Pajamas Media

154 Comments

1. ic:

“the man who sacrificed his legacy to protect America’s greatest asset”

do you mean

“the man who solidified his legacy in protecting America’s greatest asset”

Feb 1, 2009 - 10:55 pm 2. AnnieB:

Take comfort, GHW Bush has not sacrificed his legacy, he had forever enshrined it. Free people in Iraq, living people in Africa, these will adorn his history long after his critics have fallen under the weight of their own illogic and hatred.

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:10 pm 3. Dave:

Thank you for sharing, Eli.
Now take cover. TrollsRus will be flaming shortly.

Like most of my fellow West Texans, Dubya
was as reluctant to be an imperialist as you were to be a conservative.

You will have to learn that while “neocon” is a descriptive, there is no shortage of those who use it as a perjorative for whatever upsets them at the moment.

We have a rather ancient socio-cultural/theo-cultural conflict going. The world has become
too densely populated for the two matrixes to keep each other at arms length. Either our way of doing things will become the defining force
or theirs will.

Ours produces better results. Better it prevail.

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:47 pm 4. John Burke:

I’m a Democrat and I have a high regard for Bush and what he tried to do. Much of it was a success for which he’s receievd little credit. Where he failed, he failed mainly because of an outsized and undeserved loyalty to subordinates and, frankly, undue deference to military men. A few generals should have been cashiered when the Army (in particular) dragged its feet in the initial months of the campaign in Afganistan. A few more — including a couple at the highest levels — should have gotten the word to retire when Iraw devolved into a mess.

All W got for sticking with commanders who failed was retired generals adding their voices to the cascade of criticism of the President.

I comment on a host of topics on my blog:

http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:52 pm 5. ked5:

well said grasshopper.

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:02 am 6. American Expat:

My thoughts exactly. I too voted for Al Gore & wanted to lynch Ralph Nader for throwing the election to Bush. I didn’t go so far as think about renouncing my Citizenship but I live overseas so I don’t have to experience domestic American politics.

Then came 9/11. I too am a September 12 Democrat. Indeed, I am actively teaching my children that GWOT is their Cold War and that Bush 43 will be remembered as another Harry Truman.

I always make a point of defending Mr. Bush’s policies and persoanal integrity to all my acquaintances: American and non-American.

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:58 am 7. JFM:

I’m a Democrat and I have a high regard for Bush and what he tried to do. Much of it was a success for which he’s receievd little credit. Where he failed, he failed mainly because of an outsized and undeserved loyalty to subordinates

But another reason was the outsized and undeserved disloyalty of the Democratic elites and MSM (le’s distinguish them from rank and file Democratic voter) who continuously torpedoed, disobeyed orders (when they worked for Government), leaked information and slanderd him and the countries, a specially heinous act because the GWOT is above all a war for hearts and minds and undermining the moral stature of the POTUS, repeating the lie that Iraki Freedom was about oil or that Bush had lied about the WMDs (1), the calumnias about American soldiers being torturers and war criminals played right into enemy’s hands.

(1) No he didn’t, he acted on the info available and basing on the same info Democrats and foreign leaders decided to let Saddam have nukes. Also the oppnnents gave Saddam all the time needed to, say send any incriminating program moved to, say, Syria

Feb 2, 2009 - 2:29 am 8. vivo:

There is no doubt the GWB did some good things. UNFORTUNATELY, his failures are catastrophic.

Ask the dead, the crippled, the poor and the middle class.

Feb 2, 2009 - 2:39 am 9. formwiz:

What is it with Leftists who find a moment where they’re suddenly “proud to be an American again”? Or is it that they’re so vain they can’t approve unless they get their way?

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:52 am 10. JFM:

Ask the dead, the crippled, the poor and the middle class.

Ask the people who didn’t die in a second 9/11

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:57 am 11. eon:

All I have to say is this.

George W. Bush- see Sir Winston Spencer Churchill.

Barack H. Obama- see Clement Atlee.

clear ether

eon

Feb 2, 2009 - 4:25 am 12. Cato:

eon: Obama has all of the faults of both Atlee (who couldn’t wait to be made an earl after socializing Britain – what a hypocritical prig) and Chamberlain, and none of their virtues.

Feb 2, 2009 - 4:35 am 13. RE:

George Bush’s resolve in combatting terrorism is commendable, but it was time for America to move on. It’s regrettable that he could not have passed the baton to someone better qualified. Instead, Americans have chosen a petty inexperienced narcissist for president. The consequences of this reckless folly will be clear soon enough. The challenge now is to avoid and/or minimize the coming collateral damage.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:13 am 14. Terry Gain:

“George recognized that the problem was more fundamental than America’s mini skirt; that Osama and the 9/11 crew had little grievance about U.S. policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict but were rather fiercely opposed to the spread of secular thought in the Middle East; that the best way of beating them was to do just that, spread democracy in the region, by whatever means necessary.”

–

“They” were and are fiercely interested in imposing their religion on everyone- including us. A moderate Muslim is one who will do it using peaceful means. Osama is like the Americans who gave Bush 3 years to win the war in Iraq and establish peace despite the (larely unreported ) intervention of al Qaeda – irrationally impatient.

And Bush did win the 2000 election.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:25 am 15. Will:

A great article. Maybe George wasn’t a leader,but he was honest and protected America.I’m sure he’ll get credit for that in the future.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:33 am 16. WestWright:

Too bad there were not enough 9/12 Democrats, recovering (sunshine)Patriots to nominate and elect a 9/12 President. What we hear here from this Former Liberal (Leftist) will be an avalanche in the near future. Why has Europe elected more Conservative Leaders?

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:34 am 17. Kevin:

Perhaps no article has been clearer in summing up the Bush legacy. This man, warts and all, never flinched in doing the right thing, despite the howls of the whiney left and mushy moderate. When the bombs begin going off in 2010-2011 in our streets, W will be appreciated again.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:40 am 18. Sal:

“I was so incensed by what I saw as an appointment against the will of the people that I inquired about rescinding my U.S. citizenship.”

If ever there was an American president who was “appointed” it is BHO. He was “appointed” by a handful of unelected media elitist who were aided by a bunch of uneducated ill-informed morons in Hollywood and were financed in large part by foreign donors who do not have America’s best interest at heart. There is no way anybody can ever convince me that all that money came from within the US. Especially when BHO refused to reveal where at least two hundred million of it came from.

And they accused “W” of damaging our democracy?

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:47 am 19. e:

I’ve noticed the “Oh my, maybe the world is different from how I imagined it.” is a pretty common experience among former liberals. What do you think makes the difference between someone who sees the world as it is and the person who remains stuck in their own fantasies about life? I’m not even sure actual personal experience makes much of a difference.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:51 am 20. jimmy!:

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had no wmds, missiles, chemicals, biological weapons, programs, nuclear programs…none of the stuff Bush lied about. Our invasion was unnecessary, based on lies and flimsy evidence, and is not in any way connected to any legitimate war on terror. In fact, it took our focus off bin laden and al qaeda, enabling him and his core assistants to escape Afghanistan and set up shop in Pakistan. Why praise Bush for lying us into an unnecessary war?

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:01 am 21. Craig:

“Ask the dead, the crippled, the poor and the middle class.”

I’m doing fine. Thanks!

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:02 am 22. Perry:

Bush did NOT sacrifice his legacy.

His legacy is a free Iraq and the liberation of 50,000,000 people worldwide from underneath the Islamist jackboot. Iraq just held elections for the second time and guess what! The SECULAR parties made great advances. Does that mean tribalism is lessening? You bet it does.

Bush’s legacy is the tackling of AIDS in Africa on a scale that liberals have wet dreams about but only talk talk talk. Bush DID DID DID.

George W. Bush changed the world in ways yet to be measured by history. George W. Bush will have a tremendous legacy and he will go down in history as one of the great Presidents – if the liberal-dominated media allow the truth to be disseminated.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:04 am 23. WR Jonas:

People who admit that they voted for Al Gore must realize what an admission of ignorance that is. He borders on insane and delusional and the press covers up a great deal of his instability.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:05 am 24. john from cinncinatti:

vivo:There is no doubt that GWB did some good catastrophic things… you are funny. there has been plenty of doubt and naysaying from the left. here’s a funny right back at you…GWB did the right thing.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:29 am 25. Perry:

I saw Gore’s global statement before Congress last week. Indeed, he sounded like a raving lunatic.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:32 am 26. Mongoose:

Eli: Thanks for being honest, and thank for speaking truths.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:56 am 27. geokstr:

“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.”

However, what Bush did do wrong was all his hand-wringing about the wonderful “Religion of Peace” and pandering to Islamist “moderates” who literally do not exist. By focusing entirely on the threat abroad he has the entire country looking right past the stealth jihad that is making huge strides in this country in the media, the universities and government at all levels.

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:37 am 28. Jbl:

Eli, I walked a very similar path, although I’d come to like Bush during the 2000 election, when Gore seemed nuts to me, and Bush seemed reasonable and sane.

President Bush was an authentic man, and in some ways a visionary. He dared to do what no one else had the balls to do, and the left and the press will never forgive him for it. And the lies will continue, because they are needed.

13 days into Obama’s presidency, I am shocked to find myself falling way out of trust in Obama and missing Bush more than I ever expected to. In 13 days we’ve gone from being a “strong horse” to a “weak horse” in the eyes of terrorists and tyrants. The “moral high ground” Obama claimed looks a lot like the ground Bush tilled; Obama is even keeping renditions in place, but now the left thinks renditions are okay, and not war crimes. Go figure.

President Bush, you served us well. You dared to do what was unpopular in the sight of Chris Matthews and Christiane Amanpour to keep us safe. The press, serving the left and surrendering truth for political expediency, destroyed you. Now, we watch them protect Obama at every turn, even to the point of not mentioning the ice storm that is killing people and leaving folks hungry, cold and without power for a week while the president serves steak, goes to cocktail parties and watches the Super Bowl.

The president is not wrong to do those things. But if Bush had done them, the press would be crucifying him for being “out of touch” and insensitive.

But all is bright in Obamaland.

God help us. I do believe Michelle was right – after her husband, America will not be recognizable.

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:42 am 29. Frank Logan:

Note to #20 Dimmy,
Eli wrote: “As I watched the second plane crash into the World Trade Center, I realized the world had changed forever; that a dark new reality has set in; that the world my children will grow up in will not be the world of my childhood.

I understood this in seconds and so did George, my old foe. Some have still to grasp this.”

That’s you Dimmy. STUCK ON STUPID.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:00 am 30. RV:

“His legacy is a free Iraq and the liberation of 50,000,000 people worldwide from underneath the Islamist jackboot.”

Wow. Uh, you realize Saddam ran a mostly secular government, right? And Iraqis are now free to elect for an create the Iranian style theocracy that many of them want, right? I mean, cause it’s happening now.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:01 am 31. RV:

“America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining”

And this, perhaps the most ignorant excuse used for why terrorists attack.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:02 am 32. Laura:

America has been safe for 7 years thanks to George Bush and his unwavering policies of homeland security. Obama has been in power all of 5 minutes and he has already signed the death warrant for Gawd knows how many more future terrorist victims by closing Guantanemo. I wish I were a liberal and could live in denial, but I fear for the future of North America. January 20, 2013 can’t come soon enough for me.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:06 am 33. Jbl:

Excuse me, I was wrong. Obama is not “keeping rendition.”

He’s actually EXPANDING IT.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/01/surprise-obama-expands-renditions/

I wonder when the left will start screaming about war crimes?

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:11 am 34. seven:

Things will get better. The half white Jimmy Carter is working hard to make the Bush administration loook awesome.

3 groups that were happy to see Bush out of office are 3 groups that can never be happy. Never. Muslims say they will be happy with more land and less jews. No. That has never made them happy. Poor folks said they would be happy if they could just have their own homes. (preferably without house payments) They have homes but as they are kicked out, they never will be happy until they change and get satisfaction from earniong their income

Environmentalists can never be happy. They dspise humans and until wee get rid of humans, humans will always exhale or worse and they can never be appeased.

The whinning party will never stop whining. It is what they do.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:18 am 35. Charlie (Colorado):

Now take cover. TrollsRus will be flaming shortly.

Good call.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:24 am 36. always right:

Mr. Bernstein,

Thank you for your article.

Too bad you (and countless others like you) did not speak up and support President Bush as often, as openly and as forcefully during his two terms.

Too bad you let those others (representing the majority of America’s view) distorted, ridiculed, and damaged the President himself and the Presidency of US.

