’s Prosperity
Arabs May One Day Miss George W. Bush
Are the Media Opting for “Civil War”
Beyond Hegemony
Europe, America, and the Continental Drift
Faced with Radical Islam, Europe Is in Danger of Decay
Intelligence Estimates: How Useful to Congress? (CRS)
Iraq Civilian Death Estimates
The Budget Deficit
The Case Against the Draft
The United States and European Security & Defense Policy

Posted by Jack at December 4, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #197731

Oh, stop with the hate thing, Jack. I’m sure Bush would make a decent neighbor, and I’d love to play poker against him, but he just doesn’t have the chops to pull off the presidency gig.

Posted by: Trent at December 4, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #197735


“The President’s attempt to bring democracy and reform to the Middle East is not enjoying immediate success,….”

Really? Ya think?

Jack, it isn’t about hatred for Bush.
It isn’t even about bringing Democracy and stability to the Middle East, both noble goals.

On the other hand, the execution of this noble quest has been, and continues to be, abysmal.

This has been amateur hour, and our military and the people of Iraq and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the grievous mistakes made by an arrogant fool (Rumsfeld), who thought he could pull this off cheaply.

The truly sad thing is that there were adults that thought this was a good idea.

To this day, there is little or no security even in the remotest parts of Iraq, yet there were plans for what, 50 to 100 bases to be built, let alone the now infamous Palatial embassy in the “Green Zone”.

It would be a crying shame if, when America leaves Iraq, all the Iraqis have to show for it are purple thumbs.

Posted by: Rocky at December 4, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #197740


I don’t hate George Bush. I’d hardly heard of W before his bid for the presidency. I was at that time a life long Nebraskan and it didn’t take long to see that what he’d done to Texas I didn’t want done to the country. Texas under GW was almost dead last, in fact maybe they were dead last, to impliment Clinton’s new health plan for children.

Beyond that it took very little effort to see how strong his ties were with the religious right. So, I began to fear W, I was also biased because I once got burned by brother Neil via Silverado Savings and Loan. Jimmy Carter could tell us a thing or two about family ties.

My greatest fear of W was that he’d privatize Social Security. Then came 9-11. I still remember when he teared up and choked up over our losses and I thought, “wow, this guy’s OK afterall”. Since then he’s shown that he has no damn sense at all.

GW’s led us down one wrong path after another. I don’t hate him. I mostly fear him. I truly believe W’s nuttier than a fruitcake.

Posted by: KansasDem at December 5, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #197742

Why would you link Michael Rubin? At what point would you note he has been wrong so many times that, surely, something must be wrong with his fundamental assumptions? He worked for Douglas Feith in the Office of Special Plans, provided feedback to the propaganda promoted by the Lincoln Group, and strongly supports bombing Iran. It appears his motivations for promoting the national interests of Israel are far stronger than his desire to promote the national interests of the United States.

And what about promoting democracy in the Middle East? Given developments in Lebanon & Iraq, one would have to conclude that the process guarantees civil strife, along thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of deaths; and even then, the democracy will only be acceptable if it is consistent with the national interests of Israel and the United States. Why would any Muslim country embrace this process?

As for casualties in Iraq, we can throw out the estimates of the Brookings Group, among others, because they rely upon media reports. Large portions of Iraq, including Anbar province, are nearly invisible to the media. Another hole is the invasion of Iraq itself, & “shock and awe.” No one knows how many civilians died. No one. The best resource are estimates made within country, by the Ministry of Health and the Lancet projections.

The Ministry of Health estimates 150,000 civilian deaths at the hands of “insurgents”- read, “Sunnis.” It seems likely that as many, or more, Sunnis have died at the hands of Shias. Combine this with the unknown number of deaths during the US invasion, & suddenly the lower estimate by Lancet, over 400,000, starts to look very plausible.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #197743

“You Will Miss George W. Bush”

I believe the only people who will truly miss Bush will be the comedians.

