Third Party & Independents Archives

Bush's Legacy: Positive or Negative?

In this story, there’s only one thing I agree with Condoleezza Rice on - that history cannot be judged in the here and now. Bush’s legacy and it’s effect on the world won’t be known for years or even decades. Will it be positive? Not likely. Will it be negative? I bet it would. This story (and a related story) shows that 75% of the US is glad to see the president gone. I count myself among them, but in the spirit of fairness, let’s consider the pluses and minuses of the Bush Administration. (Reference.

+ George W. Bush can make decisions. Can he ever. I have to give him a lot of kudos on this one because making decisions is what the job of President is. He decides what he wants to do, does it, and makes no apologies. Best example - the 2004 presidential campaign against John Kerry. Bush made Kerry look stupid simply by deciding he didn't want the gay/lesbian vote. President George W. Bush declared that he did not favor gay marriage and would prefer a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. This scored him HUGE points among the religious right - the conservative base - while at the same time putting pressure on Kerry to either A) also support an amendment against gay marriage, thereby showing he's no different than Bush, or B) say he is in favor of gay marriage and thus take the gay vote and alienate a powerful and much larger evangelical voting bloc. Kerry did neither showing he cannot make tough decisions, and thus lost the election.

+ Early on, Mr. Bush appointed the best Secretary of State we've had in a while - General Colin Powell. A respected man held in high regard throughout most of the USA and the world. In my opinion the best cabinet choice Bush made in 8 years. Too bad Bush didn't listen to him.

+ Mr. Bush decided long before 9/11 that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with, and the cat and mouse games Saddam was playing with the world had to end. I agreed with that assessment at the time. In retrospect, however I have since learned that Saddam was playing his only card of self defense. He had no choice but to make the outside world THINK he had weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise his enemies could move in on him and he had lots of enemies: Iran (by virtue of he 8 year war he started in the 80s), Kuwait (and by extension the Western World), and of course Israel. He had no reason to believe that the West, particularly the UK and the US would protect him should Iran decide to invade. WMD was a bluff.

+ Bush's promise to cut taxes gave him points among voters during the 2000 campaign. And he followed through on that pledge - a rarity in politics. So I'll give him kudos on that too.

+ The President has shown the ability to work with Democrats - albeit reluctantly. More recently, he even agreed with Democrats on a relief package for the auto industry. Not sure if this is genuine leadership or playing to the crowd.

That's the positives - very few as you can see. None of which have any long-standing effect on the world. Why? Due to the negatives I'll list here shortly. We were friends with Russia, our Cold War adversary, but no longer are we friends. We had friends in the Middle East, whom we have since alienated. We had friends in Asia who depended on our leadership and stability who have since lost confidence in us. And then there's the people of Iraq. They are now "free" to choose their own path, just as long as we approve. What if Iraqis chose Communism as their official form of government? Communism is more naturally aligned with Islamic law than any other modern government. Would the Bush Administration continue to provide military and police support to such a government? Of course not. How would we feel if China came to our "rescue" and removed a dictator, and told us we have only Communism to choose from? It would feel a lot like an occupation, and less like liberation. The Bush Administration doesn't understand this, which is why I highly doubt history will look favorably on Bush. Now, let's get to the negatives. Pull up a chair and get some coffee because this may take a while.

- Afghanistan. The premise behind going into Afghanistan is because the ruling party then - the Taliban - refused to cooperate in apprehending Osama bin Laden or any of his lieutenants. Under International law, Afghanistan was not required to assist the US. There is no extradition treaty between the US and Afghanistan and never was, yet Afghanistan was a sovereign nation. What if Osama had moved to Malaysia where we have friendly ties and no extradition treaty? Would Bush have invaded Malaysia? Probably not, but that is the precedent the Bush Doctrine set - attack others before they even think about attacking you. That philosophy has eroded America's good standing in the world and has undercut our influence.

- Iraq. Bush and then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, steadfastly refused to accept the military's recommendation of 500,000 - 1M troops. A strategy that would have worked in two important ways: 1) we would have had the ability to hold the territory that we cleared of insurgents, and 2) if Bush turned out to be right and we didn't need that many troops, then we could have begun to draw down much sooner giving he impression that we are leaving. Of course, that didn't happen and now Iraq has eerie similarities to Vietnam. In Vietnam we would fight the enemy, take over their territory, leave the position to fight elsewhere then the enemy came right back into the territory we just left. That's a strategy for perpetual warfare.

- Iraq, part 2. War is expensive - be it a minor conflict like Somalia or a full-fledged world war. When you know war is coming, you need all the cash you can get. In this case Mr. Bush cut taxes at a time when we were going to war and when our troops didn't all have the gear they needed. I understand from others that we sent our soldiers in the battlefield with only a few HumVees with armor. They should have all had armor. Bush tried to fight this war on the cheap and that never works.

- Iraq, part 3. According to published reports both in the media and from the CIA, there was no ties between Iraq and al Queda. Their respective leaders had no fondness for one another. Osama didn't like Saddam for his treatment of other Muslims or for the invasion into Kuwait. Saddam was by all accounts a classic, stereotypical dictator who was paranoid of anyone from anywhere usurping his power. Moreover he wanted to be the greatest leader the Middle East had ever had and be acknowledged as such by his peers, countrymen, and everyone else in the Arab world. Osama bin Laden however stole his thunder and was far more popular outside Iraq than Saddam would ever be. Saddam was despised outside Iraq whereas Osama was held in high regard among the common people. The idea that Saddam would give weapons of any kind to an enemy is ludicrous but that's the sales pitch Bush gave us and we bought it.

- Iraq, part 4. Removing Saddam was one thing, what we did afterward is entirely different. And in this I give Bush very low marks. I could go on and on with a string of examples, but suffice it to say, we are an occupying force in Iraq tying to impose our will. We are demanding a democratic state in Iraq. That is NOT liberation for the Iraqi people since they were not given a choice of government.

- The Homefront. I'm discouraged, saddened, confused, and utterly disappointed that I was not asked to help in the war effort. We have countrymen fighting for us, making themselves a target so that we aren't targeted at home, but yet Mr. Bush only asks that we just keep shopping and spending money so we can keep the economy flowing. For those of us with no family overseas, the war is nothing but a backdrop now. For those of us who are fighting or have family members fighting - the sacrifice is all ours. That's not how America wins wars. We win wars where all of America participates - by recycling, saving energy, BUYING US TREASURY BONDS to fund the war, among other things. That's the least we could do.

- Israel/Palestine. This issue is by far the most frustrating for me. Mr. Bush waited until his 7th year in office to take up this issue??? It's not new!!! And now that he has set the precedent of pre-emptive strikes, we no leverage to pressure Israel to stand down. And because we have taken up arms against Muslims, we have no leverage to pressure Palestinians. I hope he doesn't seriously expect any fruits from this labor.