Now those same others finally are proud of the version of America representing ONLY their view. IF we don’t unite under their version, there is ever implied threats/insults/worse, etc.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:29 am 37. submandave:

No, RV, the most ignorant excuse used for why terrorists attack is that they are poor, ignorant, desperate and hopeless. The first three match neither the 9/11 conspirators nor their leaders/organizers and, as to the last, they are all far from hopeless since they ardently believe that their greatest hope lies in fighting and dying for their cause.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:39 am 38. Big Red:

Sorry, jimmy. The only thing you were even close on was Iraq-9/11 link, which Bush NEVER claimed existed. That was Dem.-MSM hype. Saddam was paying $25,000 for suicide bombers and also harbored Abu Nadal and others for years. He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. 5,000 Kurds were killed in one town. It took only three artillery rounds to do it, so you don’t need alot. Also, that stuff is very hard to store because it is so corrosive, so you generally make it when you intend to use it. Still, we did find some stores of it. We also removed about 500 metric tons of urainium, (yellow cake, might want to ask Joe Wilson to explain that), 1.8 tons enriched close to weapons grade, plus the centrifuges used for enrichment. Reported in the NY Times, May 22, 2004, I believe. The late, unlamented Al-Zaqawi (remember him?) did not follow us to Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan and went to Iraq, where he was waiting for us. His plan was to use Iraq as a base to attack Jordan, where he was from. And if Iran had to be taken down, the best way is to come in from southern Iraq. Pakistan is too unstable, the border with Turkey is very narrow and all mountains and Afghanistan is landlocked and would be a logistical nightmare to try and accomplish. As for sea-borne landings, ask any vet who was at Normandy or the South Pacific what that was like.
Don’t bother with the “blood for oil” routine. If you were serious, we would drill our own oil and the OPEC to go f*** itself.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:53 am 39. E.D.:

I didn’t agree with all of George Bush’s policies, but I thank him for keeping us safe for seven years. I echo the comments of several others on this post that I believe that history will be kinder to George W. Bush than people are today. I get more queasy each day since January 20, 2009, as I realize how clueless the new president is — he can’t even say “war on terror.” I hope we have no more attacks on our land, but it’s looking more and more unlikely each day.

For those of you still crying the worn out statement that Iraq had no WMD’s: first, we know Saddam had them because he used them on his own people. That’s a documented fact so there was no lie from Bush. Second, if Saddam had nothing to hide, why not let the UN inspectors look anywhere they needed to in Iraq? Saddam wouldn’t let them roam freely and he was warned what would happen if he continued to not allow thorough inspections. Third, one of Saddam’s own generals has been interviewed and documented that Iraq had WMD’s — they flew them into Cyria at the same time U.S. and ally troops entered into Iraq on their way to Baghdad. Now, approximately 40 Iraqi soldiers have confirmed this information.

So, let’s stop with the war crimes accusation and that Bush lied.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:55 am 40. Rick:

Say – How’s Obama & Fema doing with that weather crisis in Kentucky? Thousands without power, suffering, and you barely even hear about it on the MSM news. But GWB and Katrina – you’ll hear the libs howling about that for another 10 years.

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:03 am 41. Candide:

RV said,

“Uh, you realize Saddam ran a mostly secular government, right?”

First, I believe RV means “Saddam ran” not a “secular government” but “secular dictatorship”, although even that is wrong. How many “secular dictators” issue special editions of Koran written in their own blood?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/941490.stm

Second, Saddam’s “secular” party was called “The Arab Socialist Ba’ath (revival) Party”. There were similar “secular” Socialist party dictatorships in recent history:

1. Lenin’s party was called “Russian Social-Democrat Workers Party (bolsheviks)”;

2. Hitler’s Party was called “National Socialist German Workers Party”.

See the pattern, RV?

If not, let me help you: all those parties were 1. “secular”, 2. Socialist and 3. in war with the US.

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:07 am 42. james:

OK all you former liberals, fine and dandy that you now appreciate Dubya. But if you really want to “grow,” as you liberals put it, then you need to get over your fantasy about what happened in 2000. The election was not stolen; the presidency was not awarded to Bush; there was no plot. Every single recount – even by organizations that hate Bush, like the Miami Herald – confirmed that Bush won by about 500 votes. There was no recount – NONE – that EVER had Gore in the lead.
Gore lost the vote in Florida by a small amount and the Court ruled simply that Florida could not change its voting rules after the election had already occurred. Period.

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:48 am 43. Jorsh:

Ask the people who didn’t die in a second 9/11

Ask all the people who did die in the first one. On Bush’s watch.

There was no recount – NONE – that EVER had Gore in the lead.

Do try to keep your lies plausible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:04 am 44. dontstealmyidea:

that’s because the recount was halted and never finished.

no matter what you think about terrorism, september 11th or the like, the election was a problem. the scariest thing of all is people like this openly admitting that “terrorism made them forget about the electoral problem”.

if we’re planting democracy abroad, what good if we let our own wither?

also, worth pointing out that september 11th happened on george w. bush’s watch. just saying.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:10 am 45. Jbl:

The NY Times, in a 10,000 work article funded a recount, “Gore’s way” along with a bunch of other newspapers. They admitted that, even counting “Gore’s way” Bush won.

Get over it, already.

The people who died on 9/11, on Bush’s watch?

I have a question. If we get hit again in a few months, and another 3,000 people are dead, who will you blame?

Don’t answer. We all know you’ll blame Bush for that, too, because “Obama’s too new in the job to be blamed for that.”

The thing is, the TERRORISTS are to blame. Not Clinton, not Bush.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:29 am 46. xqqme:

With all the differences I had with President Bush, I still respected that he said what he meant and meant what he said. I never had to wonder where he stood.
I’m having a hard time with President Obama’s doublespeak newthink.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:33 am 47. cccc:

The recount in Florida was stopped becuse it wasn’t a statewide recount. Gore only wanted a selected few democratic counties counted while fighting in courth to have the military ballots thrown out and not counted. That is why the SC stepped in. The only person trying to steal 2000 was Gore.

Yes Sept 11th happened less than 9 months into GWB’s first term. His cabinet was still being seated because of the Gore vs Bush delay. I suppose now woud be the time to point out that Clinton cut out intellegence budget and pentagon budgets to the point they were barely able to monitor anything. How do you think the imagined “budget surplus” happened? Liberalism truely is a mental disorder!

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:50 am 48. ashok:

This is an awesome op-ed – thank you so much for writing it! Even though it has staying power, a few things you observe here even those of us who are more conservative have lost sight of. Chief among them were those stupid arguments that democracy couldn’t work in the Middle East: I can’t believe the people who made those are still mouthing off, forgetting what utter distrust and disgust they showed towards the Iraqi people just to take cheap partisan shots.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:55 am 49. JL:

Jorsh. I guess that what you are trying to say, is that Bush was not aggresive enough right from the beginning of his first term.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:58 am 50. Jeff Weimer:

31. RV:

“America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining”

And this, perhaps the most ignorant excuse used for why terrorists attack.
Feb 2, 2009 – 8:02 am

Care to enlighten instead of insult us?

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:09 am 51. LynnS:

#43 Jorsh
Do you mean this recount of ALL 67 counties in Florida,

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

or would you prefer that the Florida Primary election be decided by one county? Do try to make sense.

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:17 am 52. Terry Gain:

Those who blame Bush for 9/11 overlook the Clinton/Gorelick Wall – without which the plans would have been exposed.

“Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism”… if you disregard, financing, training and harboring them. And he never attacked the United States – except thousands of times during the 12 year ceasefire.

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:23 am 53. Terry Gain:

RV:

“His legacy is a free Iraq and the liberation of 50,000,000 people worldwide from underneath the Islamist jackboot.”

Wow. Uh, you realize Saddam ran a mostly secular government, right? And Iraqis are now free to elect for an create the Iranian style theocracy that many of them want, right? I mean, cause it’s happening now.

—

Except that they aren’t creating a theocracy. Al Qaeda’s misadventure in Iraq didn’t work because there aren’t enough Islamists and there are even fewer after they got to see the evil nature of al Qaeda up close and personal

Further the populations of Afstan and Iraq are 32 million and 28 million respectively. That’s 60 million innocent people liberated for you liberals. But don’t feel left out liberals. Your guy Obama is liberating as many terrorists as fast as he can.

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:38 am 54. Big Red:

People also forget the MSM called Fla. for Gore before Polls in panhandle were closed, (central standard time, not eastern like rest of the state). some estimate this cost Bush as many as 10,000 votes in heavily conservative and military area of the state.
As to 9/11 on Bush’s watch, first 9/11 attack, the embassy bombings in Africa, Kobar towers, USS Cole, cut and run from Mogadishu were all on Cliton’s watch, the latter leading Bin Lauden to believe we could not take casaulties and would not retaliate after 9/11 attack.

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:44 am 55. Big Red:

sorry, meant “Clinton’s watch” in last post, but then again…..

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:50 am 56. james wilson:

You are not a former liberal, you are a changed liberal.

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:00 pm 57. BD57:

Big Red:

Thanks for saving me the time of replying to Jimmy (Carter) ….

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:36 pm 58. Big Red:

No problem, BD57. besides, my cats are all sleeping and I had no one else to play with…

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:52 pm 59. stuart Williamson:

Mr. Bernstein: A very gracious tribute and a testimonial to your own intellect and character. I only wish that there were more Democrats able and wiling to see past knee-jerk partisanship and honestly scrutinize their political judgments. Their failure to do so has placed an incredibly unqualified doctrinaire socialist in the White House, a situation which makes the heart sink.

I particularly liked your take on the “black and white” of moral certitude and forthright decision, contrasted with the meek maudlin, and murky monotones of the self-righteous “moral equivalence” of the Democrats, capitalized on by the socialists disguised as “leftists” who are now the driving force of the party, solidly imbedded in the MSM.

Feb 2, 2009 - 1:39 pm 60. John Charles:

I remember when John F. Kennedy and his “Super Bright Cabinet” deliberated the ‘Bay of Pigs” invasion strategy of Cuba. As you know it was an unmitigated disaster! Afterward, when the planing participants were interviewed separately they said to the person that privately they had deep concerns about the plans potential for success. No one, however, had the nerve to speak up, they went along with the “crowd”. This phenomenon is know known as “Group Think.”

George W. Bush’s remarkable decision to “surge” Iraqi with more troops in the face of blistering opposition is stunning. The Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) declared the “war is lost” on national TV. For this courage, we will all be in the debt of George W. Bush for many years to come. He will make the American media look small and petty.

Feb 2, 2009 - 2:04 pm 61. David:

“I thought he had shattered America’s greatest asset — its democracy.”

Eli…Democracy, as is republicanism, is a form, not a good in itself. The word “democrat” entered the American political lexicon as a perjorative. Democrats and democracy may be good but they may be bad. Neither are assets in themselves.

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:45 pm 62. Terry Gain:

The latest spin from the NYT on Kennedy’s Bay Of Pigs fiasco is that he inherited Eisenhower’s failed plan. (I was amused when I read this recently. As if Kennedy didn’t have the power to modify or reject it.)

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:46 pm 63. TurfMonster:

Ask the dead, the crippled, the poor and the middle class.

We’d be doing just fine if it weren’t for the efforts of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and, of course, Barack Obama on just about every conceivable issue.

Get rid of the Democrats, and the poor, the middle class, the crippled, and even the dead will be doing better. Much, much, much better.

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:48 pm 64. eor:

I always wonder about the people who say there were no WMD’s in Iraq. They had plenty of time to ship them to Syria and Sadaam said himself they had all the ingredients and were just waiting until the world got sidetracked by something else. Personally I consider the murdering of 300,000 Kurds and the torture killings of anyone who disagreed, enough to want him gone, to save so many others. What could be worse than the rape and killing of women, for “FUN”, by his sons, or being thrown in a chipper alive!!!The reports of the people who had to clean up the debris from those human chippers was horrendous. They are guaranteed nightmares for life. Almost any soldier can tell you of experiencing the gratitude of the Iraqi people.

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:54 pm 65. sambo hux:

Laura:

“January 20, 2013 can’t come soon enough.”

Pace yourself. Here’s what’s coming. Eight years of wondrous evolution under Obama. A new age of responsibility and accountability. A willingness to make and expect tough responses to demanding realities . . . something a bit more visionary and inspiring than “go shopping.” You’re all so comfortable that you don’t want to make the hard sacrifices that the future demands. You’d rather continue on with your KFC and Bonanza reruns. Well, we’re leaving that world behind, and you with it if you choose to deny progress. That’s the first eight years. Then we’ll get eight more of Hillary, who will continue to push for the rights and opportunities we all deserve, not just the ones who live in “whites only” neighborhoods. So, that takes us to January 20, 2025. That’ll be the earliest. Till then you’ll just have to be satisfied with complaining about power rather than wielding it. That’s all we had available for the last eight years, and trust me, being self-righteous is is a poor alternative to being in command. Hope you like it. See you in 16.