“Does hatred of Bush make people act against their principles?”

I doubt it. Here’s another question: Do Bush’s actions and principles, or lack thereof, make people hate him? I think the obvious answer to this is: yes.

“The President’s attempt to bring democracy and reform to the Middle East is not enjoying immediate success,”

:^0 Wow.
This is either an intentional (yet sick) joke, or the most gobsmacking understatement of the year…
Possibly even Katherine Harris Crazy?

“but rather than mourn the lost possibility many progressives dismiss the goals as invalid, says one article.”

I think many liberals can mourn all the lost possibilities, and everything that has happened AND simultaneously dismiss the goals as invalid — especially since the “goals” have changed so many times over the years.
Btw, it may interest some liberal readers to know exactly who wrote that particular article.

phx8, did you happen to hear about what Rubin did to Juan Cole this past year? They mention what took place in the above link.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 5, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #197745

Yes, I read Juan Cole daily. Unlike Neocons like Michael Rubin, Juan Cole has the virtue of being consistently right. He projects what will happen, and time and again it comes to pass. I have to say, I am mildly insulted to even spend time reading anything written by people like Michael Rubin. How many times do these people need to be proven demonstrably wrong by ensuing events, and how many innocent people have to die, before jerkwads like Michael Rubin are dismissed from the public forum?

Posted by: Phx8 at December 5, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #197747

Jack: We don’t hate President Bush. We or I guess I should say I hate what he has done to our country. The main thing that I hate is how his policies have divided us.

Here is what I truly think about Bush. He is a spoiled rich kid who isn’t very bright ( cunning maybe but not bright) and who never should have been elected President. Because of this, he let that S.O.B. Dick Cheney lead him around by the nose and get him/us in this terrible situation in Iraq. I am not saying that Bush wasn’t prepossessed with Iraq, I think that is why Cheney was picked as V.P. But, Cheney is the one that came up with the cooked intelligence and he picked his good buddy Rumsfeld ( with his plan that was guaranteeded to fail) and the rest of the boys.

God only knows how many years our efforts in the Middle East and against the terrorists have been set back. Now we have no choice, we must find a way to make Iraq whole again if at all possible. We have to do everything we can to help them rebuild their infrastructure, their cities and their economy. I am not talking about no bid contracts for U.S. corporations either. They can and must do it themselves with our help. Let’s get the violence under control and put them to work.

I don’t think it is to late for Bush to salvage something of his Presidency. The first thing he should do is send the V.P. over to the Blair Building and put him in charge of the clean highways initive. I think he should withdraw the Gates nomination and try to find a well qualified Democrat for S of D if he can. Notice, I said Democrat and not Independent. Of course bipartisanship would never be aceptable would it?

Posted by: jlw at December 5, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #197750


Not really.

I’m kinda looking forward to a guy who speaks English. Considering the Republicans who are under serious consideration, I would find ANY of them preferable to Bush. Romney, McCain, Giuliani… bring ‘em on.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 5, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #197755


Nobody has been consistently right about Iraq. Some people have managed to make statements sufficiently nuanced to encompass many outcomes.

I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall (that nobody predicted more than a few weeks out). I saw Henry Kissinger give a talk a year before. He gave the usual realist line that communism might fall sometime in the distant future, but E. Germany was fundamentally sound and enjoyed acquiescence, if not support of its people. A little while after the fall, I saw him again. “As I predicted …,” he started out. Indeed, if you read carefully, he had predicted the fall of the wall (and lots of other things). BTW - liberal commentators were even worse at this prognostication.

Re Bush & Iraq. It looks like it is working toward a tragedy. I hope it doesn’t end as the Syracuse expedition, with which it shares parallels.

But what you can say about Iraq and Bush is that it is too bad that his reach exceeded his grasp. It certainly would be better for the world if we could prevail there and the consequences of our failure will be very bad.