- Russia. Although I cannot say this is all Bush's fault ( I think Vladimir Putin would have distanced himself from the US regardless of the President), he didn't help matters. Major and minor wars start when one country tries to inject their own beliefs onto others. There were many other ways to express our position without antagonizing Russia. Not that the US should be afraid of Russia, we should be afraid for the people stuck in the middle - such as Georgia and Kosovo and other former Soviet states. Unless we are willing and able to take on Russia - which we can't do because we are in Iraq and Afghanistan - then we need to back down and work things out with Russia.

- China. Don't lecture China. They aren't Americans and they are trying to avoid our many mistakes as they march steadily towards capitalism and some modified form of democracy. If we are to allow US companies to do business in China, then those companies have to follow the laws of China - as distasteful as we may think they are. It's no different than if a Chinese company opened shop in the US - we would fully expect them to follow our laws. Just because our laws make sense to us, doesn't mean they are reasonable to the Chinese and if they choose not to comply what happens? They would face some form of legal punishment. Same applies in reverse when US companies do business in China. The Communist regime is loosening rules albeit very, very slowly, but they are trying to avoid the chaotic anarchy that followed the fall of the Soviet Union. As well they should.

- Economy. There are a lot of errors here - starting with the aforementioned error of cutting taxes when war is imminent. Ridiculous. That's like someone buying a new house, car, and boat, then going to their boss the next day and say - "Hey boss, I need you to cut my salary. I'm taking home too much money". Would YOU do that? I know I wouldn't, and can't think of anyone foolish enough to do so. But that's exactly what President Bush did when he cut taxes in 2003, just to fulfill a campaign promise.

- Economy part 2. As much as I hate regulation, it is absolutely necessary. Without it, companies would run amok doing whatever they want whenever they want. Take note: the largely unregulated investment banks collapsed, while the largely regulated commercial banks did not. That isn't a coincidence.

- Environment. Just as with the Iraq war, the president did not listen and is incapable of understanding the scientific facts of the status of our environment. The threat is very real, and although the scientific community is still investigating, thus have various hypotheses, the proof is in the polar ice caps (melting at an alarming rate), the mountain snow-caps (also melting), and coral reefs (disappearing rapidly). It must be taken seriously, which this president did not.

- Other issues. Oddly, many of the other issues he could have worked on, would have helped tremendously with the issues mentioned already. For example, some form of universal health care, funded by the US government, would have freed up a LOT of cash for businesses large and small as well as helped keep their employees healthy and working. We didn't even get a discussion. The Green Revolution in the US, could have not only addressed the environment, but could give us a path to migrate to as other jobs are cut. Instead of manufacturing cars, we would manufacture wind turbines or solar panels. Again, never discussed.

History may very well acknowledge George W. Bush to be a great visionary, but it is very hard to see from this day and age. In fact I would argue that even if history does come to that conclusion, chances are it would be later revised when historians acknowledge that this president didn't complete what he started. It took yet another president to close the chapter on the Iraq occupation among other things. My personal opinion is that he set the next president up for greatness. If President-elect Barack Obama can successfully bring two wars to an end, mend fences with our allies, and disarm our enemies, HE would then be the one remembered most by the people, and eventually by history.

Posted by Christopher Tracy at January 12, 2009 7:01 AM
Comments
Comment #273473

How did US foriegn policy fare in recent years to win hearts and minds with other nations
and leave the world a better place for US people and its partner states. Judged by the global outcry over Gaza on the streets from Guatemala
to Guernica, Ismail Hania and company seem to be more popular than George Bush.

In a Middle East valedictory speech on 5 December, summing up the nearly eight years of his two administrations, George W. Bush declared that “the Middle East in 2008 is a freer, more hopeful, and more promising place than it was in 2001.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/print/20081205-8.html

Many observers of the onground realities in the Middle East disagree. Count some of the important ways things are now worse, says Daniel Pipes and lists the following:


George W. Bush delivering his swan song on the Middle East.

Iran is closer to nuclear weapons, perhaps the single most alarming development of Bush’s era.

Pakistan is close to becoming a nuclear-armed, Islamist rogue state.

The price of oil reached all time highs and only collapsed in recent months due to a U.S.-led recession.

Turkey has gone from being a stalwart ally to the most anti-American country in the world.

The doctrine of preemption has been discredited.

Arab rejectionism of Israel has spread.

Democracy efforts in Egypt have collapsed.

Hizbullah grows in power in Lebanon.

Hamas took power in Gaza and may next control the West Bank.

The Taliban may again run Afghanistan.

And Iraq? Bush made an almost direct reply to my appeal since 2003 to place a “democratically-minded strongman” in power in Baghdad, stating that “when Saddam’s regime fell, we refused to take the easy option and install a friendly strongman in his place.” Bush remains convinced he did the right thing, I remain convinced that the Iraq story will end badly for the United States.

What are the positive Bush legacies? Despite being charitable Pipes could cite no more than two. “No Saddam Hussein in Iraq and a Libya that is only quasi hostile.”

Posted by: Bewlidered at January 12, 2009 9:27 AM
Comment #273474

How much closer to cures for some major health afflictions would we be without the ban on many research fronts…

Socially we are still discriminating against our own citizens. Bush and his buddies have not helped in this regard.

Laid waste to the Constitution of the United States…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2009 10:58 AM
Comment #273477

Afghanistan - The Taliban provided safe harbor for our enemy which makes them our enemy. We ignored and pampered such groups and govts for many years, but an attack of this magnitude can not be ignored.

Iraq - Yes, the post-war operations have been a cluster.

The homefront - Yes, we should have heard more about sacrafice, but face it, todays Americans expect govt to do it for them. We should not have to be asked to do our part. Have not had another attack on our soil.

Israel/Palestine - Should be placed off to the side when our own country is at war.
Also, we took up arms against terrorists and Iraq, not Muslims.
We DO have leverage to pressure Palestinians as long as we send them any kind of aide and we should stop all that aide as long as they want to ignore, smear or want us dead.

Economy - More tax cuts are needed.

Other issues - Bush did not run on, nor was he elected to, create another huge nanny state govt program and socialize our health-care system OR to push a green agenda. If Obama fails to take away more of our rights and force them onto us, then it can be considered a negative.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2009 12:02 PM
Comment #273481

kctim,

More tax cuts are needed??? Does that mean you think Cheney/Bush were niggardly in not cutting taxes enough? Will that become a negative on his legacy? I’m not sure what you were thinking when you slipped that one in…

Iraq…the post-war effort was lacking? Does that mean the pre-war planning and execution was done correctly and with honor? How will this show up in his legacy? Please explain why one is more important to history than the other…

Should have heard more about sacrifice than we did??? How much did we hear? We were told not to worry, and to spend, spend, spend. That is the exact opposite of sacrifice. So, how will his legacy suffer if calling for sacrifice is not an issue? Will he be praised because we were not asked to sacrifice?