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:59 pm 66. AlexinCT:

Bleh, not the baloney about how the 2000 election was stolen again! I guess if you tell the lie often enough, you can convince enough people that what you are saying is not a lie. Not a single leftist MSM outlet- from the NYT to the WAPO – could hand Gore a recount win unless they completely and utterly manipulated the recount in ways you can only and commonly see in third world banana republics. For those of you that are too slow that means the recount would have had to cheat to let Gore win. In this country we elect our president through the electoral college, not the popular vote, for a reason. Gore is the lunatic sore loser that hired a ton of lawyers to help him suppress the votes he did not like and game the system to count votes that would let him steal the election.

As for 9-11 happening under Bush let me remind the people that like to ignore facts that it took the terrorists 2+ years to plan for the 9-11 attacks. Bush had only been in office for 9 months so blaming him is the height of lunacy. Who was president when Obama decided he wanted to murder Americans? Oh, and I thought that everybody loved America when Clinton was president, and Bush was the one to squander our good will and piss people off. But I digress. And as for Iraq not having to do anything with 9-11 you are correct. However, the GWoT was not about only stopping the terrorists directly responsible for 9-11 but any and all terrorists, terrorist enablers & supporters, and terror supporting nations that wanted to kill Americans. I know the left wanted to limit the scope of our retaliation to Osama only so they could quickly get back to marching the country down the socialist path, but Bush was right about not stopping there. Besides getting rid of Saddam and moving the fight to Iraq proved to be a stroke of genius. Instead of attacking American civilians on American soil the Jihadist idiots went up against our troops in Iraq and got plastered for their efforts. The terrorist’s & Iraq Saddamite’s only victories where those provided in the arena of propaganda. And that was because of a complicit and treasonous element in the Western media and collectivist political class that was more interested in grabbing back political power than doing what they where in protecting their citizens.

No, Bush’s greatest crime remains the fact that he stayed the course and gave America a victory in Iraq while all the intelligentsia on the left told everyone how Iraq was not winnable. For that crime that exposed them for shills they will never forgive him.

Feb 2, 2009 - 4:21 pm 67. Jvan Mi:

I would suggest that you become informed about WMD before stating that there were none. Google “Iraq binary agent” and “yellowcake Iraq”. The 2008 AP article about the final removal of yellowcake from Iraq should be mandatory reading for all bush bashers. You should read the Dulfer report about all the WMD programs that were still up and running just before the invasion. Oh, I should also mention that the oil in Iraq and Kuwait still belongs to the people of those countries rather than the US. So much for the “war for oil” group.

Feb 2, 2009 - 4:59 pm 68. sambo hux:

Aleks in Konnektikut:

“I know the left wanted to limit the scope of our retaliation to Osama only so they could quickly get back to marching the country down the socialist path, but Bush was right about not stopping there.”

WTF? That’s exactly what Bush did . . .”stop there.” We had Osama in the cross-hairs and Bush “stopped there.” Why? Because Cheney knew we needed a boogeyman. No Osama, no boogeyman. We had to let loose the American imagination . . . “He could pop up anywhere! He’s orchestrating terrorists in Iraq! We know where they are, just like we know where the WMDs are – in the north and south and east and west around Bagdhad.” . . . Add a little prodding with “”smoking mushroom clouds” and “bpmbs in baby strollers on the subway” other stories planted in the NYT.

Victory in Iraq? Says who? You? For Chrissake. I try to have a little fun with this board, poke a bit, tell a few jokes, but this willfully blind BS is exactly what got us to where we are. Geezuz I’m glad you idiots don’t have any power any more. Jack Bauer wannabe dipsh@ts. It’s a TV show! Here’s hoping Obama sh#tcans the whole idea of bipartisanship. Screw it. You’re like those ignorant redneck crackers who claim some special relationship with the Confederate flag . . . “We fought for our independence and our beliefs and weren’t afraid to be rebels.” Well, unless you’re 160 years old, you didn’t do jack-squat. Frickin posuers who never did anything more than spend their family’s food money on truck tires and live bait. Half-men. Grow the hell up. Stop being such a schmuck. Geez Louise, what, still pissed about the flag pin? I speak for all liberals when I say, “I’m sorry, did you say something? Thanks but no thanks. We’re busy.”

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:00 pm 69. Lilith:

Jimmy! As 5,000 Kurds gassed by Saddam whether he had chemical weapons.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:03 pm 70. Lilith:

sambo hux: prepare to be very very disappointed.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:06 pm 71. D Foster:

Itis always amazing to me to read that democrats voting for Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, just to name a few, are now George W Bush fans, all because they have discovered that “W” understands the Terrorist and Militant Muslim Nations threat to America and Western Society in all.
Where in the hell were these people in the past 8 years, when every Elite Left media organ bashed and lied about the Terrorist and Elite left Political Class, interested in POWER and CONTROL. Where. Hillary Clinton?????????
Now we have Obama and his cronies that do not understand this threat and are willing to concede Israel to the Militant Muslim countries. Just watch. And then we will need to use our real military power, just watch.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:09 pm 72. Big Red:

okay, who put the peyote in Sambo’s kool-aid? Come on, ‘fess up. Sorry, man, ain’t gonna happen that way. Hugo Wannabe O’Bama is not going to step aside for an old white woman. He’s gonna play this FDR thing to the bitter end. 8 years Depression, then World War III. If you thought Dems jumping ship in the Clinton years was something, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. They will be fighting each other to get to the railing first.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:13 pm 73. sambo hux:

Lilith: I’ve been disappointed for eight years. It’s your turn. I don’t expect perfection. I expect competence.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:17 pm 74. sambo hux:

Big Red:

You don’t believe change is possible. You are so entrenched in the way things work that you just can’t see anything else.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:25 pm 75. Just Passing Through:

‘push for the rights and opportunities we all deserve’

Nanny state nonsense. It’s an immature mindset that should be left behind in college. The rights and opportunities adults deserve are the ones we create for ourselves. Not those given to us by politicians paid for by someone else.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:29 pm 76. Just Passing Through:

68. sambo hux: Victory in Iraq? Says who? You?

Defeat in Iraq? Says who? You? The only argument ad Hominem makes it that the purveyor has none.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:32 pm 77. Ruebacca:

I am amazed anyone admits voting for Gore. I knew he was a fool and a demagogue when he went after Twisted-Sister.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:40 pm 78. AlexinCT:

sambo hux said: “WTF? That’s exactly what Bush did . . .”stop there.” We had Osama in the cross-hairs and Bush “stopped there.” Why? Because Cheney knew we needed a boogeyman. No Osama, no boogeyman. ”

Guess I hit a little too close to the truth huh? At least you admit that the issue here is that you did not like the fact you could not control the scope of our action in the GWoT. You are angry at Bush because you believe he did not kill Osama as soon as possible and thus give the left the excuse they wanted to end all American action against the terror masters. Most leftists felt (and still feel) it was America’s fault we got attacked anyway. Osama was just retaliating against all the evil America does and such tripe. Heck many wanted us to talk to him and avoid violence. It was only after the America hating leftists realized other Americans wanted to stomp their treasonous stupid heads in for voicing that bile that they went from “we should not retaliate for 9-11 because we brought it on ourselves” to this “we should only get Osama”. Hence the fantasies about Bush and Cheney cleverly over coming their stupidity and leaving Osama alive on purpose.

For supposedly nuanced people leftist sure are stupid. Do you think that Osama would have been a bigger rallying point for crazies hell bent on murdering infidels, even a martyr, had we “got him” instead as you claim? Frankly I am quite happy Osama is relegated to the life of a cockroach. Hidding in holes and proving to all that his is a lost cause. Whether it was by design or not.

sambo hux said: “Victory in Iraq? Says who? You? For Chrissake.”

Really? Even Obama has come around to admitting that is the case. Don’t worry I am sure democrats will claim that they where the ones that won it, ignoring their real role completely, sooner or later. The fun thing is that now your idiots have the power and my bet is soon you will be making excuses for why Obama is doing the same things – of course when the MSM reports them instead of simply buries these inconvenient things – as Bush. Let’s see how well the media can cover for them because they are going to make the Bush mistakes look tame. As others have already said: when terrorists attack again, and they have not given up their dreams to kill us infidels despite what collectivist dipshits like you claim, your side can try to blame Bush, but everyone will have no way to avoid what changed and let it happen.

As for the rest of your rant, I choose to simply let it speak for itself and will not stoop to your level. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are the fool that a few posts up told us all that your side was suddenly going to change the world and own the country for at least 16 years. Not saying it could not happen, but then again, for it to happen, the great American experiment of the last 200+ years will have to cease to exist. And what a dark place this world will become then when China, Russia, or some other hell hole is running the world. Look in the mirror and you might see who needs to do some growing up.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:53 pm 79. eor:

Sambo–It was Bill Clinton who was offered Osama on a platter–and he didn’t “feel comfortable” taking him out. Hence 9/11. Since it seems to be all about feelings for the leftists, I have to say I don’t feel comfortable with Bill’s wife bartering our freedom to the very people who want to eliminate us. And if you are going to use naughty words here–you have to go stand in the corner.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:10 pm 80. Steve Bourg:

…..Eli…..but I remember my liberal in-laws at Thanksgiving ‘01 saying how feckless “W” had been and they felt at least 9/11 gave him a purpose for his Presidency. I politely waited until everyone was quiet and respectful for what they thought would be a lame defense of “W” and I said this:
” I beg to differ. Over the summer, W’s tax act called EGTRRA ‘01 was passed and it made so many changes in tax rates, downwards, and increases in 401(k) limits and 403(b) limits, that we can all keep more of our own money for at least 10 years when the Democrats required it to sunset. Unlike Clinton who campaigned on middle-class tax relief, Bush actually followed through with his campaign promises on this issue. And it finally got rid of the “marriage-penalty” for two-income earners……a provision that has pissed me off all through the 1990s. It’s finally gone. So, I disagree quite strongly, because EGTRRA was a magnificent piece of relief for American workers, and economic freedom.” Or something like that. Needless to say, they were clueless and ignorant of the summer’s activity — due to “Bush Derangement Syndrome” they would dive into for 8 years. I firmly believe those tax improvements and many others in the Act, helped delay the disastrous effects of Clinton’s CRA regulations in 1995, that would finally explode in ‘07 and ‘08.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:16 pm 81. sambo hux:

Aleks:

You write, “when terrorists attack again, and they have not given up their dreams to kill us infidels despite what collectivist dipshits like you claim, your side can try to blame Bush, but everyone will have no way to avoid what changed and let it happen.”

If the U is attacked while Obama is president then it’s his fault, is that right? That would mean Bush is responsible for 9/11. He was warned . . . “bin laden determined to strike inside the US.” . . . We’d been attacked before . . . WTC 93 . . . We were attacked after 9/11 . . . anthrax. Pick a principle and stick to it, that’s what makes it a principle. By the way, the great American experiment doesn’t stop just because somebody you don’t like wins.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:28 pm 82. Bildo:

I voted early for Algore and immediately wanted my vote back when he tried to block mail in ballots from the military.
I voted for Jimmy Carter and had to listen to that prick lecture me as he failed miserably. Malaise my posterior.
I voted for Obama and he repeats the Bush/FEMA response to Katrina. Except this time it’s in the midwest where white people live.

Where the hell’s Hubert Humphrey when you need him?

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:34 pm 83. Terry Gain:

@sambo hux(ster)

“If the U is attacked while Obama is president then it’s his fault, is that right? That would mean Bush is responsible for 9/11.”

–

I would have thought that someone with your vast military experience would have heard of the Clinton/Gorelick wall and the part it played in the 9/11 conspiracy not being uncovered.

And would have some clue as to all the other security measures Bush has put in place since 9/11.

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:07 pm 84. Terry Gain:

Want to see a definition of deluded?

“Pace yourself. Here’s what’s coming. Eight years of wondrous evolution under Obama. A new age of responsibility and accountability” sambo hux

A trilion dollars on pork disguised as stimulus. Bailout packages that remove accountability. Geithner and Daschle. Accountability allright.

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:16 pm 85. Just Passing Through:

Not so very deep down, sambo hux, like most of the BDS crowd, is slowly coming to the realization that they’ve been had. Used by a master manipulator who won’t do more than throw a few bones their way to keep some 2012 options open. They had little to no effect on the election (did the nomination though). Their numbers are actually inconsequential compared to mainstream democrats and independents who voted for Obama with no thought given to the claims of stolen elections, lies, incompetence, Cheney as the puppeteer…all the meat and drink delusions of the BDS crowd.