Maybe it is like Wilson, who made the mistake of introducing liberal (small l) principles too soon, but in the long term only reform and a type of democracy will make the Middle East anything other than what is has been for 50 years. That too is a tragedy; just a tragedy in slow motion.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #197757


“But what you can say about Iraq and Bush is that it is too bad that his reach exceeded his grasp.”

Perhaps his grasp of reality?

This whole debacle seems as if it was an idea drawn up one night on a cocktail napkin, by a bunch of the guys sitting on bar stools, with all the stupidity that might connote.

It was apparent from the beginning that there was no plan past the fall of Baghdad. The lack of security during the bedlam that followed set a very uneasy precedent for what has come to pass.

Noble intentions aside, you can’t “stay the course” if there was no course to begin with.

I fear we will be leaving a hornets nest in the Middle East.
One that just dares some other dolt with a big stick to take a swing.

Posted by: Rocky at December 5, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #197763

I don’t hate bush, but I do think he is one of the worse presidents that the US has had.

I think they should bring the draft back, but not like it was in the 60’s/70’s when I was drafted. Make it fair, no deferments etc.

A illegal alien policy that is worthwhile, not one to slap their hands and they are back here the next day.

Now remembers these are my opinion’s only. Of course you can yell at the messenger because I have been yelled at by the best :-)

Posted by: KT at December 5, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #197764

Jack: I don’t hate W. I do love America. Hence, I do hate what W has and is doing to America from which it will take decades to recover (if ever). And there are the lives W’s policies and unjust war have taken—there is no recovery from that…..

Posted by: Allen at December 5, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #197770

Let me just take a hypothetical and I hope we all all agree. IF the Bush policy were to succeed in Iraq, it would be a good thing, right?

We may disagree about the place and the possiblity, but the goal is good. I think the article was saying (and it is what I am saying) is that some people, not only or even especially in America, are not blinded by their dislike of Bush to the goal.

For example, Hugo Chavez wants the U.S. to fail in Iraq. He has said so. Do we assume Chavez is a terrible guy or do we cut him slack on that statement? The slack cutters should ask themselves why.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #197775

The goal of spreading democracy & freedom is good, but the goal is discredited when it is spread incompetently, or by force, or by misleading the American public about why using force is justified in the first place.

A better goal is to support Human Rights, with less emphasis on the form of government. While representative government such as a democratic republic seems to be the best way to ensure Human Rights, the actual form of government is less important that the guarantee of individual rights, freedom, & liberty to live & let live.

Also, a better goal is to support the spread of secular government, which separates church & state, rather than backing an Islamic state, Jewish state, or Christian state.

Chavez is no friend of the Bush government. Chavez has been democratically elected, and will always hold a grudge against Bush for attempting to overthrow him. Backing the coup against Chavez was a terrible decision. As long as Bush is around, Chavez will poke him in the eye at every available opportunity. Fortunately, the administration following Bush will have an excellent chance of repairing relations.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #197776

Jack, put me down as a firm “yes” in the do-you-hate-george- bush debate. He slept through 9-11, the deaths of 3000 people and then he sent +3000 more people to their deaths overseas. For what? I can’t go so far as to call him a sociopath as they are, as a group, above average in intelligence, but I do know he will go to his grave totally unaware of what he has wrought.

Posted by: charles Ross at December 5, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #197778


As I said before, the cause in Iraq is noble, if embarrassingly misconceived, and mishandled.

If George W. Bush can pull this one out of his ass, God bless him.

BTW, I’m not holding my breath.

BTW2, have you seen what Gates has recently said about our policies in Iraq.

Posted by: Rocky at December 5, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #197779


Chavez was poking at the U.S. before Bush was elected. W/o the U.S. to blame, his platform is hollow. If/when the price of oil comes down and his economy tanks, he will need the U.S. more than ever as a scapegoat. Relations will not improve after Bush (or maybe for a few weeks). BTW - the U.S. did not support the coup. It remained neutral. We might have backed a friend, but Chavez never gave us any cause to think him one.