The American people may be spoiled and be unwilling to sacrifice, but how would we know if sacrifice is not asked for or apparently needed?

His leagacy will show that his ‘nanny-state government was as a nanny to mega-corporations and mega-religion, but hardly to the American people…he even fixed it so medacines cost more for the MediCare elderly…so much for nanny-state…

Your fixation on taxation and your nanny-statitus is showing…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2009 1:34 PM
Comment #273488

Dude
If I remember correctly, Bush said he would cut taxes and he did so. Just not as much as should be cut.

The war itself was conducted pretty damn well and the serious problems really didn’t occur until after the war itself was all but over.

I doubt if his so-called “legacy” is going to suffer because he tried to keep the nation going on as usual. I wish he would of called for some sacrifice, but I’m not losing sleep over it. We aren’t exactly rationing to survive or provide you know.

You can find fault with Bush if you disagree with his Medicare plan or with one of his environment plans, but faulting him for not installing socialist health-care and not going whacko green is ridiculous, because he didn’t say he would.

“Your fixation on taxation and your nanny-statitus is showing…”

Of course they are! I believe in these United States and my freedom. We are taxed waaaaaaay too much and govt is involved waaaaaay to much in our lives, those are the facts and yes, I am very fixated on them.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2009 2:24 PM
Comment #273489

Kctim: He has to say it before doing the right thing or it doesn’t count?

Happy New Year to you!!

Posted by: womanmarine at January 12, 2009 2:27 PM
Comment #273490

Womanmarine
Not accomplishing what you said you would, is a failure. Not accomplishing what the “other side” wants you to, is not a failure.
Bush said no more nation building and then got us into building one. That is a negative.
Leftist want socialist health-care, Bush and those who voted for him do not. That is not a failure.

And a Happy New Year to you too :)

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2009 2:44 PM
Comment #273491

kctim,

My bust…I thought we were talking about the Cheney/Bush legacy, and couldn’t figure how his cutting taxes he said he would, could enter into that equation. I thought perhaps you figured he’d be remembered for NOT cutting taxes enough…just a little confused is all.

The invasion was handled well, except his army bypassed a weapons cache that insurgents later made IEDs out of and shot our guys with and…and…and. But, the invasion was not for honorable causes…the so-called reasons for the invasion came along after the WMD went missing. Then the trouble REALLY started. His leagacy, then, may suffer, even on one of the things of which he is most proud.

I don’t remember bringing up ‘green’ or his lack of any kind of health care plan in my run down of his legacy issues…I guess you could say his legacy is that he did not contribute a plan for ‘green’ or health care. Wow! what a legacy…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2009 3:25 PM
Comment #273494

Dude
People who love taxes think it was wrong and those who voted for tax-cuts got what they wanted. His “legacy” will be determined by which “side” one is on. One side thinks its a negative and the other a positive. It is my opinion that he did not cut them enough, but to be honest, no President will ever be able to do that now.

The war was quick and with minimal casualties. It went very well indeed. Blaming Bush for the on-scene commanders mistake about the weapons cache is nothing but petty partisanship from the blame Bush for everything crowd. Whether honorable causes or not, also depends on whether one is a member of that crowd.
His legacy on Iraq? His commanders had an excellent battle plan and his administration fumbled post-war operations.

Christopher T. said it was a negative that Bush did not go green or institute socialist health-care. I pointed out that that was a good thing because his supporters did not want an even bigger nanny state. Instead of giving his “legacy” credit for sticking to his supporters beliefs, you turned to your opinionated fears of those “mega-corporations and mega-religions” to discredit.

“I guess you could say his legacy is that he did not contribute a plan for ‘green’ or health care.”

No, you can say he did not contribute the plan leftists wanted for going green or health-care. His supporters do not believe the fear mongering and jumping fanatically into going green and they do not support socialist health-care and Bush did not try to force it upon them.
His legacy on green will not be known until we know first-hand what his action or inaction would have accomplished. His legacy on health-care will be that he did nothing to speedup or prevent our loss of freedom of choice on that issue.

His “legacy” will be 9-11, War on Terror, bumbling post-war Iraq, great economy despite being at war, the recession and that the left hated him no matter what.

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2009 4:16 PM
Comment #273496

Christopher,
What made Bush so uniquely bad, so deserving of a legacy of disgust, and earned him the epithet “Worst President Ever” is that his failures were the results of his own policies. He was wrong. He implemented wrong ideas. It blew up. No one forced him. Bush and the GOP and conservatives failed due to their own efforts. Bush failed to lead, and on the occasions when he decided to exhibit leadership, he took the country in the wrong direction. With even greater stupidity, he thought if we ‘stayed the course,’ it would somehow make the wrong direction turn out to be ok after all. The GOP and conservatives called that leadership, and loudly denounced all who disagreed.

You forgot the Terry Schiavo debacle. When a tsunami stuck the countries of the Indian Ocean the day after Christmas and killed hundreds of thousands, Bush was no where to be found. When the right wing demanded action concerning Shiavo, Bush showed up at midnight ready to act. The situation with the tsunami didn’t bother Americans so much when it happened abroad, but when Katrina hit, and Bush repeated the same kind of failed leadership, Americans took it hard.

It’s a pattern of failure. It took a lot of help. Remember, Bush stayed with people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others even when events proved them horribly wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at January 12, 2009 4:24 PM
Comment #273506

>People who love taxes think it was wrong and those who voted for tax-cuts got what they wanted. His “legacy” will be determined by which “side” one is on.

I don’t think so…I think his legacy will be measured on the over-all performance of the economy while he was in office. Tax cuts will be only a factor in that evaluation. Only those still alive fifty years from now will even get an inkling of what is actually determined by historians, not ‘which side they are on’…

>The war was quick and with minimal casualties. It went very well indeed. Blaming Bush for the on-scene commanders mistake about the weapons cache is nothing but petty partisanship from the blame Bush for everything crowd. Whether honorable causes or not, also depends on whether one is a member of that crowd.
His legacy on Iraq? His commanders had an excellent battle plan and his administration fumbled post-war operations.

His legacy will be what history records of the conflict. His commanders will not be part of that, only him. As President and Commander-in-Chief, he allowed his military to cause the deaths of countless Iraqis and a few thousand US military, because he conducted his war sloppily. History can only record the facts about his reasons for going to war, and the facts are that those reasons were in dispute and proved to be false. Whether it was by mistake or deliborate will make little difference to history, only that they were false will be recorded. His commanders were also responsible for the post-war operations, and they were so poorly charged with that responsibility that it became his total failure. Beginning to end, including the so-called ‘surge’ were operationally, statistically, strategically, and ultimately stupidly failures.