PT Barnum’s wisdom, ‘there’s a sucker born every minute’, is actually a characterization, not a literal description. In my experience, it’s the same people getting suckered over and over again. The BDS crowd – and you have to make the distinction between them and mainstream liberal Democrats (or mainstream liberal Republicans and independents because they do exist) – are in that serially suckered group. And when you realize you’ve been had your first instinct if you’re a serial sucker is to try to make everyone who’s laughing their ass off at you believe you weren’t suckered. That red is black and things do indeed fall up. Not learn from it, but prepare themselves for the next hustler waiting in the wings to fleece you. Or the same hustler.

So you get the BDS crowd still visiting around and hyping their nonsense as if the election somehow validated it. The attempt comes off as tragic/comic desperation. Meanwhile, their banner bearer moves further to the center where the power lies.

It’ll get a lot shriller before it fades and for some BDSers, it never will. And it won’t be too long before the laughter morphs into pity. I thought it would take until the 2012 election cycle when Obama has to cut himself completely loose from them. Seeing it this soon – the celebration is pretty much over on the far left sites and angst is growing fast – does not bode well for him or them.

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:58 pm 86. AlexinCT:

Sambo, you must have comprehension issues. Principle? I am arguing facts and logic here. When we are attacked it will be the terrorist’s fault just like it was on 9-11. However, your kind loves to tell us these Jihadis never hated us until Bush became president, or only hate us because of Bush and what Bush did. I pointed out the fact that 9-11 was planned during the Clinton years. We now have the second coming: Obama. We are being told by your kind that now America finally can take its rightful place in the world, all will be well, the evil that was Bush will be cleansed, and we will be loved again. So when we get another attack I think trying to still blame Bush is again some serious mental disorder. President Bush & his policies, the ones you liberals love to call failed, prevented another attack after 9-11 for 7 years. If we get attacked again it will be because the Obama people slacked or changed what worked. The fact is that these Jihads do not care who is president. They just want to kill infidels and subjugate all to their will. We do know which side stood up and fought them and which side thinks grabbing your ankles is the way to appease them. That’s why people like you get their panties in a bunch about those that fight back.

Also, as has been pointed out Clinton got Bin Laden handed on a silver platter and turned that down because of his own policy of treating terrorism as a crime instead of an act of war. We could have prevented 9-11, but hey who cares about those dead people anyway when what counts is ideology. And maybe your ability to recall history is deficient, but president Bush was still busy trying to be Mr. bi-partisan, in the hopes that the rabid idiots screaming about how he stole the election would give him a chance, and democrats blocked him at every point, until 9-11 happened. Of course, they reverted to form as soon as they managed to undermine the war effort and erode the confidence in the war effort in the minds of enough people. Maybe that’s the principle you are referring to?

And you are right. The great American experiment will not stop because someone I don’t like won (maybe you democrats can remember that lesson when a republican wins again huh?). The great American experiment is looking like it is about to end because we are going to abandon the principles that made this country great – the right to individual liberty & the pursuit of happiness – for the false promise that government will nanny us and meet all our needs. Remember the USSR? How did that work out? Change you can believe in I guess.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:46 pm 87. john:

Just like November/December 2000, George never quit. He pushed till he achieved success. I wish we had he and Laura 4 more years to hold up the success Iraq is realizing today. As for the economy, 52 consecutive months of growth with the highest and secon highest tax receipts coming into the treasury.

His sincerity will be missed.

Feb 2, 2009 - 8:51 pm 88. Shef Rogers:

Lies, outright lies. GWB froze like a deer in the headlights when his aides whispered the news of 9/11. The evidence is there on video, in that shameful tableau of the president listening to “My Pet Goat” while the towers burned. Then he fled to an undisclosed burrow, like a scared rabbit. He showed his true nature that day, but we were too shocked and scared to face up to the fact that our leader was incapable of dealing with fast-moving events. If only we’d faced the clear fact of his incompetence that terrible day, we might have avoided a lot of other disasters.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:27 pm 89. sambo hux:

Aleks:

First you say this:
“When terrorists attack again, and they have not given up their dreams to kill us infidels despite what collectivist dipshits like you claim, your side can try to blame Bush, but everyone will have no way to avoid what changed and let it happen.”

Then you say this:
””When we are attacked it will be the terrorist’s fault just like it was on 9-11.”

See the problem here?

Then it’s: “We do know which side stood up and fought them and which side thinks grabbing your ankles is the way to appease them. That’s why people like you get their panties in a bunch about those that fight back.”

Far as I know the country was united in taking the fight to Afghanistan. Left and right alike. It wasn’t Republicans who stood up alone. (Pat Tillman – but I digress.) It was everybody. Unfortunately we squandered that unity and moral high ground when we attacked a sovereign nation who had nothing to do with 9/11. Don’t tkae my word for it . . . Reporter: “President Bush what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?” Bush: “Nothing.”

And nobody I know cares if America is “loved” or not. We just want America to be respected. Will everyone respect us? No. Will more people respect us now? Yes. Is that a good thing? Yes.

Honestly, this “grabbing the ankles” image is uniquely embraced by conservatives, Rush being the godfather of the ankle grabbing reference. What is it about that phrase you love so?

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:52 pm 90. Patrick Chester:

Yep, it’s “repeat the lies” night for the BDS crowd.

Feb 3, 2009 - 1:09 am 91. AlexinCT:

Sambo, the only problem I see is you making up more crap. There was no unity when we went to Afghanistan. The hard left, the people currently in charge, were blaming America and American policies for 9-11 minutes after it happened. They agonized why it could not have been Clinton in the WH so he could show how great he was. They took to the streets to protest, not the terrorist, but America a day or two after. And the conspiracy therories of how the attacks where done by our own government did not take much longer to start making the rounds. But you can keep pretending your side was all into going to Afghanistan and only felt Bush led us astray when he went to Iraq if it helps you sleep. I know better. I saw it up close & personal. And the rest of the tripe in your post makes it obvious you are just mouthing off in the hopes for some reaction, so I am done with you.

Feb 3, 2009 - 3:16 am 92. Valerie:

Oh, I remember the run-up to both Afghanistan and Iraq, and I remember the consensus that drove both. Sure there were a few leftists like Ward Churchill mouthing off, but everybody in a responsible position, including our Democrats in high public office, was pushing for military action. The strings of quotes and video clips have circulated on the Internet ever since. And I remember watching our Democrats in high public office decide to turn on our President and use the invasion of Iraq as a means to secure the White House. It turns out that Tom Daschle had a lot to do with that. Yes, that Tom Daschle. I remember the Democratic Party leadership turning support for the effort in Iraq into a litmus test, their attempts to punish Hillary and Joe out of the party over it.

And I remember John F’n Kerry giving the nod, nod, wink, wink encouragement to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, asking for more violence to influence the election.

The Democratic leadership has our soldiers’ blood on its hands.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:04 am 93. Terry Gain:

“Far as I know the country was united in taking the fight to Afghanistan. Left and right alike. It wasn’t Republicans who stood up alone. (Pat Tillman – but I digress.) It was everybody. Unfortunately we squandered that unity and moral high ground when we attacked a sovereign nation who had nothing to do with 9/11. Don’t tkae my word for it . . . Reporter: “President Bush what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?” Bush: “Nothin” sambo hux

–

But Iraq had everything to do with financing, training and harborng terrorists and attacking American “no fly zone” planes throughout the 12 year ceasefire.

Nothing was squandered. Al Qaeda fled to Pakistan. Bush rightly decided not to invade an ally (albeit quixotic) and stir up the Islamists in Pakistan. When al Qaeda sent volunteers to Iraq to derail that nascent democracy leftists like sambo hux screamed for the United States to leave Iraq. Instead, the United States stayed and fought al Qaeda. They were joined by Iraqis, some of whom switched sides when they experienced the evil esssence of al Qaeda first hand. The Surge targeted al Qaeda and peace broke out.

If leftists had had their way al Qaeda would have a sanctuary in oil rich Iraq rather than in caves in the Hindu Kush. And Iraq today, rather than being a democracy which fights terrorists would be in chaos.

Given these facts one would think leftists would find something else to talk about.

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:55 am 94. Sara123:

President Bush’s major problem was not being able to speak and avoiding that weakness. He should have raised public heck about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack which he too quietly expressed worry over and was easily dismissed by Congressional Democrats (Barney Frank).

He should have fought the left’s lie that he lied about Iraq and attacked them back and nut cases. He should have shared with the public foiled terror plots and intellegence gained from Al Queda in Iraq versus what we began with – next to nothing. He should have gone after the leakers in the CIA. He should have put the Wilsons in their place and declassified and exposed Joe’s lies about his African yellow cake report. The mainstream media was overtly biased and he and his surrogates should have gone on their shows and made fun of them.

He stayed silent and permitted the hysterical Left to shape his image and debase him as a man. He wouldn’t fight back under the illusion or excuse it is not proper for the president to engage in political “fighting.”

Feb 3, 2009 - 6:41 am 95. davod:

“… we have witnessed democratic elections in Iraq and Palestine; the institution of parliaments in Qatar and Bahrain; municipal elections in Saudi Arabia; Shura (Consultation) Council elections in Oman; increased allowances for opposition parties in Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia; a royal decree granting women rights in Morocco; and the renunciation of terrorism by Libya — to name but a few developments. As George said back in March 2005, “the trend is clear. In the Middle East and throughout the world, freedom is on the march.”

With Obama’s embrace of all things Islamic will we see a move backwards?

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:56 am 96. Terry Gain:

Bravo Sara123!

In addition to not protecting the southern border Bush’s failings were mainly in the area of communications and politics. On the other hand, Democratic successes were entirely in the area of comminications and politics.

Feb 3, 2009 - 9:44 am 97. Gary in NYC:

As I see it, this is an attempt at forgiveness. I can appreciate what you’re trying to do, but unfortunately there is a crime standing in the way. It’s hard to accept that, isn’t it? How could a leader of our free nation commit a crime? Oh how short the memories are. There was once a president that exclaimed “I am not a crook.” And yet he was. And he was pardoned. Are you trying to pardon this man as well? But you see, his crime is far more severe. It is one thing to abuse your power for personal gain… it is another when that abuse costs the lives of thousands.

There is documented proof that the Bush administration sought to tie the attacks of 9/11 to Iraq. Actually, even prior to 9/11, Bush and Cheney (along with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) were looking for any threads of chance for an excuse to invade Iraq. When 9/11 took place, one of the foremost things considered was to find a way to take anything, ANYTHING that might suggest a connection of Iraq to 9/11 and then use that as a means to get into Iraq. Afghanistan was the logical place to go, albeit a bit late… and when the war was proving unproductive, the US sought out international intelligence agencies and pleaded for them to find any kind of WMD’s or 9/11 connection with Iraq.

Yes, it’s great to hear that there are elections going on in Iraq. But just how gullible are you to believe that this is really progress? Do you know how heavily propped up this activity is by the USA? Do you realize that once we leave, things will decay? There are fundamental issues with the nation of Iraq. You don’t sweep away in just a few years the severe tensions that have existed between the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds for hundreds of years. WE DID NOT BELONG IN IRAQ. And over a hundred thousand Iraqi lives were sacrificed for our intrusion. I’m sorry, but the ends does not justify the means. And of course, you do realize that the main intention of going there in the first place is OIL. American oil companies are controlling the oil fields of Iraq. They are overseeing a council on how that oil is handled, too. How convenient.

So, having filled in the back story, I am rather insulted that Bush has been compared to Truman. There is NO COMPARISON. Truman ended an enormous war. Bush illegally started one. Our president failed us on the highest order. His staff removed accountability and oversight from financial systems and pursued a misguided idea that “the free markets can manage themselves”. There is ALWAYS government oversight required. This is the 21st century. Human beings, when left to their own devices, will be selfish and commit crimes. We’ve seen Ivy League graduates of respected backgrounds commit financial crimes that have ruined the lives of millions. The human being needs governance. Yes, we don’t want BIG government that will oppress us. But we need enough government to keep people in line. But the Bush administration eroded all of that.

I will not stand by and watch a man be glorified for enduring the hardships he has created and put our nation through. Bush left let office with one of the worst presidential ratings in history. And for good reason. Good riddance.

Feb 3, 2009 - 1:45 pm 98. AlexinCT:

Gary in NYC please get off the drugs. That documented proof of yours is just the usual crap concocted by leftist twits with a political agenda. Do you for a moment doubt that if there was such “proof” of war cirmes that Bush would not already have been impeached by the rabid & insane lunatic collectivists in Congress? Or are you saying they all know and are just going along for some reason or another? I am insulted you come here and spout the same BDS bull. And speaking about hardships: get ready to go through some real hardship now that the left is in power.

History will vindicate Bush and his actions to take the fight against the Jihadis to their own sandbox. Just like it did Ronald Reagan and his vision of the USSR. People like you tried to belittle what Reagan did as well when his presidency ended only to have history slap you in the face a cuple of years later with the facts (please do not start posting about how Reagan’s policies were not the reason the USSR imploded or we will really start making fun of you). The same will happen for president Bush. And watch Obama do the same things Bush did, only now suddenly the people that used to rip out their hair and tear their clothes in anger when Bush did it will be making excuses for him, unless he wants to see Americans die again.