You can hate Bush, but do you think reform & democracy in the Middle East are valid goals? That is the question.

Phx8, Charles et al

Let me pose another question. I see an ad on TV a lot about Darfur. It talks about the atrocities and then demands George Bush do something. What would he do? The UN/EU/AU/NGO route is working as well as it did against Saddam. Are they asking for the deployment of U.S. troops? Nothing else is working.

Would you accept U.S. intervention in Sudan? Do not tell me that we cannot because of Iraq. Just tell me IF you think a U.S. intervention in Sudan would be justified.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #197781


Without the rest of the world being involved, what is the point of sending in American troops?
I feel for those folks, I truly do.
However, that said, we don’t have the resources after this Iraq adventure to spread ourselves willy nilly.
If Bush can pull together a coalition the size of the Gulf War, perhaps.

Go back and read your link on hegemony. I think you’ll find your answers are there.

Posted by: Rocky at December 5, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #197786

I have found it very useful to “follow the money” in determining what and why we do things as a government. We are in Iraq because of oil that buys money that buys power. I supported bush’s action in pressuring Iraq and eventually moving to remove Saddam Hussein. If you do the math 112 billion barrels of oil (possibly as much as 360 billion) times @ 60 bucks per it comes to between 7 and 20 trillion dollars. It simply makes no sense to allow that kind of wealth and power to accrue to insanity. As bad as things are in Iraq, it is good that we did what we did. I just cannot believe, it is shocking to me that it was all handled so poorly, no sense of preparation, communication, history; no ability to plan, persuade, learn from mistakes by this man and his associates. 3000 American lives thrown away and counting.
Re: Darfur. your question is hypothetical because we, as you implicitly admit, have no remaining ability to do anything meaningful anywhere in the world. We are broke, financially and militarily. bush took care of that but good. It will be several years before we can insert ourselves, militarily, into any situation. The only possibility, really, is to be part of a UN force, but that is politically unacceptable in this country. This sort of action is certainly justified in my view if we had the capability. It is an investment on our part, just like the help provided after the tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake. We did much, much more to fight terrorism buy providing aid then we have with all the life and treasure expended in Iraq.

Posted by: charles Ross at December 5, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #197787


My point in Darfur is that we CANNOT pull together any group. The Chinese are in favor of the Sudanese government and would block any move. The Muslim countries have no problem with Muslims killing Muslims, especially if those being killed are black. The world will do nothing but talk.

IF the U.S. did anything concrete, we would have outrages. If cannot do anything concrete, we have outrage.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #197788


Can you think of any situation where UN troops have ESTABLISHED peace?

Besides the Sudanese government, backed by the Muslim world and the Chinese (and the Russians with the Euros waiting to see which way it goes), has refused to think about an effective UN presence (a bit of an oxymoron anyway). It is very much like the Saddam situation in 2002.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #197790


That nothing is being done in Darfur IS an outrage, and the whole world is much poorer ethically for it.

BTW, I just read an article on the state of our arms, you know tanks, artillery, etc. The report states that we are rotating equipment because we have little or none to train with here in America.
The cost to repair these pieces is in the $12 billion dollar range, and without repair, these are just so many doorstops.
This to me just points to the fact that despite claims to the contrary, the administration appears to have thought they could pull off this whole “war on terror” thing quickly and cheaply. It would also appear that someone ran the numbers and figured we could get by on what we had, if things were done cheaply.

Thus the “you go to war with the Army you have…” quote from Rumsfeld.

I think the results speak for themselves.

Posted by: Rocky at December 5, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #197791

My figure was wrong. It should be $17-19 billion.