>Christopher T. said it was a negative that Bush did not go green or institute socialist health-care. I pointed out that that was a good thing because his supporters did not want an even bigger nanny state. Instead of giving his “legacy” credit for sticking to his supporters beliefs, you turned to your opinionated fears of those “mega-corporations and mega-religions” to discredit.

He was given correct information about the need to go ‘green’, he chose to ignore that information…not, you understand, study it to see if it had merit, but to deny it out-of-hand. His legacy will include his inability or unwillingness to listen to reasonable argument…

>No, you can say he did not contribute the plan leftists wanted for health-care. His supporters do not support socialist health-care and Bush did not try to force it upon them.

Not just against a socially responsible health care plan, but laid an almost ruinous blight on the one social health plan that was actually in effect at the time. His legacy will be his inability to understand that several millions of his constituents were without insurance, placing a horrible burden on medical emergency staffs.

>His legacy on green will not be known until we know first-hand what his action or inaction would have accomplished. His legacy on health-care will be that he did nothing to speedup or prevent our loss of freedom of choice on that issue.

You are right about both…

>His “legacy” will be 9-11, War on Terror, bumbling post-war Iraq, great economy despite being at war, the recession and that the left hated him no matter what.

The ‘great economy’ you speak of was failing at it’s height, because he had cut taxes, and went to war without the funds necessary to execute that war, thus putting his country in debt so far it may NEVER recover…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 12, 2009 5:18 PM
Comment #273507

kctim, Bush raised the taxes more than any other president in the history of our nation. He just raised them without representation on the future generations of Americans who cannot yet vote by doubling the national debt in his 8 years. He increased taxes about 7 trillion dollars so far (5.8 trillion debt and the rest interest on that increased debt for the next few years.

Any person who thinks Bush and Republicans were friends of those who don’t like taxes, don’t intend to have any children of their own who will have to pay them.

The Republican legacy is big government spending and small government taxation, which equals Enormous growth in national debt. Reagan began this Republican tradition but, GW Bush et.al. raised Reagan’s bar unbelievably new heights of long term fiscal mismanagement.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 12, 2009 5:56 PM
Comment #273508

“I don’t think so…I think his legacy will be measured on the over-all performance of the economy while he was in office”

Which was in a recession when he took office and then was hit with 9-11, but still continued along stronger than expected for 5 or 6 years. Overall performance is all 8 years, one or two which supports ones view.

20+ years later, Reagans “legacy” is determined by which side the certain historian is on, as does the Raw Deal.

We just disagree on the war. I know there is no such thing as a perfect war, we were successful and won, and there was mismanagement during the post-war phase. Partisan hate will try to include opinions as fact, but hopefully the historical record will not.

“He was given correct information about the need to go ‘green’, he chose to ignore that information”

Um, no. He was given information based on theories from scientists who believe we must act now or die AND from scientists who have doubts that we are the cause of this latest climate change.

“His legacy will include his inability or unwillingness to listen to reasonable argument…”

Or his willingness to avoid jumping overboard based on alarmist “logic.” Only time will tell Dude.

“His legacy will be his inability to understand that several millions of his constituents were without insurance, placing a horrible burden on medical emergency staffs”

Couldn’t his legacy instead be that he had the ability to understand that several million of his constituents want to control their own lives?

Posted by: kctim at January 12, 2009 5:59 PM
Comment #273511

I see Bush as a traitor, pure and simple. He assumed the reign of two governments, One legal and one, the NAU run out of his back pocket. The klepto-plutocracy could see they would not be able to set up a globalized economy and the NAU through the legal government. So, in secret, and working with other traitors to the legal government, they managed to set up the NAU organization, create laws for the new orgnization nd administer to this illegal government rhrough the Executive Branch. For instance, they knew they could never break congress away from farm subsidy programs si they set up the legal arrangements where any business or country can sue the us (taxpayer) for providing farm subsidies. Same for immigration. The NAU has agreements that any citizen from either of the tripartite country’s can travel unimpeded. Which is what is going on at several border post with Fast Tran technology. Per NAU law the southern border is illegal. Bush has chose to support the NAU over the legal government by refusing to enforce immigration law. I take note that no fence got built until Fast Tran came on line to provide concurrene with NAU law. Etc. Etc.

On Iraq. A pure oil grab by western powers. Let’s do a short comparison of the Israeli/Gaza situation. The Israeli’s immediately moved to take the largest towns and now are doing street to street, house to house warfare. They want to get it done. Bush encircled the country and waited longer than the duration of WWII for them to give up, come out or something. Wasn’t because he is a bad general. He was buying time for the oil companies to get in, survey and repair the fields, get concession agreements by whatever means necessary from the Iraqui’s, etc. Forced them to sign up for 35 year agreements where the oilc companies all but own the ground they are producing from. Then I think he called in about another 30k troops in a so-called surge to complete the deal once the ink was dry.

Please don’t mistake my posting as a Bush basher. The democrats would have operated in much the same manner had Gore made it. Bush, Condi and another admin type is currently heading up the NAU. I assume their titles will transfer to the new admin come Jan 20th.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 12, 2009 6:54 PM
Comment #273514

Good riddance.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2009 8:06 PM
Comment #273517

CT
In reference to Saddam you claim he had no choice but to try and convince the World he had WMDs. Where on earth did you get that? Iraq repeatedly stated that they did NOT have WMDs and invited UN monitors to confirm it.
As far as having to wait for history to judge the Bush regime,nonsense. One look at the financial page disproves that. His biggest failure,IMO, was the missed opportunity of addressing oil independance. This was done on purpose. Now we are paying the price. After the dotcom bust there was a great deal of capital looking for a place to invest. The only thing making money was real estate so that it where it fled thus driving up prices to unsustainable levels. We see the results. Had he done what he should have and adopted policies and incentives to promote alternate energy capitalization we and the world would not be in the place we are.
WORST PRESIDENT EVER

Posted by: bills at January 12, 2009 8:35 PM
Comment #273518

No terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 and several plots disrupted.

Defeating an Islamic terror organizations in the heart of the Middle East. The radicals of the Middle East will never love us. We stand in the way of their backward dreams. They are already attacking President Obama. Zawahiri called him the Arab version of the N-word. Now, at least, we have given them some reason to fear us.

President Obama can build on that legacy. He can play the good guy, now that Bush has played the bad guy. We all hope he will succeed. But he won’t do that by looking backwards and if some of his more hateful supporters insist on dwelling on the past, they will make Obama’s success less likely. Move on.

Posted by: Christine at January 12, 2009 9:44 PM
Comment #273519

One 9/11 during an administration is not something to be proud of. By any criteria, the War of Terror has failed. Terrorist attacks are up around the world. The Bush administration played into the terrorist’s hands by backing Israel without reservation, virtually the only country in the world to do so. Islamic terror organizations should have been a background concern for an administration. Instead, Bush fell into the terrorist trap, and made terrorism a central focus of his administration, in part because it helped his own political fortunes.