As for government/Obama keeping people in line: I am sure Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, The Kims of North Korea, Hitler, Chavez, and even people like Saddam Hussein all agree with that point of view.

Feb 3, 2009 - 6:18 pm 99. Marc Malone:

#82 Bildo – Lessee, you voted for all three: Carter, Gore, Obama. Now you wish for Hubert Humphrey? When will you learn? Why not take a good, long look in the mirror? Perhaps you and those like you are the problem here? Just a suggestion.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:39 pm 100. Marc Malone:

#88 Shef Rogers – Hmm. How would you have responded if you had been POTUS on 9/11? You’re doing your thing, then you hear that the most horrific atrocity had just been committed? Shocked? Stunned? Horrified? That’s not deer in headlights: it’s just plain bewildered disbelief. Oh, the humanity! He understood what it meant in its entirety, and it was truly terrible. How foul of you to characterize his humanity as fecklessness.

Then he disappeared into his burrow? Um, he had a job to do, right? I mean, it was really his job to do and no one else’s, right? Please pardon him if he didn’t come right out and smile into the cameras. He was kinda busy, y’know, actually doing the job he was being paid to do. A few days later, he gave that great speech to Congress that calmed the nation. Notice how he didn’t stutter or ‘misconscrew’ things? That’s because he wrote that speech.

He does what he’s supposed to do, and you charge him with incompetence? Armchair General. Without the benefit of hindsight, what would you have done in that awful, awful moment? It’s easy to talk of these things, but to actually be on the hotseat? That’s another matter. Obama’s now finding that governing is tougher than campaigning. In a few months, you’ll be hearing from Obama about how he’s been getting some good advice from Bush.

Your hate for Bush is clouding your judgment.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:53 pm 101. Marc Malone:

To the writer, nice article. I can sum it up, “The definition of a Conservative is a Liberal who was mugged yesterday.” I congratulate you on recognizing that the U.S.A. got mugged on 9/11. Good for you.

Please, ignore the hecklers here who nitpick and say you didn’t do enough, blah, blah, blah. What you did was break out of your ideology and reassess. It was basically monumental. To me, it’s enough that you fixed YOU. You stopped being part of the problem, and that’s good enough for me.

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:00 pm 102. David S:

I am happy to say good bye to George W Bush, I just wish we could have sent him packing a few years earlier.

Anyone who changed their political stripes and abandoned the Constitution on 9/12/01 deserves their share of blame for the damage wrought by Bush&Co.

Hopefully GWB and America can achieve some closure with the help of a war crimes trial.

Bush had a great opportunity to do the right thing after 9/12/01, but instead he did the easy thing: the thing that he wanted to do anyway.

Bush gained the office through corruption, executed with corruption, and leaves the legacy of this corruption in his wake. It will be a long time before America can recover.

Peace.

DS

Feb 4, 2009 - 8:53 am 103. AlexinCT:

David S, I am sure that when Obama keeps all of the things you leftists claim Bush did that abandoned the Constitution, and adds a few of his own for good measure, you will be the first demanding his impeachment & incarceration right? Most of what Bush is accused of doing was common practice during the Clinton years, but then none of you had any problems with these policies. We can already see the excuse making as Obama plays with words and continues to do the same. Besides, liberals have pissed all over the Constitution for decades now, twisting its words, ignoring what they did not like and finding all kinds of things in it that are not there. And the Constitution is very clear on how to treat those that are at war with the people of the country it represents.

And let me correct a couple of the other lies in your post. Bush gained the office despite Al Gore and his army of lawyer’s attempt to steal the election in 2000. The legacy Bush leaves will be judged by history. The economic crisis we have now was a direct consequence of democrat PC policies and their takeover of Congress in 2006 despite all the lies to the contrary. If anything Bush’s big failure was not to stand up to these people and fight harder to stop them. As for America’s recovery taking a long time, the question begs to be asked if that is an indictment of the current people in charge and the fact they are one after another getting exposed as ideologues, tax cheats, and liars hell bent in expanding their power at all costs.

Stop writing checks your ideological ego ca not cash please.

Feb 4, 2009 - 9:49 am 104. David S:

@103. AlexinCT:

If Obama abuses the Constitution, he should be handled just like Bush should have been. Impeached, or barring that, tried in court for any criminal acts committed. Bush went far beyond Clinton, explicitly violating the law – he has admitted as much.

If you think the Left has been pissing on the Constitution, be specific. I happen to think both parties have made some mistakes, but that doesn’t mean Bush is blameless.

Bush gained the office because Supreme Court justices (appointed by his father) refused to allow the State of Florida to complete their election. Bush will be judged by history for his failures, from 9.11 to Iraq to our economy, all of his mistakes will be even more obvious in the bright light of history.

I say good riddance to bad rubbish.

Peace.

DS

Feb 4, 2009 - 12:16 pm 105. AlexinCT:

David you either are an ignorant fool or a dangerous propagandist. Want specific? The left has expanded the power of government beyond anything the Constitution allows. And before you claim Bush also did the same, know that I think that with the exception of the GWoT Bush was a big government socialist himself. If he had had a (D) next to his name I guarantee you your side would have loved him. His crime was that (R) and eventually realizing that bi-partisan to your side means do what you want and finally moving beyond that.

And get your facts straight: do you really want us all to believe that if Bush really had stolen the 2000 election that the MSM and the democrats would have let it go? You aren’t going to tell me that these parasites that had no compunction and actively tried to make America lose the war in Iraq had some kind of good and noble reason to actually let Bush get away with stealing an election now are you? The US Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount, not to give Bush the win like you infantile leftists continue to lie about, but to prevent Al Gore and his army of lawyers and the completely and totally democrat owned Florida Supreme Court from breaking the laws of Florida stealing the election for Gore. Get the facts straight instead of getting the donkey talking points. Gore’s team was the one that wanted to not just cherry pick which counties would be counted and demanded different standards in each to favor Gore, but also went overboard to suppress the military absentee vote completely and utterly ignoring the law. Man you should be mocked because you have zero credibility and no facts to back up your DNC talking points.

The only bad rubbish I see here is what you try to pass off as truth in your posts. Pathetic is not enough to describe you.

Feb 4, 2009 - 2:45 pm 106. Staring In Disbelief:

I’d just like to say a thank you to all the posters who refute & dispute the morons like sambo hux, vivo, RV, jimmy and most recently David S. I am just flat out exhausted by their unbelievable idiocy and blindness and can’t even bring myself to finish reading their crap. Keep fighting the fact fight my brothers and sisters, I’ll try to come off the bench and help when I catch my breath!

Feb 4, 2009 - 2:57 pm 107. David S:

@105. AlexinCT:

Apparently you don’t understand what specific means. Or my objections to GWB. His crimes are too numerous to mention, but bankrupting our nation, illegal torture and spying, and lying us into war in Iraq are a good start. Again, if you identify a specific Democratic action that you don’t like – please share. “Expanded the power of government” is a bit too general.

I do want you to reflect on the fact that the legal process of vote counting in Florida was stopped, and the right of that State to count all the legal votes cast in the election was denied. The SCOTUS always gets the final word, and only because of the magnanimity of Gore was the MSM willing to stand down and let Bush steal the White House. Under any standard, the recount would have produced a win for Gore.

It’s too late for impeachment, but war crimes are forever.

Peace.

DS

Feb 4, 2009 - 4:15 pm 108. AlexinCT:

David @ 107 you seem to have a problem with reality and facts dude. First, our nation is on the way of being bankrupted because democrats in Congress accused anyone that tried to fix the disastrous lending policies that required banks to loan money to people that could not pay it back as racists. Couple that with a nearly trillion dollar package that does nothing but pay democrat operatives, lobbyists, and donors and expand the power and reach of government in a maneuver to help democrat collectivist cement their hold on government for decades, and you can see whom is really bankrupting the country. In case you did not notice, our economy was going fine until democrats won Congress in 2006 and then decided the only way they could win the WH in the 2008 election, with Iraq no longer being an issue, was to create a recession. Still that is not a crime as FDR which did a similar thing is being touted as a great here today for some reason.

Secondly, I already schooled you on your lies about Iraq in the other post about the president ‘s legacy, so stop repeating this idiotic lie in the hopes it might suddenly be taken seriously. If Iraq was an illegitimate war, because as you claim Congress did not declare war, then Clinton better be hauled in front of some court for Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, and Somalia. And Obama should join Bill for now fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Iraq too. You might need to move the goal posts or come up with some other talking point to justify your position that Iraq was illegal. Especially since the left these days says that they have no problem with our troops being in Afghanistan, which I should point out, Congress did not declare war against either.

Third. Spying and torture? I certainly do not want to be the Americans that die when the terrorists attack us again because we now have to wait for warrants to listen in to their conversations and can not get them to talk. Then again it looks like Obama is going to do what Clinton made standard practice: send captured prisoners to countries that torture to get the intel secretly so he can avoid the problems that come with bringing them to American soil. Of course the MSM stooges will not report on that now that it is their guy doing it again. And expect the level of spying to go up, not down. I am certain when that becomes clear, well if the MSM ever deigns to report the truth now that a democrat is doing it, you will do a 180 and suddenly see the wisdom in preventing these attacks.

Fourth. When I say expanded the power of government, I refer to the massive taxation for things that our Constitution clearly never gives the federal government responsibility for. The socialist crap that now accounts for the bulk of government spending. Look it up. I am starting to think you know exactly what I am talking about and are hoping to distract me from what we are really discussing because you are getting killed in this discussion.

Finally, you are full of crap and lying again about what happened in Florida. Gore is a deranged scumbag that tried to steal the election, and this country was lucky he was not successful. If you are inclined to believe in a higher being the fact that Gore did not succeed and was not president when 9-11 happened is proof of that. If not believe that the universe simply spared us from hell. There was no magnanimity on Gore’s part and the MSM tried for months to get the story that Gore won. In fact even the NYT had to admit that the only way any recount would give Gore a win would have involved some highly dubious, irregular, and likely illegal manipulations of the votes. Look it up and then shut up and stop spreading these lies. It makes you look petty.

Oh yeah, if war crimes are forever, and all wars that Congress did not declare are illegal, I am waiting for every president since Kennedy to be dragged into court on war crimes. Of course, you and I both know that the only war crimes are those by people like you that undermined our country and troops during a time of war. And BTW the Constitution was clear on what to do with those people. I am sad to see collectivists have so soiled the constitution that we can not even deal with them properly.

Have a nice day.

Feb 4, 2009 - 7:14 pm 109. David S:

@108. AlexinCT:

The fact that you think our economy was fine until 2007 speaks volumes. That you further compound this error by blaming FDR for the massive recession under Hoover is laughable.

I will defer to the Justice Department and the international community to decide if Bush’s crimes are triable. There is plenty of evidence, but the world does have to move on to dealing with the fallout of his failures.

Regardless of who is in office, violating the Constitution is impeachable.

Again, you don’t even name one government program that you object to as an expanded power of government. I’m not your momma and I don’t read minds. If you want to decry government over-reaching, describe it. You want to axe social security? Want to cancel SCHIP? Dump the farm bill? Tear down the border fence? Disband the standing army?

You have the nerve to say you schooled me, when you offer nothing in the way of evidence but your own hot air.

Good luck dragging Johnson and Nixon into court for their trials.

Your idea of what it means to be an American is like a Fascist wet dream. That you have the gumption to blame the left for the current state of the Constitution, only proves that you don’t understand what has been going on since 9/11. Enjoy your kool-aid, comrade.

Peace.

DS

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:48 am 110. AlexinCT:

DavidS @ 109. You are full of it if you try to claim it was obvious that the economy was bad before the housing collapse that came in 2008. The underlying symptoms might have been there but the democrats like Frank and Dodd did a dandy job of hiding the fact Fannie & Freddie where on the verge of collapse. And I did not blame FDR for the Hoover depression. I blamed the way FDR used the power of government to expand the power of government for the effects of the recession lasting until WW2. Had FDR not done his pork projects the economy would have recovered much faster. Go read up on it. The facts are out there.

Yeah sure. You will defer to the justice department and the international community (I am sure you mean anti-American groups like ANSWER when you say that). Put down the bong buddy. They will do nothing because Obama will make sure of that. He after all has to fight the GWoT, and knows that all this bull the left has been saying about Bush was just bull to help him win the WH. He is not interested in setting the president where US presidents can be hauled into court whenever anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro-communist forces cry foul.