Here us the link to that report;

Posted by: Rocky at December 5, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #197792

The U.N. is ineffective, in no small measure, because we want it to be ineffective. I would hope that 9-11 would have taught us that we have to communicate much more effectively; that we have to feel and demonstrate respect for the rest of the world (especially important in the Muslim world). What message is conveyed through a statement such as “either you’re with us or against us”? Isn’t it pretty much “we have an opinion and a course of action and what you (the rest of the world) thinks really doesn’t matter” ?
We have to be extremely careful in light of what 9-11 demonstrated. I’ve read somewhere that the last positive-sum war was the Prussian Wars of the 1870’s (meaning what was expended was more than compensated by what was gained). 9-11 was a battle lost. The enemy expended a half-million and 19 lives and we lost 3000 and hundreds of billions. The part of the world that has nothing to lose took a good look at what happened and have learned from this that we can be had (and pretty easily at that). The UN could be very useful to the United States with people in charge who knew what the word diplomacy means.

Posted by: charles Ross at December 5, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #197796

I think after President Bush Is out of office,and by chance we get a democratic president, house and senate that will be when we will decide weather we miss President Bush or not.

Posted by: dolan at December 5, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #197797

According to reports cited by Wikipedia in its article on United Nations peacekeeping, “successes include:

The US Government Accountability Office concluded that UN Peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force. [19]

A 2005 RAND Corp study found the U.N. to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared U.N. nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that of eight U.N. cases, seven are at peace, whereas of eight U.S. cases, four are at peace, and four are not or not-yet-at peace. [20]”

As for Darfur, I would not advocate using the US military. Even if it were possible, deploying the US military would probably not work. The region is remote, rural, and lacking infrastructure in the first place. We lack an understanding of the culture & language. In other words, it is simply not a situation where the US military would be likely to successfully intervene.

It is a situation better addressed by the UN and by neighboring countries. Financial & logistical backing for those efforts would be absolutely appropriate, as would backing humanitarian relief through the UN.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #197798


Most of the countries in the UN are not full democracies. What would the will of the UN be? UN membership does not want to do anything about Darfur. It is not only that they do not want to do it themselves. They feel the Sudanese ARE solving the problem. The UN did not want to do anything about Saddam, or Somalia or Bosnia or Kosovo. The UN represents a lot of bad guys, a lot of ineffective ones and only a few with even the capacity (not to consider the will) to do anything. It is the nature of a big organization that include all the countries of the world, good and bad.

The U.S. already pays around 25% of all the UN’s bills. We supply more than half of all the world’s food aid. Our ships and planes carry most of any emergency relief after a disaster. We supply 1/3 of all the anti-AIDS funding. We cooperate a lot with the UN when the UN will cooperate with us.

Remember too that the UN is a very lumpy organization. There is no such thing as a UN opinion. There are 190 opinions (actually many more). It is hard to find consensus among that many people, especially when some do not see a problem and others do not want it solved.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #197799


What ever happened to the cost-benefit analysis? Half a trillion doallars for a decade long occupation that was nearly guaranteed to create longstanding democratic governments in the middle east may very well be a worthy goal. But this was far from reality, even from the beginning according to almost every credible source with no conflict of interest.

Even repeating this goal with the knowledge that it was believed by a good percentage of the electorate makes me embarrassed. And now, with the benefit of hindsight, I can definitively say that half a trillion dollars for an unstable government with no real authority outside a small “green zone”, unmitigated sectarian unrest, and a thriving insurgency was NOT a good investment.

You can try to compare this to other conflicts, hoing to guilt someone into advocating a US funded world police force, but every situation is unique. This is why we have the UN. Reform THAT system if you are concerned about incongruencies. There was absolutely no need for unilateral pre-emptive war. And dragging a few nations into the war with us is not a valid contingency plan without an ACTUAL immediate and direct threat.

So we spent all that money, obligated our kids to pay for it (heaven forbid we raise taxes to pay for it now), and obligated our military’s involvement for decades to come just to depose Saddam? Couldn’t we have done that years ago with very little cost? Or was it considered a bad idea then for a reason? Good thing it only took 6 years for Bush to listen to those same advisors, eh?