Posted by: phx8 at January 12, 2009 9:58 PM
Comment #273523

Christine
Granted,after Bush neglected to trouble himself to read the report that Bin Laden planned to use jets to attack buildings and then fired the chief advisor on terrorism because he didn’t like him, Bush did do a better job on terrorism. Too late for the victums of 9/11 of course but better late than never,right?
We can,unfortunately expect more attacks after Bush’s foolish war in Iraq helped create thousand more terrorist by justifying Bin Laden;s claim that infidels were invadeing the Holy Lands. Bush increased their recruitment dramatically.Bush was the best friend
Bin Laden had. Its no wonder he spared the US.

Posted by: bills at January 13, 2009 4:13 AM
Comment #273526

Bush significantly grew domestic spending with little or no benefit to us who live here. You don’t do that when there is a war on.

As for the war I still believe being Hawkish in the Middle East in response to a direct attack on our soil was the right thing to do. I respect the President for making a tough call then living with the consequences.

One interesting thing, and I’m NOT blaming the Democrats, but what would have been had Dean been nominated instead of Kerry? I think there would have been significantly more political pressure to wrap up Iraq early and had Dean he wouldn’t have been able to waffle away from his stance like Obama has been able to. With Kerry’s record and changing stance, however, Bush was able to “stay the course” and still win re-election. Even if he did manage to defeat Dean I think his policy would have been changed significantly. Just another “what if” from the rear view mirror.

Posted by: George at January 13, 2009 10:14 AM
Comment #273527

David
While I hardly think Bush is a friend to those who do not like taxes, it is clear that he is more of friend than the alternative.

Bush raised them “without representation” for future Americans just as others before him did, New Deal, and as Obama is probably going to do with socialist health care.
You believe its ok to do so in order to support what you believe in, and I believe it is ok to do in order to fight a war and protect the country, something I believe in.

No matter what kind of partisan spin you try to put on it, the fact of the matter is that Bush ran on tax-cuts and he gave us tax-cuts.

“The Republican legacy is big government spending and small government taxation, which equals Enormous growth in national debt”

I agree David, but again, look at the alternative. The Democrats legacy is that of excessive government, excessive govt spending and excessive government taxation.
There is reason to hope that Republicans will stop some of the big govt spending of Bush and will try to keep taxes as low as possible, whereas it is nothing but a pipe dream to believe liberals will ever cut as needed, give us lower and fair taxes and leave us alone.

“unbelievably new heights of long term fiscal mismanagement”

All this kind of selective support and selective outrage would be funny if it wasn’t so bad for our country.
First, we had Democrats supporting the Iraq war and then claiming they were duped and that they never supported it, when things started getting hard. And now, we have Democrats acting like they have never had any say in anything fiscally wrong and blaming our entire fiscal situation on Republicans. The housing “bubble” burst, and its entirely the Republicans fault. The job market softens, and its entirely the Republicans fault. The liberal house and senate can’t account for most of the bailout, its entirely the Republicans fault.
Hell, you guys have already started with posts defending Obama adding tons to the out of control debt, which is something you condemn the Republicans for doing AND we now we are even starting to see leftists blaming Republicans for future terrorist attacks.
It’s all nothing more than an attempt to create an absolute negative for political gain when it should be all about fixing the problems.

This isn’t “change we can believe,” its just change to what a different political side believes, and it does nothing to fix anything.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2009 10:26 AM
Comment #273528

>You believe its ok to do so in order to support what you believe in, and I believe it is ok to do in order to fight a war and protect the country, something I believe in.
Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2009 10:26 AM

kctim,

Which part of America was he protecting when he invaded Iraq? What was he protecting America from when he invaded Iraq? How much safer are we and how many fewer terrorists are there today because he invaded Iraq?

His legacy will be that he caused irreparable damage to his country…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2009 10:50 AM
Comment #273530

“There is reason to hope that Republicans will stop some of the big govt spending of Bush and will try to keep taxes as low as possible, whereas it is nothing but a pipe dream to believe liberals will ever cut as needed, give us lower and fair taxes and leave us alone.”

Pray tell kctim what reason have the repubs/conservatives given us to hope that they will control government spending? Talk about pipe dreams. They have ran the show for 30 years and all they have done is shifted the tax burden to the middle class and piled on debt, while claiming to be for smaller government and lower taxes.
Well of course they have done more, such as the medicaid drug price fixing, to increase taxes in the future yet you hope they won’t do it again? What have they done to give you hope of a less intrusive government? The marriage amendment? Diagnosing patients from the senate floor? At some point in time even conservatives must realize that their leaders speak with a forked tongue. That is my hope or perhaps pipe dream.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2009 11:03 AM
Comment #273531

Dude
That part was in reference to Davids comment about Bush raising taxes on future generations. They were not only for fighting the war but also for domestic security.
The terrorists are at war with us and have proven they are capable of hitting us at home, so, like it or not, we had to change how we protect our own country and it must be funded.
And, like it or not, we went to war and it and its post-war operations must be funded.

While I do not believe his “legacy” will be all that favorable, this attempt by the left to make him out to be some super evil villian who is responsible for all the worlds troubles is ridiculous.

J2
Republicans have been in charge of the house, senate and presidency for the past 30 years? And the Democrats have had no say in policy? Unless you’re a public school history teacher or something, I have no idea where you got that idea.

I do not fall for the class warfare rhetoric and IF a person wants to pay less in taxes, the lesser of two evils are the Republicans.

“to increase taxes in the future yet you hope they won’t do it again?”

EVERY govt feel-good program has increased taxes on future generations. A person can either hope the Republicans will give them a tax-cut or be guaranteed the liberals will raise their taxes.

“What have they done to give you hope of a less intrusive government?”

Not much, but thats still better than what liberals offer, which is no hope at all.
And you bring up the marriage amendments and Schiavo as your examples of an intrusive govt forced upon all by the Republicans?
Amendments that the majority of Americans, left and right, agree with? Amendments that pass with over 70% of black Americans, one of the lefts largest voting blocs, supporting? Yeah, thats evil right wing intrusivness there.
And I am sure you know the Schiavo case was going on for many years before it became “known,” so you must know that there was alot more to it than just an argument between parents and spouse. To claim it was about nothing more than some evil right-wing Republicans trying to intrude on peoples right to die is nothing but partisan BS.
Weak examples. I have better ones if you want them and if you want to talk about real intrusive govt issues, lets talk liberals.

My hope is that one day, liberals will realize that they do not need to live my life for me and that their own leaders speak with a tongue much more “forked” than those whom they hate for daring to question them.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2009 12:24 PM
Comment #273533

“Republicans have been in charge of the house, senate and presidency for the past 30 years? And the Democrats have had no say in policy? Unless you’re a public school history teacher or something, I have no idea where you got that idea.”