The only constitutionally allowed program you mentioned is the standing army. The rest you are correct are all against the constitution. You where able to figure them out just fine but you are just deflecting because you where schooled on your little war crimes tantrum. I repeat: you where schooled. You can drop this attempt to distract us from the conversation here already. It will not work.

Your comment about Johnson and Nixon only serve to make my point David: you have no clue what constitutes a war crime. Unless you can find orders from the WH that told our troops to murder innocents because of maybe race or religion, set up concentration camps (real ones mind you, not that vacation spot in Gitmo), mandating (no not 2 guys going out) genocide, or explicitly telling our troops to violate the Geneva Convention and deny the UNIFORMED combatants they are fighting those rights, you are dishonoring and belittling the victims of real war crimes.

Ooh you scored big points by calling me a fascist! How will I sleep now? BTW Fascism is a collectivist ideology. The fathers of Fascism, Mussolini and Hitler, where socialists. I know the left has been trying hard to rewrite history and claim Hitler was on the right, but the facts do not bear that. And just for the record I am no socialist or collectivist of any kind. And save that term of endearment of yours, “comrade”, for your fellow leftist please. As for the kool-aid, nobody has drank more of it than people like you. The fact remains that you suffer from BDS and your incapable of either logic or factual thinking, and you have shown it. And my idea of what it means to be an American is real simple: you do not hate your country and undermine it, especially when it is at war, when the guy in the WH is not of the ideological bend you like, as your kind did with Bush. I know exactly what has been going on since 9-11. America was finally made aware that these people are at war with it regardless of the fact that we may not want to be at war. Remember, when the next attack happens and Americans die people like you will be the ones that helped the enemy score that hit.

Feb 5, 2009 - 4:06 am 111. Phil:

A couple of rebuttals to some of the “trolls”:

Believe it was Sambo carrying on about how everyone was behind the invasion of Afghanistan. Anyone else remember all the democrats (media included) calling it a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam?

Can’t remember offhand who was carrying on about how Cheney and Bush were looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. Is this person not aware that removing Saddam was the federal government’s policy dating back to Clinton’s terms? Not to mention the myriad violations of the ceasefire, and the violations of myriad UN resolutions.

And finally, as to the dimwits talk of international “respect” and such for the USA, what’s all this about Iran rebuffing Obamalamadingdong, India saying that Obamacorn is “organizing” up the wrong tree in regards to Kashmir, the EU threatening a trade war over the Buy American provisions in the “95% of americans will see a tax INCREASE” as a result of the intergenerational theft act of 2009?

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:45 am 112. ex-Democrat:

I have the same story.

I voted for Al Gore and laughed at all the BooshChimp cartoons in the Washington comPost.

On 9/11/2001 I was an American who fully supported taking the fight to the terrorists, when “my” Dem “leaders” decided they would throw America under the bus in order to “not give George Bush a win.” Thus began the Dhimms’ undermining of Bush and our troops.

I had enough of these traitors.

Washington comPost subscription long-canceled (what a great feeling) and “Dem” moniker tossed to the ground.

I loathe the socialist Dems now. Loathe.

If anarchy comes, Bill Ayers is mine.

Let’s roll.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:22 am 113. Gary in NYC:

AlexinCT @ 98.

Wow. You really love to sling those labels, don’t you. You don’t even know me and call me a leftist anyway, just because I’m not feeling all warm and fuzzy like you about Mr. Bush.

There are multiple witnesses to what the Bush administration did. The trouble is, the plan was cleverly crafted with ambiguous accountability. Having the British as the supposed source of intelligence, it absolves the US from responsibility. Facts should have been checked. They weren’t. Oops, we made a mistake. Then someone speaks up… and so the retribution was to expose the covert position of his CIA agent wife. A nice little distraction. The leak was traced back to the White House… and Scooter Libby was the fall guy. The layers of protection abound… no way to penetrate without tearing up every carpet, knocking down every wall… which would be painful enough to incite significant public upheaval.

History did not vindicate Reagan… the Republicans did. Are you one of those people that believe just because Reagan stood on that podium and said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” that the wall came down as a result? Bull. It was already crumbling. The USSR was crushed by financial means. We outspent them via the military machine. It was no clever feat. Reagan caused us significant economic problems. So significant, that George H. Bush spent most of his presidency trying to recover from it. And he did, only to usher in Clinton to take the credit. Don’t forget that Reagan was also responsible for repealing EPA restrictions that allowed American auto manufacturers to relax… and gear up to build the SUV monstrosities that flourished on our roads until the next gas crisis. Reagan was no hero. He wasn’t the worst, but certainly not so great as to hoist up in glory.

Facts are facts. I will not stand up and say Bush did nothing right. He did hold our country together after 9/11. He did… hmmmm… well, I’m sure he did a few other good things, but I can’t remember them. That’s because of all the negatives standing in the way. He caused America to drop significantly in the world standing, mucked with the Middle East where we had no business being, and caused enough shrinkage of financial oversight and accountability to allow an economic bubble build up far worse than the tech boom of the 1990’s, exploding in our faces and reverberating across the globe to affect everyone else. It was a matter of coincidence on his watch. There is far too much to identify than would fit on these pages. The HISTORY will speak for itself.

Feb 5, 2009 - 4:40 pm 114. AlexinCT:

Gary in NYC @ 113.

What? You aren’t going to break down and tell us you also believe the administration was behind 9-11 so they could then go into Iraq? Please! Bush was a socialist. About the only things he did right BTW where his tax cuts and the GWoT. Period! He did not fix SS, let Congress spend like it was owned by democrats, tried too hard to work with people that backstabbed him at every opportunity, and never fought back the avalanche of lies from the left like he should have. Compassionate conservatism was a giant socialist dud. Bush was a colossal disaster on the local front, but he was a absolute genius in recognizing the way the world changed after 9-11 and took action to stop them from killing more of us. And yet idiots like you only want to talk about Iraq, one of the few things he did actually get right, and claim that was bad or wrong. Morons the lot of you.

And no, Reagan telling Gorbachev to tear down the wall is not why the USSR imploded. It imploded because Reagan made people see the USSR was evil and needed to be opposed. And for a change he worked hard and gave us a military advantage that would prevent the USSR from taking over the world as it was planning to do. The USSR which had been so close to making us all plant potatoes for them with an idiot like Carter in the WH, collapsed of its own weight trying to keep up. And if you can not even admit Reagan was right about the USSR, we are done man. I do not like wasting time correcting idiots.

Don’t worry man, history will speak despite your liberal attempt to already write it. The terrorists will not go away because Barack won the WH. In fact my bet is they will attack us soon and kill thousands of Americans. And then people will pine for the Bush days. Of curse I expect you to blame Bush, America, and our being in Iraq for that. Go back to your bong.

Feb 5, 2009 - 4:58 pm 115. David S:

@110. AlexinCT:

The economy was obviously in trouble back in 2005. What fantasy land are you living in?

Had FDR not done his pork projects the economy would have recovered much faster. Go read up on it. The facts are out there.

You are claiming that there are facts to support a hypothetical situation, but you can’t cite any. The fact is that America has benefitted greatly from the policies of FDR. The three Republican Presidents before him dug a very big hole, much like the three before Obama have. Blaming the clean-up crew is just pathetic. Democrats always end up cleaning up the excesses of Republicans.

I think the one dishonoring our nation and the victims of war crimes is the one that refuses to prosecute, or denies that war crimes happened despite clear evidence. Our government has illegally detained, tortured, raped and killed. Don’t even try to lecture me on war crimes. You have no credibility.

Fighting the crimes of our government is the most patriotic activity an American can engage in.

Peace.

DS

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:49 pm 116. vivo:

114. AlexinCT:

No one will convince you of anything you don’t want to believe in.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:59 pm 117. LAR:

David #115

President Bush tried to get the Democrats in Congress to fix Fannie and Freddie in 2003. He tried to overhaul Social Security in the same term. We are electing people who like to spend us into ruin, namely Democrats, who are so ethically challenged that they cannot correct the institutions that grease their campaign wheels with lots of money. That includes Dear Barry, who got over $100,000 for campaign money from FANNIE or FREDDIE.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:06 pm 118. David S:

@117. L(i)ar:

Congress was Republican in 2003. If Bush had his way, social security would now need a bailout.

The party spending us into ruin since 1981 is the GOP.

Are there any honest Conservatives here?

Peace.

DS

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:26 pm 119. AlexinCT:

David S @ 115. Damn you are lazy, so here you go. And here is another. Google “David S @ 115. Damn you are lazy, so here you go. And here is another. Google “FDR prolonged the recession” the list brings back over 179,000 hits. No proof whatsoever huh? Everything I have said can be found easily.

And did you type the crap about democrats cleaning up the excesses of republicans with as straight face? Can I ask you to give me some examples of that please? I Googled that and all I got was Clinton blow job jokes & legal suits, stuff making fun of the Carter economy, and stuff about Johnson and Vietnam. I quit after that because I could not take all that laughing anymore.

vivo @116 Especially when they are using DNC talking points and falsehoods to try and convince me otherwise vivo. Facts are facts. Logic works. Lies however, turn me off. In fact they piss me off.

LAR @117. Don’t go there. You will never get these idiots to admit that democrats caused this current economic crisis, both to win the election and to fool people into accepting devastating government take-over of our economy after the fact, ever. Take a look at that trillion dollar payoff to democrat lobbyists, operatives, and donors they are passing off as a stimulus bill, and you will see what I mean. You are committing heresy.
FDR prolonged the recession” the list brings back over 179,000 hits. No proof whatsoever huh?

And did you type the crap about democrats cleaning up the excesses of republicans with as straight face? Can I ask you to give me some examples of that please? I Googled that and all I got was Clinton blow job jokes & legal suits, stuff making fun of the Carter economy, and stuff about Johnson and Vietnam. I quit after that because I could not take all that laughing anymore.

vivo @116 Especially when they are using DNC talking points and falsehoods to try and convince me otherwise vivo. Facts are facts. Logic works. Lies however, turn me off. In fact they piss me off.

LAR @117. Don’t go there. You will never get these idiots to admit that democrats caused this current economic crisis, both to win the election and to fool people into accepting devastating government take-over of our economy after the fact, ever. Take a look at that trillion dollar payoff to democrat lobbyists, operatives, and donors they are passing off as a stimulus bill, and you will see what I mean. You are committing her

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:34 pm 120. Oakley:

Bush was and is a humble man. I disagreed with him on immigration thought he allowed too much spending. But he did what the President is charged to do in the Constitution, he kept us safe.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:48 pm 121. AlexinCT:

Read them and weep. Even freaking NPR thinks this thing is bad. There is a reason for the urgency, and it is not the economy.

Have fun jharp!

Feb 6, 2009 - 10:38 am 122. David S:

@119. AlexinCT:

From David Sirota: As Newsweek’s Daniel Gross reports, “One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression.”

But that’s the critical point I somehow forgot last week—the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they’re not making any arguments that are remotely serious.

From Paul Krugman: People who assert that New Deal support for wages made the Depression much worse aren’t thinking it through.

“And did you type the crap about democrats cleaning up the excesses of republicans with as straight face? Can I ask you to give me some examples of that please?”

Actually, I was smiling a little bit. It’s just too easy shooting fish in a barrel.

Harding, Coolidge and Hoover created the Great Depression, cleanup crew was FDR.

Nixon-Ford created the stagflation of the 1970’s, cleanup crew was Carter.

Reagan/Bush created a massive federal deficit, cleanup crew was Clinton.

Bush II created a massive recession and federal debt, cleanup crew is Obama.

“Lies however, turn me off. In fact they piss me off.”

Isn’t self-loathing fun? Don’t get too upset with yourself. If you need me to spell it out in greater detail, you’ll have to wait for the book.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 10:40 am 123. AlexinCT:

Hey David S @ 122. For every David Sirasota you produce I can produce some other economist that will disagree with him. The fact is that bigger government & increased government spending could not jump start the economy then and it will not do so now. It was not until WW2 rolled around and government let our industry cut loose that things changed. It was not the support for wages that caused the depression to drag on: it was the fact FDR though increasing government and government spending would jolt the economy. It did nothing of the sort. And David, I BTW I see nothing in this payoff to democrats that they are trying to fool us into thinking is a stimulus bill, that does anything to wages. It is massive pork, all meant to expand socialism, with a few things sprinkled here or there that might cause an insignificant spike. And as usual Krugman does a hackjob, but you linking to it is irrelvant because the current pork laden bill is doing nothing like that.

I lived through the Carter years and know better. If you can type such a huge lie down without any worry, then nothing in the world will shame you into stopping your lies. Same applies to claiming Clinton did anything. Until republicans took over Congress Clinton was heading for a disaster. Let’s wait and see how well Obama does “fixing” the disaster democrats created. I am sure you will claim that wa sa cleanup as well.