This will be Bush’s legacy forever. He sped us blindfolded into an unmanagable situation, degraded the good reputation of our military by making them act less like an army and more like sitting ducks, and he didn’t even want to pay for any of it. He failed massively to do anything of any significance domestically. Finally, he has a stubborn, smug, “do as I say not as I do” personality, which has made anti-american and anti-christian/jewish sentiments trendy again throughout the world.

Will I miss him when he’s gone? Like a hemorroid.

Seriously Jack, what are these “goals” you speak of as if they are actually worth the massive costs? And are they achievable? Or are we just pissing against the wind? Gee, maybe thats where the whole diplomatic consensus-building process could have really paid dividends. Heck, if we would have just listened, we could have learned nearly everything we wanted to know for FREE! But I guess it was easier to assume Churchill-1940 status, and come out swinging (albeit with the army we have as opposed to the army we would have liked).

Just because you can point to a lofty end-goal doesn’t mean that the basic idea, plan, and execution therof are not so fatally flawed as to be completely irreconcilable with practical reality. But here we have just that scenario. And THAT is Mr. Bush’s legacy. I just fail to see how anyone can defend any part of the Iraq justification arguments without having to admit they are grasping at straws…desperate to salvage SOMETHING from this mess. That much I can’t blame anyone for, but it doesn’t change the fact that most people saw this coming from the beginning, and “I told you so” doesn’t even begin to explain the popular sentiment.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 5, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #197800


I would like nothing better for the UN to keep the peace, but in the whole history of the UN, they have never been able to ESTABLISH peace w/o the U.S. doing most of the heavy lifting. (Maybe the exception of E. Timur with the help of the Australians.)

Right now we have no peace in Darfur for the UN to keep.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #197814

” It simply makes no sense to allow that kind of wealth and power to accrue to insanity.”

Charles: That kind of thinking is why the people of the Middle East hate us. Our policy in the Middle East for the most part has been to have a strong man or Aristocrat dictator in charge of the oil producing nations. Sadam was one of our dictators as was the Shah of Iran. The British had the Saud’s but, they are our boys now.

@60 bucks per it comes to between 7 and 20 trillion dollars. That is about what this war will eventually cost the tax payers of the U.S.

Jack: Nothing could be better for us and the Iraqis if Bush could turn things around and be successful there. If he could just get things to where they are manageable by the time he leaves office, it would be great for everyone including him. It appears that the consensus forming for a new policy in Iraq will incorporate much of the Murtha plan. I don’t know if it is to late for such a policy or not. I think this is the way we are going. Bush needs some political cover now that he no longer has his rubber stamp Congress and the Democrats are the only ones that can give it. If he is not as dumb as many think he is, he will start bringing them in and listening to them. It can’t hurt him with anyone anymore and it might save his Presidency.

I have been meaning to say something about George Bush for several weeks now and haven’t gotten around to it, so here goes. It seems to me that over the last few months, Bush has improved his speaking ability. I haven’t heard many of the gaffes that he has normally came up with. I have wondered if anyone else has noticed. If it is so, then I am assuming that Laura has taken him back to school.

Posted by: jlw at December 5, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #197817


I do not think Bush has changed, but the press is no longer interested in catching him since he will not run again. The last two years of a president’s tenure are usually a little more benign. I expect even Bush’s strongest opponents will begin to lay off, even say good things about him, in order to concentrate their fire on McCain, Guiliani or Romney.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #197861

It is apalling to read some of the hateful, misguided things said here about our sitting President. If there is such a thing as devine intervention, and I believe there is, it occurred in the 2000 election when George W. Bush defeated AlGore for the presidency. Mr. Bush is intelligent (MBA), a practicing Methodist, as I am and deeply committed to the success and prosperity of our country. God Bless George W. Bush.