Kctim, repubs/conservatives have “ran the show” since Reagan was elected to POTUS. By that I mean the country started moving farther right due to the influence of Reagan, Limbaugh et al.The mood of the country followed and by what ‘93 the Congress was repub/conservative and Clinton, who by action was a better conservative than his predecessor and successor, was president. Do you remember the war on crime, the war on drugs? Certainly that was repub/conservative driven legislation. This mood, I believed peaked with the vote in Congress to allow GWB to go to Iraq. Remember the tactics used by the cons? Patriotism, Nationalism and name calling to where the dems couldn’t bee seen as soft on terror? But from the 104th to the 109th the Congress was repub/conservative lead and driven. Since the ‘80’s we have had only 1 Dem as president, well until next week.
Of course the Dems had a say in policy I wouldn’t disagree with that. But the point was “There is reason to hope that Republicans will stop some of the big govt spending of Bush and will try to keep taxes as low as possible,”. My question was “what reason have the repubs/conservatives given us to hope that they will control government spending?”.


“And you bring up the marriage amendments and Schiavo as your examples of an intrusive govt forced upon all by the Republicans?
Amendments that the majority of Americans, left and right, agree with? Amendments that pass with over 70% of black Americans, one of the lefts largest voting blocs, supporting? Yeah, thats evil right wing intrusivness there.”

Yet when you consider marriage is a state issue not a federal issue then wouldn’t you agree an amendment to the Federal Constitution as proposed in ‘03 and voted down in USHOR is intrusive?

“And I am sure you know the Schiavo case was going on for many years before it became “known,” so you must know that there was alot more to it than just an argument between parents and spouse. To claim it was about nothing more than some evil right-wing Republicans trying to intrude on peoples right to die is nothing but partisan BS.”

Yes I do kctim. The point however is the leader of the Senate Bill Frist decided to diagnose this women while in session. Further he decided to call a special session to sway the outcome of the case as decided by the state of Florida. That is intrusive to me. Also note I didn’t denote anyone as evil nor did I say it was an argument between parents and husband. But again the question was “What have they done to give you hope of a less intrusive government?” ,and I guess it still is?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2009 1:43 PM
Comment #273535

J2
The Dems controlled it all from Jan 93 to Jan 95 when it then became Republicans in house and senate and Democrat clinton. You believe clinton “was a better conservative,” whereas myself and the voters believe he was to liberal and we voted to try and curb his leftist policies.
I’m sorry, but I disagree that the country has been moving “right” as you say, and in fact would argue that its move way left is why we are so divided.

“My question was “what reason have the repubs/conservatives given us to hope that they will control government spending?””

They are the ones calling for cuts from govt, where the liberals are calling for more govt. Granted, they will not cut as they say or should, but the “hope” that they will is a hundred times better than a liberal guarantee of spending more.

I believe Frist was acting on behalf of the case itself and not the issue of right to die. As an extreme supporter of right to die, I can see where it could be considered intrusive govt, but the circumstances and evidence, IMO, show it was nothing as sinister.

“Also note I didn’t denote anyone as evil “

You are correct and I should not have placed that word in there.

“But again the question was “What have they done to give you hope of a less intrusive government?” ,and I guess it still is?”

Mainly, for now at least, they are not the ones pushing for a socialist health care system. They have a better record concerning personal responsibility and don’t try to pass as many “for your own good” laws.
Basically, what they have done has been to be less intrusive than liberals and it has worked for them.

Yes, our govt is still VERY intrusive, more so than ever before, and I blame both Dems and Reps for allowing it to be.

Posted by: kctim at January 13, 2009 3:35 PM
Comment #273540

kctim, Obama’s spending in 2009 and 2010 can best be characterized this way.

My neighbor agrees to take care of our cars while we are in vacation. After a week, he drives my car to charge the battery, and it stalls on him a few doors from my driveway. He gets the bright idea that it is dirt in the gas tank, and decides to put a cup or two of sand in the tank to help clean out the gas lines. I get back, car won’t start, take it to the mechanic and they tell me what the problem is, and it will cost a couple grand to replace and clean all the parts in contact with the gas.

That was GW Bush. He was and is the most incompetent person to sit in the White House in nearly a century. He was a person who came into office with preconceived ideas which he employed in total disregard of or appreciation of the reality and facts surrounding the circumstances he faced. Some inside his cabinet refer to this as operating from his gut or intuition.

Cutting taxes when the economy is growing after a couple years of deficit spending was not only wrong headed, but, irresponsible. Unless of course, you are willing to see your taxes rescue folks in bankruptcy court who charged up their credit cards during a layoff, then got a better paying job and decided to keep charging up their cards before being laid off again and forced into bankruptcy because they didn’t pay down their debt when they had the better paying job.

Conservatives were entirely behind GW Bush in his first 4 years, and reelected him. Are conservatives blind? No. But, their support of GW Bush’s reelection begs reconciliation with what conservatives say they believe about fiscal responsibility. Raising trillions of dollars of new taxes on every high school student for the rest of their work lives is not in keeping with what conservatives define as fiscal responsibility.

The youth vote turned roundly against Republicans for this very point of contradiction.

And you CANNOT justify Republicans growth of national debt with Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and 9/11. As I told you, all those only account for about 40% of all deficit spending through the GW Bush years and Republican congress’.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2009 4:18 PM
Comment #273547

I really wish I knew what color the sky was in Kansas City. Tim, you’ve been using the phrase that we won the war. I read the papers daily, watch the news, read blogs, and yet I missed the day that that happened. Please tell me the date that we won, I really want to be in the know. If it was announced on Rush or Hannity, that’s why I missed it I guess.

Posted by: Ray at January 13, 2009 6:59 PM
Comment #273548

kctim,

There are over 300 million Americans now, and the population is growing at a horrendous rate. While John Wayne individualism would be nice for us (and great for you), it is unrealistic to believe we can survive long ss 300-400 million individual citizens. We must depend on each other now, and even more into the future…it really does ‘take a village’.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 13, 2009 7:31 PM
Comment #273549

“You believe clinton “was a better conservative,” whereas myself and the voters believe he was to liberal and we voted to try and curb his leftist policies.”