Not sure if you where trying to be comedic with that last comment about self loathing or projecting. I hope it is the later, because if it was an attempt at humor at my expense, I am afraid it fell flat. Very flat considering the source.

Feb 6, 2009 - 11:49 am 124. David S:

@123. AlexinCT:

You are welcome to argue with history as long as you like. Government has a successful track record of using spending to bolster the economy. This bill includes provisions to pay prevailing wages, which will raise wage levels in general. Repairing infrastructure that has been neglected for 28 years will just be the start of the productive stimulus.

Your claim that you “know better” is hardly convincing evidence. You will keep trying to blame the Democrats for Republican failures. I just hope that the GOP is wise enough to contribute something positive, rather than insisting on obstruction. We need a viable minority party.

I guess that it’s not lies that piss you off, just people who refuse to accept yours. Got it.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 1:47 pm 125. AlexinCT:

David S @ 124. No Dave. I keep having to correct your lies about how Bush broke the economy when the real culprits are democrats. Again. The underlying reason we are in a recession is the collapse of the multiple financial scams created by Freddie & Fannie to shuffle around the toxic and highly risky government mandated loans. Bush if anything tried to stop this stuff and got called a racist for it. Republicans should be blame for not doing enough to expose these scams and for later throwing money at it. As long as you continue to pretend otherwise your credibility is what is suspect. Not mine.

Let’s make a bet. I say this bill will stimulate nothing and, like Obama already warned, keep the economy in a slump for at least the next 5 years. You are under the illusion it will not. You accuse me of lying when I point out this bill is pork and little if any stimulus. I am sure you will be acknowledging I was right when the economy does not get better. If this bill actually works, I will be glad to give you your kudos. Just a side note. I am not worried at all that I will be proven wrong.

Feb 6, 2009 - 3:10 pm 126. David S:

@125. AlexinCT:

Republicans should be blame[d] for not doing enough to expose these scams and later throwing money at it.

I agree. That is what I am arguing. The GOP needs to be held accountable for not enforcing the law. Bush&Co are culpable for spending $350 Billion without getting any receipts.

I’m glad you are not worried. I will be looking forward to my kudos – how does Obama 2012 sound? Care to vote based on results?

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 3:37 pm 127. AlexinCT:

David S @ 126. I wonder if why you are so gung ho about the $350 billion the republicans wasted, but not the nearly as perturbed about the close to $1 trillion that the democrats are about to hand over to their buddies, lobbyists, operatives, and donors. You do understand how that sort of makes it look like you’re not really being completely honest, let alone fair, with your lavish denouncements?

If Obama can pull the economy out of the dolldrums and not collapse our government with this money printing scam that simply transfers a lot of tax payer money to democrat pet projects I will be glad to vote for him. He will be the first person ever to make this stuff work. Like I said before: I am not worried at all about my prediciton he will fail, and fail miserably.

Feb 6, 2009 - 4:01 pm 128. David S:

@127. AlexinCT:

At least the Democrats have a plan for how to spend the money. I think I’m being fair and honest enough for any reasonable person when I say I prefer that.

I look forward to working with you on the Obama re-election campaign in 2012.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 4:14 pm 129. AlexinCT:

David S @ 128. Well David maybe it is fair and honest, but I would certainly not try to make it out that because the democrats have a plan, they are doing better. Frankly if my choice is between the “plan” the democrats have and anything else, I pick anything else. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Plot, and even Hitler, just to name a few people, all had plans too. And if this “plan” was such a great idea wouldn’t it be a lot more popular and less problematic?

Flushing away $1 trillion, even with a “plan”, is worse in my book than flushing away $350 billion, any day. Especially when the “plan” is being sold as a stimulus, but stimulates nothing, and uses tax payer money to pay off donors, lobbyists, operatives, and buddies. All in order for democrats to expand their grip on government. You think they will blame Bush, claim they have a “plan” again, then spend $ 2 trillion of tax payer money next year when things are still bad?

Yeah keep dreaming about me helping at that re-electon campaign. At this rate Obama might not make it to the mid term elections, that is if he doesn’t just decide elections are a thing of the past, bud.

Feb 7, 2009 - 7:05 am 130. David S:

@129. AlexinCT:

We had “anything else” for eight years. That’s how we got here. Bush couldn’t plan his way out of a paper sack.

Peace.

DS

Feb 7, 2009 - 6:07 pm 131. AlexinCT:

David S @ 130 No David, what we had was democrats undermining everything for 8 years. You can pretend there where no plans, but doing so only proves you’re not arguing in good faith at all. Just because you did not agree with or like the plans does not mean there was no planning. Also, while things where not even close to being perfect, everything, and especially the economy, was humming along until 2006. Remember what changed then? I am relishing the opportunity for some pay back. If the republicans give democrats 10% of the trash they took, the democrats will implode. The most important thing to remember is that Bush however did prevent another 9-11 from happening. Now it is Obama’s turn. Wonder if you will claim Obama doing the same things as Bush, or even worse, is also “everything else”?

Let me remind you that Bush is also no longer president. Democrats can keep blaming Bush, but sooner than later people will see things are getting worse, and that excuse will no longer fly. The fact is democrats are in charge of everything now, and plan or not, they have done more damage in 3 weeks than Bush did in the last 8 years. Go back and re-read my comment about those famous people with big plans in post 129.

Continue to knock Bush if it helps your fragile ego and lacking intellect deal with the fact you could not steal power in 2000. Heck, your side got so deranged they blamed the man for natural disasters and every cookie conspiracy possible! Remember that the blame Bush meme and spread socialism plan needs to produce results. When it produces anything but a stimulus, you can not blame Bush or republicans for it. Well not with any credibility. Reality has a funny way of intruding on leftist fantasies…

Peace indeed.

Feb 8, 2009 - 8:35 am 132. David S:

@131. AlexinCT:

The economy was not “humming along” until 2006. The economy was weak during the entire Bush presidency. Negative income growth and negative job creation are the legacy of Republican policies. It was clear that we were in for trouble as far back as 2004-2005, when the subprime mortgage industry was being ignored by Bush&Co, and ballooning. Well before the Democrats won their majority.

You don’t have to remind me that Bush is no longer President – that’s the topic of the article, Alex. Democrats are not the only ones blaming Bush – most of the world realizes that his lack of effective leadership helped to get us into the mess we face today. Blaming Obama for the failures he was elected to fix is just idiotic – nobody but dittoheads will buy that BS. Keep pushing your Big Lie, but only the faithful GOP minions are buying it.

Knocking Bush has nothing to do with my ego or intellect – it has to do with accurate history. Much as the GOP has worked very hard to burnish the legacy of Reagan, ignoring the destruction wrought by his administration, so will the GOP attempt to Lionize Bush. Nobody blames Bush for natural disasters – you can set up as many strawmen as you like, but the fact is Bush was bad for the USA, and bad for the world. We are all quite happy to see him go.

The important thing to remember is that Republican administrations will lie, cheat and steal from the American people, regardless of the long-term consequences, and hold the Constitution in such low regard, it might as well be toilet paper. That’s no way to run a Republic.

Peace.

DS

Feb 8, 2009 - 1:04 pm 133. AlexinCT:

Oh Oh David S. Is this more of the “anything else” plan you accuse Bush of? Guess the change we are getting is just a matter of whom gets to screw us people. Republlicans squander $350 billion. Democrats now stand to do another $350 billion plus some more that in the end will add up to another $1 trillion in debt. What a plan man.

Feb 8, 2009 - 2:49 pm 134. David S:

@133. AlexinCT:

Your citation speaks volumes about your news sources, and your inability to understand them.

According to your source, Obama will be able to make markets rebound with TARP 2.

I wonder why Bush couldn’t manage that with TARP 1?

Your comments on the debt are also quite hilarious. GWB presided over the largest increase in the federal debt ever. Now all of a sudden you are worried about one more trillion, on top the ten trillion that GWB left behind? At least Obama plans to invest the money in something with long term value, rather than a military adventure in Iraq.

This is why communicating with you is mostly a waste of time. You aren’t looking at the big picture.

Peace.

DS

Feb 8, 2009 - 3:30 pm 135. AlexinCT:

David S @ 134 Funny that. My point was that Obama was hiding how the money would be shelled out. Wonder how they can know that something that is not clear will have any kind of result. And please link me that 10 trillion number of yours. I can not seem to find any statistics to confirm any of it. Bush did preside over the fastest growth indeed, but Obama is about to make it look like chump change. Except, people like you love to complain about when Bush did it. Then with a straight face tell us that Obama doing 10 times worse however is not just good, but an investment?

Are you talking about stuff like this? Investment indeed! And the bulk of the spending is crap like this that will stimulate absolutely nothing. There is a reason dthey need to pass this bill in a hurry, and it is not any kind of investment.

Your line about the military adventure in Iraq proves my original point about the BDS too. Remember that our Constitution allows the government to collect money for defense, not for those investments you are so proud of. I loved that line about the big picture too. I looked at the big picture and I dismissed it as nothing but a massive collectivist power grab that will destroy the country.

Again, Bush made some real bad mistakes when it came to government spending. Then again, on most things but national security Bush was a big government socialist (which is why I laugh when you claim what he was doing was bad) so what did you expect? You foam at the mouth and declare Bush a failure for this stuff. Yet, Obama & the democrats are about to make what Bush did look tame. And here you are trying to tell me I am not seeing “the big picture”, and why this time it will be better.

Man you libs crack me up. Sorry that I am not willing to drink the kool-aid man, but having seen 7 experienced the evils of collectivism first hand you will just never sell me on it. This stuff always bombs, and bombs badly. Ask the Chinese why they adopted abandoned the socialist economic model for capitalism and see what they tell you.

Feb 8, 2009 - 7:17 pm 136. David S:

@135. AlexinCT:

please link me that 10 trillion number of yours. I can not seem to find any statistics to confirm any of it.

$10,729,000,000,000+ and counting. Also, notice that the largest deficit ever was just last fiscal year. Bush added about $4 trillion of this debt during his term as President. The difference being that the Democrats have the good sense to raise taxes and pay the debt off as well, once the economy is functional. Tax and spend always is better than borrow and spend in the long run. But right now, a little more debt is needed to get the ball rolling again – and yes, much of it will be an investment.

Bush was a terrible steward, and certainly no leader. Even on defense Bush was a big government guy, but more of a fascist than a socialist, what with the no-bid contracts and such. His administration also ignored the Constitution and Bill of Rights on a regular basis. If Obama tries to do the same, I will give him the same treatment. Giving up our rights has not made us safer – it is a violation of our founding principles. Bush has bowed to the mullahs by turning the US into a police state – by attacking Iraq, we proved ourselves no better than Iraq was when attacking Kuwait. We are just another temporary dictator, from the perspective of the Arabs.

The Chinese have created a powerful hybrid economy, and given recent events on Wall Street, our model seems to be converging with theirs. The government has the controlling share in most companies; though they are run by businessmen on a day-to-day basis, the government still helps to regulate, plan and coordinate their activity. The Chinese have not so much abandoned the socialist model as adapted the power of the free market to help drive their collectivist system. This has the added benefit of making non-Chinese companies more willing to invest in building their economy and manufacturing capacity, because we think of their economy as a “free market”. It most decidedly is not one.

I wish Obama the best of luck in cleaning up the mess he has inherited. He’s going to need all the help he can get, too.

Peace.

DS

Feb 8, 2009 - 10:17 pm 137. AlexinCT:

David S @ 136. Damn, packed every talking point in that post huh? Are you for real? You want to blame Bush for the entire national debt? Was there no debt before him? Where do you get that $4 billion and whose web site is this? See what I mean about your suspect credibility? Democrats will raise taxes AND spend more. That’s what they have done historically. The only time the debt was paid off seriously was when republicans, the real ones not the blue blood crowd we have today, ran Congress during the Clinton years. Funny how you credit the democrats for someone else’s work again.

Bush may not have been a great leader or steward, but Obama has proven to be worse already. And do you have any clue what fascism is? Fascism is just another branch of socialism. However you make yourself out to be either a liar or uneducated by claiming Bush was a fascist. Claiming he is a fascist because he did what the people that elected him wanted, and not what the opposition wants, is worthy of ridicule.

You do know that every democrat, and even Obama has already done so, also given out those evil no-bid contracts? And as I have often wrote, please provide me with tangible prove of what rights you lost during the Bush years. None of that Patriot Act is evil crap please. I want to hear how American citizens where dragged to concentration camps. Let’s say for pointing out how much of a fascist Bush was. Obama is now playing word games and doing exactly the same things Bush did. In fact he will soon give government more power. And yet, you try to tell me with a serious face that Bush was evil and Obama is a savior?