Posted by: ClydeB. at December 5, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #197898


The man has made ridiculously incompetent decisions during his term. Many of his chosen staff have proved even less competent. His diplomatic abilities are nill. And his agenda has well served nobody except the allready wealthy.

My guess is the only people who will miss him are the two percent of people who own half of the wealth of this nation.

His only chance of any sort of a redeeming legacy lies with the outcome of our dillema in the middle east. Even with the advent of any sort of acceptable success in Iraq he will still go down in history as having engineered probably the most mis-managed confict in this countries history. Plus it may yet very well be determined that he and his comprades led us into this conflict under less than honourable conditions.

I do not hate George W. I look at him with pity and a bit of disgust at his stubborness in the face of reality. I feel shame for him and am embarassed for our country.

Posted by: ILdem at December 5, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #197905


You can put me in the “I Hate W” category. I came to this sad state as a result of becoming convinced that his policies are based solely on the now failed goal of establishing a permanent neocon control over the US government with a complete disregard of what is right for America, it’s people, or even mankind. I hear his Daddy is crying over what has become of him. At least one Bush has a concience. (that was joke in case you couldn’t tell)


I would pity him, if he had ever shown any compassion.

Adrienne, Phx8,
You have to admit that Rubin is a highly intelligent and educated person. So I have to ask, “why would he speak out so loudly in support of things that are so obviously wrong?” He’s not stupid. I don’t think he’s crazy. All I can think of is the mirror of what we’ve seen from BushCo. Truth has no validity in the neocon Straussian world; public speech is only used to control the masses. To argue with those that belive, one must focus on the basis of their misguided belief system, not the details of the propoganda.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 6, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #197907

Dave 1

I have been using public speech to control the masses for a long time, but it doesn’t seem to work very well. Perhaps you could give me some pointers about how it works.

The first pointer might be to tell me who are the masses. I meet a lot of people, but they seem to be individuals.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #197912

Jack, you are touting the great Republican fallacy that Democracy can be invoked on a people from without and at the point of a gun.

Our democracy works because it was driven into existence from within and through the knowledge and willingness of the majority of her people.

Russia’s democracy began with a drive from within by the people, but, the people lacked the knowledge of what exactly Democracy is, and so far, it has been largely a failure in Russia. Democracy is a very, very COMPLICATED form of government requiring a great deal of knowledge and thought, vigilance and determination by the people to defend and nurture Democracy toward maturity.

The concept of Democratizing the Middle East through force was as ill-conceived a concept as any in the history of failed ideas. There are tactics and strategies which we can follow to assist the people’s of the Middle East to grasp and grow democracy from within. Things like Radio Free Middle East, and student exchange programs, and business mingling between their companies and ours in joint ventures. But the notion of erecting democracy from without, except in the case of totally vanquished people and destroyed nation in desperate need of rebuilding, is flawed at its core.

I don’t hate Bush the man. I hate his failed presidency and what it has cost my nation in debt, lives, and lost windows of opportunity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 6, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #197919


It is difficult to impose democracy, but sometimes you have no choice and sometimes democracy will not come by itself.

Do you think that democracy would have come to Germany if we had not defeated Hitler AND pushed democracy after the war. It certainly would not have come to Japan.

We did not get involved in the Afghanistan or Iraq primarily to spread democracy. These were security issues. After the wars, however, we were faced with the choice. Do we attempt to set up democracy, no matter how imperfect, or do we just turn it over … to what? A strong man. A type of fascism?

The question is where do we go from here. What are our options on December 6, 2006? I do not think we have any option but to try to encourage democracy. I recognize that we will not get the ideal.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

Besides, the situation in the Middle East in 2002 was nothing to be happy about. If the Saudis collapse, we are probably better off with what we have now than Saddam or his looney sons.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #197928

ClydeB, you are saying a college degree equates to being smart, and being a praticing methodist makes him the chosen of god.
I have seen a lot of people with degree’s that have no common sense(Bush), and just because he goes to church doesn’t mean he is god’s chosen or even that he will get into heaven. Hey he might be a false prophet.