In action yes, a surplus not a deficit for one. NAFTA which was Clinton and the repubs:
“Also in 1993, Clinton controversially supported ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement by the U.S. Senate. Clinton, along with most of his Democratic Leadership Committee allies, strongly supported free trade measures; there remained, however, strong intra-party disagreement. Opposition chiefly came from anti-trade Republicans, protectionist Democrats and supporters of Ross Perot. The bill passed the house with 234 votes against 200 opposed (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against). The treaty was then ratified by the Senate and signed into law by the President on January 1, 1994.[37]” From wikipedia

Well kctim I guess we will have to disagree on which way the Country moved between 1980 and 2006. I find it hard to believe that the election of Reagan to replace Carter would be considered a move to the liberal side of the aisle. Then we elected GHWB over Dukakis prior to Clinton. Even then the GHWB defeat by Clinton was in part due to Perot and his Reform Party. Then of course their was GWB. In Congress the repubs took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954 when Reagan took office. It has went back and forth but the 97th HOR had 241 dems and 191 repubs. The 109th had 232 repubs and 201 dems. To me we trended repub/conservative in our voting during that period of time as well as our thinking. I don’t understand how one could think the country has become more liberal the past 30 years. Even using your yardstick of elected officials it doesn’t add up.

“I believe Frist was acting on behalf of the case itself and not the issue of right to die. As an extreme supporter of right to die, I can see where it could be considered intrusive govt, but the circumstances and evidence, IMO, show it was nothing as sinister.”

From wikipedia:
“Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed again on March 18, 2005 at 1:45 p.m. EST. Around the previous midnight, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, and Michael Enzi of Wyoming, also a Republican, announced that Schiavo would be called to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on March 28 in Washington. Frist served on the committee; Enzi was its chairman.

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, including Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, Tom DeLay of Texas and Tom Davis of Virginia, opened a congressional inquiry of the House Government Reform Committee, which was to take place in Clearwater on March 25, and issued subpoenas for Terri and Michael Schiavo and several hospice workers. Because of her condition, Terri Schiavo obviously would not have been able to testify; however, the subpoena gave her federal protection as a prospective witness, as it is a federal crime to prevent a person from testifying before Congress. Greer opted to ignore the subpoenas, telling congressional attorneys over a conference call “I have had no cogent reason why the (congressional) committee should intervene.” [14] This was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court.[15] Although Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Sen. Rick Santorum, and Rep. Tom Delay, brought the possibility of sanctioning Greer on charges of Contempt of congress, Congress did not attempt to enforce the subpoenas [16] or take any action against Greer.[17]

On March 21, Congress passed a bill, S.686, that allowed Schiavo’s case to be moved into a federal court. The controversial law is colloquially known as the Palm Sunday Compromise. It passed the Senate on Sunday afternoon unanimously, 3-0, with 97 of 100 Senators not present. Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, deliberation ran from 9pm EST to just past midnight during an unusual Sunday session.[18] The bill was passed 203-58 (156 Republicans and 47 Democrats in favor, 5 Republicans and 53 Democrats against), with 174 Representatives (74 Republicans and 100 Democrats) not present on the floor at the time of the vote at 12:41 a.m. EST. President Bush returned from vacation in Crawford, Texas to sign the bill into law at 1:11 that morning.[19]

Congress also considered another bill to prevent Schiavo’s death, called the “Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act” (H.R. 1151).”

If that is not intrusive then certainly OASDI cannot be considered intrusive.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2009 8:08 PM
Comment #273564

David
“He was and is the most incompetent person to sit in the White House in nearly a century”

I wasn’t saying he was or was not. I’m not trying to absolve Republicans of wrong, but I am not foolish or blind enough to somehow believe Democrats have had nothing to do with our problems or that Obama is going to save the day without changing the people in Washington.

“The youth vote turned roundly against Republicans for this very point of contradiction.”

And they will continue to do so for many years to come. They have been taught that they are entitled to everything and they will vote to get those “freebies.” Republicans will continue to lose until they start offering them the easy European life also.

“And you CANNOT justify Republicans growth of national debt with Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and 9/11. As I told you, all those only account for about 40% of all deficit spending through the GW Bush years and Republican congress”

I’m not trying to justify it at all. In fact, I believe their actions just further blurred the lines between themselves and liberals and the people didn’t see any real difference between the Obama and McCain other than that one was wanting to give them more than the other.

I’m not happy with their deficit spending either and I am curious if that 40% number includes Homeland Security and the retooling of all our federal, state and local departments?

It’s still funny how you guys were/are so concerned about our debt under Republicans but now that the leftists are in control, you are now trying to justify to yourselves the trillion or more that is going to be added to the debt.
Fear is a funny thing.

Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2009 9:16 AM
Comment #273566

Ray
The sky is blue here, I’m just not going to try and convince you it is green and that the world is ending in order to get your vote.

We defeated Iraq’s conventional forces on May 1, 2003 and not long after, we entered the restore order and rebuilding phase.
Maybe I am too old school, but having served and seen combat, that is the way I break it down.
Perhaps your quest to win elections at all costs prevents you from seeing it like that, I don’t know.

Dude
We can respect each others rights and freedoms and still work together man, no matter how many of us there are. When we stop respecting the rights and freedoms of others, we go from being a “village,” to being a compound and no thanks.
I can think for myself.

Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2009 10:01 AM
Comment #273567

>It’s still funny how you guys were/are so concerned about our debt under Republicans but now that the leftists are in control, you are now trying to justify to yourselves the trillion or more that is going to be added to the debt.
Fear is a funny thing.
Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2009 09:16 AM

kctim,

Do you honestly think the concern for the national debt has somehow disappeared from the left? Surely you jest! We just see that with deregulation and improper oversight, our very survival depends on just that. It is not even selecting the lesser of two evils…it is the only realistic, pragmatic relief of our situation.

The debt is a horrible burden we have and are FOISTING on our children’s children, but even that is better than leaving them with no nation and no economy. Choices, at this point in time, are slim ND NONE.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 14, 2009 10:17 AM
Comment #273568

kctim said: “I’m not trying to absolve Republicans of wrong, but I am not foolish or blind enough to somehow believe Democrats have had nothing to do with our problems”

They were the minority party. Some voted with Republicans, and many did not. Irrelevant. Republicans controlled the agenda and provided the majority votes to spend like there was not tomorrow.

“or that Obama is going to save the day without changing the people in Washington.”

If you mean Obama can’t save the day without replacing everyone in D.C. with people no one has ever heard of, I say, that’s ridiculous. Obama needs people experienced in lawmaking and the means by which the legislative process and administrative process work. These people will NOT however, control the Obama’s agenda. That is the great strength and value of Obama listening to all voices on any issue, before making HIS decision. His cabinet will take their direction from Obama, and I am confident Obama will replace the one’s who try to Cowboy policy in any direction other than what Obama has pointed to.

kcitm, you make another ridiculous comment also: “It’s still funny how you guys were/are so concerned about our debt under Republicans but now that the leftists are in control, you are now trying to justify to yourselves the trillion or more that is going to be added to the debt.”

Let’s assume for argument you have no auto insurance. And that I come to your house while you are asleep and trash your only vehicle which you rely upon to get to work and home again. When you awake to discover you car trashed, will spend the money to fix it, or quit working because someone else did in your car?