Posted by: KT at December 6, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #197949


Did you ever think the control issue you’re having is related to the message or the messenger? People are individuals, but I’m sure you’ve heard of mob mentality, Republicans, etc…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 6, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #197959

God does not rule over humans, Satan does. He rules the human race and all it’s institutions. Pain, suffering, misery are like little chocolate treats to Satan. War, destruction, death is his main course. Satans favorite food is human souls. Dishonesty, greed, debauchery are the spices that make human souls even tastier. Could we work together to end Satan’s rule? I don’t know, I don’t think so. It could be worth the effort,may be. I know that one man can’t save anothers soul. Saving our own is hard work under Satan’s reign.

Posted by: jlw at December 6, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #197975

I know I’m late but I just read the following and I have to answer.

Let me just take a hypothetical and I hope we all all agree. IF the Bush policy were to succeed in Iraq, it would be a good thing, right?

No. It was an aggressive war. Success would’ve created the delusion that such policy is a good thing when it isn’t. As far as the “spreading democracy” hyperbole, that would make it even worse. If you take away the blind love of democracy, the mechanics of using military force to coerce your preferred ideology onto the “barbarians” are the same as any imperialist machine. The gall of such policy is abhorrent.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 6, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #198007

“Mr. Bush is intelligent (MBA), a practicing Methodist, as I am and deeply committed to the success and prosperity of our country. God Bless George W. Bush.”

Nice. Lets follow the logic here:

Bush has to be intelligent because he has an MBA. Nevermind the fact that he bankrupted every business he bacame involved in, snorted coke instead of studying, and barely scraped by despite having the name “Bush”.

Bush has to be honorable because he’s religious. Nevermind the fact that he mocks the Christian movement behind closed doors and his daughters party like Paris Hilton instead of doing any charity work. Doesn’t the bible go on and on about helping the poor and disadvantaged? Bush sends millions to Iraq, yet avoided service himself and for his family at all costs. I don’t remember “do as I say, not as I do” being a revered tenet of Christianity either.

If you are “deeply committed to the success and prosperity of our country”, then I stongly urge you to stop arbitrarily and unwaveringly blessing a human president and excusing all his extremely costly human errors.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 6, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #198114


From the responses I am reading to all of your questions, it appears that the readers on the liberal side seem to believe that Bush has just left the White House and gone home. What if the problem in Iraq gets better in the next two years, and we are able to pull our troops out, except for military training units? Will Bush get credit and Dems end up looking like horse’s —-, or will Dems take credit? Could it be that Dems really see the nobility of the Bush agenda, and simply had to manipulate public, (American and World), opinion against the war and hinder our military long enough to take power, possibly sharing the credit for any success in the end? The Dems have maneuvered themselves into quite a position in the War in Iraq. If things get better, they will attempt to take credit. If things get worse, they will continue to blame Bush. I think they are truly hoping that our military can not get a handle on this thing until after the 2008 elections. I also think they will continue to attempt to hinder and obstruct as long as possible. It is their way back to power!!


Posted by: JD at December 7, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #198178


Are you being serious? Talk about your conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 7, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #198238
it appears that the readers on the liberal side seem to believe that Bush has just left the White House and gone home…Posted by: JD at December 7, 2006 01:20 AM
God, let’s hope so…Even Dickhead couldn’t screw things up any worse than Dumya. Afterall, didn’t your bush sit dumbfounded for 8 minutes while we were actually under attack? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 7, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #198507


No conspiracy theories here! Liberal Democrats have been conspiring with our enemies for well over four years now!!!

Posted by: JD at December 9, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #199277


Is that really your best argument?

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 14, 2006 2:58 PM
Post a comment