Now replace the reference to myself with Republicans, and the reference to trashing your car with wrecking the economy. Is Obama to make fiscal discipline his top priority and throw the nation into a depression vastly worse than in the 1930’s? Or, is he not absolutely required by his election to use whatever resources are legally available to him to rescue this economy from a depression to include deficit spending so that America can keep working?

Get real, kctim. I find the situation neither funny, nor am I suddenly relinquishing my respect for fiscal responsibility. A functioning economy with government revenues coming in is the ONLY way the national debt and service on that debt can ever be addressed in the future. And getting this economy back on its feet requires deficit spending. This was not the case for Republicans from 2003 onward. They had a choice about deficit spending, and they chose to cut revenues and increase spending even as the economy was growing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2009 10:30 AM
Comment #273573

Excellent points J2! I guess it all just boils down to what we think is most important and how we see things.
I obviously place individual rights and freedoms ahead of everything else, so policy dictating how we run our own lives gets to me more than others. And there is no doubt that liberal policies have been intruding on our personal rights and freedoms at an alarming rate over the last 30 years.
While the left worries about what the world thinks of us, alot of us worry more about being able to think for ourselves.

“If that is not intrusive then certainly OASDI cannot be considered intrusive”

As I said, I can see where some people see it as being intrusive, but having been reading about this long before it became “public,” I can also see how the evidence and circumstances lead some to see it as protecting a life.
To me, it was alot like a stay of execution where the govt stepped in on a particular case, not a right wing attempt to prevent all future cases as a whole.

SS is involuntary, takes away individual rights and is enforced through intimidation and the threat of use of force. That is not freedom of choice. That is intrusive.
Parents asking govt for help because of questionable actions of the spouse and because they believe they have seen first-hand evidence she was not totally brain dead, is not. We still have the freedom of choice to make a living-will.

Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2009 11:22 AM
Comment #273578

“SS is involuntary, takes away individual rights and is enforced through intimidation and the threat of use of force. That is not freedom of choice. That is intrusive.”

I’m not sure that we have ever had such individual freedom in this country that each and everyone would make their own rules and regulations themselves kctim. OASDI was enacted legitimately by the federal government as required by the constitution. Because it is a constitutionally acceptable law it is the same as every other law in that it requires compliance. It is only the refusal to comply with a law that makes it enforceable through intimidation and the use of force. This is a result of the citizen abdicating their responsibility to follow the laws duly enacted by our representatives in Congress. However because you have your day in court it does not trample on individual rights anymore than a run amok Senate on the federal level trying to vacate a judicial order on a state level IMHO. Frist and his compadres tried to overturn the judicial branch of the state of Florida with a 3-0 vote in the senate! Very Dangerous precedent, kctim, very dangerous.
That being said I do realize that there was much more to the Schavio case and there were no winners only losers in the whole thing. Perhaps the legal and moral aspects facing the husband prior to it becoming a national cause dejour were as intrusive as anything else on this case and perhaps that is why it went the way it did.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 14, 2009 12:28 PM
Comment #273581

Its what people hold important that determines how they view things J2. I do not believe this country was founded on the idea for govt to forcefully take the rights and freedoms of one individual in order to appease and support the beliefs of another. SS does just that.

SS may have been enacted and accepted, but we threw out the main principle this country was founded on when we allowed it to become the law of the land and its snowballed since then.

I don’t disagree with you about Florida’s states rights. I am a big supporter of those on all matters, not just ones I agree with. Using the federal govt to step in and force a state to kill is just as bad as using the federal govt to step in and force them to not kill.
Intrusive for govt to try and step in at the request of parents and not allow the state killing of their daughter? I’ll agree. Done to affect policy change or push a rightwing agenda? No.

“and perhaps that is why it went the way it did”

It went the way it did only because of the documented evidence by those who personally sat at her side. Without that, it wouldn’t have been news and the plug would have been pulled years before and nobody would have cared. Happens daily.

Posted by: kctim at January 14, 2009 1:22 PM
Comment #273584

No one in his right mind thinks every decision made by a head of household is a good one. The man made an unpopular decision…the President of the United States stepped in to change it for him…that’s not very ‘intrusive’…

Was the decision made, against the law? Was it made under duress by outside forces? If the answer to these questions is ‘no’, then our president was wrong! For ‘States Righters’ to say differently…???

Posted by: Marysdude at January 14, 2009 1:30 PM
Comment #273864

Ramos and Compean have received early release from prison.
Obama’s bash will cost approx $150M, with the big donors being those receiving Wall St. bailouts.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 19, 2009 7:02 PM
Comment #274018

PHX8 -

I did leave out Schiavo, however I felt that no matter what he decided to do he would have been derided. There was no right way to handle that situation, particularly for a president. If I were president during that time I would left that matter alone just as Eisenhower left desegregation alone after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision was handed down. The people can sort that out and they don’t need a fatherly president.

As for the tsunami in Sumatra, he delegated, as he should have and we sent aid, as we should have. Although if I were to nit-pick you are correct he could have been a bit more front and center. We also tried numerous times to assist Burma (Myammar) after the quake and were turned down. Can’t blame that on Bush.

He also delegated correctly with Katrina. His error in that case and other cases is that he didn’t evaluate the delegate’s job qualifications or performance. He seems to hire people because he “knows their heart” - whatever that means.

Thanks for reading my post.

Posted by: Christopher Tracy at January 21, 2009 10:13 PM
Comment #274020

bills -

The Saddam reference had to do with his erratic behavior towards inspections. He’d let the UN inspect one day, declare he is free of WMD, then the next he’d kick everyone out of the country claiming that the UN inspectors are spies for the US government. He’d then let them back in, carefully monitor or control where the inspectors can go and when. He gave the constant impression that he didn’t want the inspectors to see something. Add to that the Iraqi air force continued to violate the no-fly zone leading to minor strikes from the US drones and other patrols.

It was this continuous wavering between cooperation and non-cooperation that made us and the rest of the world question whether or not he actually had WMD. And it was that cat-and-mouse game that I believed had to end one way or another. The fact that he genuinely had no international friends meant that this bluff made his enemies think twice - and we did.

I got this information from various news reports at the time including a CIA intelligence report released to NBC News in 2007.

Posted by: Christopher Tracy at January 21, 2009 10:23 PM
Comment #274090

CT,

So a madman being ‘wishy-washy’, caused our country to invade his? We lost patience, and invaded because he was ‘wishy-washy’? We put our troops in harms way and placed our national honor in jeopardy, because a madman was ‘wishy-washy’? We have lost 4000plus troops, have sustained multi-thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded, and hundreds of thousands more exiled or refugees in other countries, because Saddam was ‘wishy-washy’?

Damn, I sure am glad we had a good reason…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 22, 2009 4:09 PM
Comment #381236

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 4:48 AM
Post a comment