Oh David, leave it to you to miss out on my point. China abandoned the socialist economic model and embrace capitalism because they figured out socialism does not work dude. Their government is still a brutal and dictatorial one that only uses capitalism to strengthen their hold on power. Corruption runs rampant through everything. If anything they are closer to that fascism you accuse Bush of. And here you trying to tell us we should follow their lead? I feel how proud you are when you talk about their collectivism, but their collectivism is precisely what is still dragging the people down. It is nothing to be proud of at all.

I too hoped Obama would succeed and get things going again. Now I see he will not, and that is because he isn’t even trying. Cheap gas prices and a restart of the housing market would have injected enough money in our economy to restart it by themselves, but the fact that government is now throwing pearls to the swine – nearly all of that money is going to pet projects that generate no new wealth – will dampen any chance for a recovery.

Keep touting the greatness of collectivism and the corrupt Chinese government as our examples. Nothing will do more to persuade people they should avoid what you say more than that. I am sure we here could also use the other great things the Chinese government does in the name of the people. You accused me of being a blind ideologue, but you have proven you are far worse than I am.

Feb 9, 2009 - 3:37 am 138. David S:

@137. AlexinCT:

At the risk of wasting a moment more of my time, let me correct you once again.

Bush increased the debt by $4 trillion not $4 billion. The difference is not trivial. Presidents get blamed for the budget because they are the person in a position to influence it. Clinton was able to balance the budget because of increased revenue brought in by higher taxes. Bush was unable to balance the budget because he slashed taxes and kept increasing spending. I blame the president primarily because he can veto a proposal. Not likely with GWB.

Democrats will raise taxes and spending. I have no doubt. There is nothing wrong with this. The GOP has been cutting taxes while raising spending, which is unsustainable, and hazardous to our economy. I like how you state that Obama was worse than Bush, without even one example. Nice way to prove nothing.

Rights lost under Bush include the right to privacy in communications, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

You are the one touting China as an example of capitalism, not I. Of course, I’ve actually been to China and have been observing the “facts on the ground” there for years.

For the record, I never accused you of being an ideologue. I find it funny that you would accuse me of using the term which you toss about so casually to describe your blindness:

@86. We could have prevented 9-11, but hey who cares about those dead people anyway when what counts is ideology.

@103. As for America’s recovery taking a long time, the question begs to be asked if that is an indictment of the current people in charge and the fact they are one after another getting exposed as ideologues, tax cheats, and liars hell bent in expanding their power at all costs.

Stop writing checks your ideological ego ca not cash please.

@110. BTW Fascism is a collectivist ideology.

And my idea of what it means to be an American is real simple: you do not hate your country and undermine it, especially when it is at war, when the guy in the WH is not of the ideological bend you like, as your kind did with Bush.

@137. You accused me of being a blind ideologue, but you have proven you are far worse than I am.

Here we have an example of AlexinCT unable to see his own faults, ascribing them to someone else. How charming. You might note that preventing 9/11 would have required Bush to delay his summer vacation, and repairing the economy was not really a big priority for him either. Your idea of what it means to be an American is anathema to our heritage of dissent, and your attempts to cast me as the accuser are doomed to failure.

What people should avoid is taking anything you say seriously. You’ve proven that to my satisfaction.

Peace.

DS

Feb 9, 2009 - 8:40 am 139. AlexinCT:

David S @ 138. Sorry about the type. I stand corrected. I would still like to see a government site that shows me these numbers. The one you linked could very well be a MoveOn.org front. And you can blame presidents for budgets all you want. After all they sign the bills into law. But the fact is that Congress is the one that writes the spending bills in the end. Clinton never balanced the budget. Republicans, whom where elected to the majority in 1994 precisely because Clinton was doing what Obama is doing now, came close to it. The balanced budgets where projected, until the tech bubble burst that. Then came 9-11. Let’s see how many vetoes Obama does.

I think after the following comment “Democrats will raise taxes and spending. I have no doubt. There is nothing wrong with this.” I am done with you. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors. Now I understand your fascination and desire to recreate the Chinese government in the US. I touted the fact China abandoned socialist economics because central planning reeks. In fact China despite the fact that the Chinese economy has done real well due to capitalism, government control of that economy and money has made sure the wealth is squandered and the majority of people see little of it. And we are both ideologues. The difference between you and me is I do not try to hide my belief that I believe collectivism to be a pox on humanity. You on the other hand try to pass yourself as an unbiased commenter – like the MSM does – but would do Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot proud.

David S says: “What people should avoid is taking anything you say seriously. You’ve proven that to my satisfaction.”

I believe that the moment I did not foam at the mouth and declare Bush the anti-Christ, a fascist, or incompetent you decided I was not to be taken seriously David. Ideology at work. I hope however that you are not implying that people should take what you say seriously. Unless they should listen hard and close to the fact you hold up the Chinese government as an example of what we should follow. Let me guess? You work for government or academia and fancy yourself one of the “elites” that would be spared the toil of the stupid masses right? people should pay careful attention to what you and those that believe like you say. It will be the only way to realize what you are really goign to do to us all.

Feb 9, 2009 - 10:23 am 140. David S:

@139. AlexinCT:

Here is a link to the official government debt figures for your pleasure.

I don’t try to pass myself off as unbiased. I am extremely biased toward factual information and logical policy. Your bias obviously is different.

I decided you were not to be taken seriously because you are “wasting time” rather than actually studying the issues you comment on.

People need not take my opinion seriously, but you may have noticed that I regularly support my opinion with facts and analysis from outside sources. I don’t see you doing the same.

I don’t work for government, and I don’t work for academia – any other brilliant guesses not relevant to the topic at hand?

What I am really going to do is continue to correct your errors and help gently lead you to factual sources. When you start basing your comments on reality, I will start taking you seriously. I think that’s fair enough.

Peace.

DS

Feb 9, 2009 - 11:26 am 141. AlexinCT:

David S @ 140. Man you sure are full of it. Factual? Please! Your comment on sources seem to be funny too. That link above does not have anything that proves that $ 4 trillion you claim we added under Bush. Wih that kind of prove one wonders.

Correct away. You are making my case for me.

Feb 9, 2009 - 11:34 am 142. David S:

@141. AlexinCT:

I gave you exactly what you asked for. The link provided will take you to an official government page where you can analyze the debt on your own. I did a quick search and found the following:

01/22/2001 = $5,728,195,796,181.57
01/20/2009 = $10,626,877,048,913.08

So really, the figure for debt under Bush is closer to $5 trillion if you want to get down to the bare facts. You might consider remedial education – it would help with your illiteracy problem.

Peace.

DS

Feb 9, 2009 - 11:53 am 143. AlexinCT:

David S@ 142 – That debt also include SS? And the Fannie & Freddie defaults? What your post proves is that Bush was your usual collectivist when it comes to spending. And here you are, a collectivist, trying to make the argument that is a bad thing. Anyway I look forward to you criticizing Obama when that debt is a trillion dollars higher just a year into his Admin, and the economy still stinks.

Feb 9, 2009 - 12:25 pm 144. David S:

@143: AlexinCT:

What my post ‘proves’ is that when the GOP controls the White House and the Congress, there is no fiscal discipline, and no meaningful oversight of the government.

Obama may need to add another three trillion to the debt before we can get the economy and budget back in balance, but as long as there is progress toward that goal, he is doing what needs to be done. Raising taxes to balance the budget will happen, but now is not the time. It is also not the time to be timid about spending. Without significant government intervention, the economy will recover too slowly, if at all.

I’m not going to explain the national debt to you, or the accounting that the government uses to calculate it. I assume you can visit the link provided above and parse it yourself.

There is a good chance Democrats will be in power long enough to again balance the budget. If the Republicans want to help, Obama has been quite clear that he is open to their ideas. If the GOP just wants to obstruct, so be it, but it is a dangerous game to play. I would not be surprised to see the GOP continue retreating from the coasts and the cities if they fail to get on board.

Democrats believe we can have freedom and security. Republicans seem to forget Ben Franklin’s simple creed: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Wake me when you find some evidence to support your opinion.

Peace.

DS

Feb 9, 2009 - 1:04 pm 145. AlexinCT:

Hah hah hah! David S, man you kill me! When republicans spend it is all negative. No fiscal discipline! They might as well have burned the money! But when democrats spend, and spend twice as much, it is to fix the economy. To make the world right, of course. You would not happen to be a college professor or a democrat politician now would you? Case you certainly sound like one. You have to be one of those two to say the things you do, and believe them too. The real world tends to eat up idiots like you.

Why stop at 3 trillion either? Go for 10 trillion outright, and run a Chavez like program to change the constitution so we can get rid of elections, or elections where you get more than one candidate, all together! I bet anyone that wants it that no matter how much money democrats claim to throw at the economy, the economy will not rebound. That’s because the bulk of that cash is simply money routed to democrats and democrat causes, which does nothing to either fix the economy, or balance the budget. That’s the reason for the urgency to pass this idiotic bill: to make sure people do not get a real up close look at what is going on until it is too late.

I give democrats exactly to the 2010 elections, maybe with the help of the MSM & the prevailing BDS to 2012. At the rate they are going, unless they ban elections outright, they will soon be out of power. You might buy all the crap about how they are going to fix stuff, but I remember what really happened during the Carter years and we are heading for a much worse version of that. And democrats equate freedom and security with government taking care of people. I do not. That’s why I am not a democrat. Watch Obama do everything Bush did plus more. And watch people like you make excuses for it too.

I am done talking to you too, unless it is to ridicule you, troll.

Feb 9, 2009 - 3:32 pm 146. David S:

@145. AlexinCT:

When republicans spend it is all negative. … They might as well have burned the money!

Actually, compared to the massive waste of dollars that Iraq has become, burning the money might have been a better idea. At least we could have helped some folks’ heating bills.

But when democrats spend, and spend twice as much, it is to fix the economy.

Yes indeed. That’s about the only way to right the ship of state after Bush left us hopelessly adrift.

You would not happen to be a college professor or a democrat politician now would you?

No. I wouldn’t. You wouldn’t happen to be a judgmental partisan hack now would you?

Why stop at 3 trillion either? Go for 10 trillion outright, and run a Chavez like program to change the constitution so we can get rid of elections, or elections where you get more than one candidate, all together!

Don’t even tempt me. The closest thing America has done to this is employing ESS and Diebold to miscount our votes under GOP mandates.

I bet anyone that wants it that no matter how much money democrats claim to throw at the economy, the economy will not rebound. That’s because the bulk of that cash is simply money routed to democrats and democrat causes, which does nothing to either fix the economy, or balance the budget.

Even if this were true, which it clearly is not, democrats and democratic causes aren’t going to burn the money – they are going to spend it, which is what “economic stimulus” is for.

I give democrats exactly to the 2010 elections, maybe with the help of the MSM & the prevailing BDS to 2012.

How generous. Don’t be too upset if we stick around a few decades longer.

I am done talking to you too, unless it is to ridicule you, troll.

How mature. Have fun.

Peace.

DS

Feb 11, 2009 - 11:19 pm 147. AlexinCT:

I knew you would come slink back later to try and have the last word David S. That’s how slime works.

The money spent on Iraq is one of the few things I think bush did right. And it isn’t even 20% of what was spent. What was money flushed down the hole was anything spend on socialist crap. Again, Bush won Iraq when all you losers claimed it could never happen, and for that he will be punished, huh? Get over it.

Have you had a good look at the stimulus bill yet? Because if you have, making the claim democrats are “righting the ship” only proves ideological stupidity. This bill makes the spending under Bush look brilliant. Thanks for making my point for me.

And here I thought you where the partisan hack. I mean, can you be anything else if you claim this payoff/patronage bill you claim is going to fix everything isn’t the biggest screw job tax paying Americans have ever been given? The Carter years will look good compared to what is coming our way.

Ah, finally you show your true colors! What? You also believe 9-11 was an inside job and staged so we could go kill people? Bush wanted to drown blacks in NO so he ordered the secret hurricane machine to whip one up? FEMA was ordered to go slow so blacks would die while the inept democrat fools running LA did their best? We went to Iraq to steal oil we never stole? Tell me something David. if Diebold helped republicans steal those elections, how do you think they won in 2006 and 2008? Democrats buy Diebold off to help them steal those elections too? Or are only elections won by republicans stolen? Man your kind is so predictable. And you call me partisan. Hah!

Oh please! The money in this bill might as well be burned up fr all the stimulus t will produce. Unless the democrats make it a habit of borrowing a trillion or two ever year to burn up, there will be no effect. And even then, the ultimate effect will be to damage the economy more. This bill is a joke and you defending makes it obvious you are a liar or have no clue. I think it is both.

You counting on a few more bills like this to give democrats so much tax payer funded election cash that winning elections is a given David, or are you admitting Obama might just call off elections and be done with that charade you democrats are not power stealing crooks, once and for all?

Yeah, I am having fun. Showing you for the liar you are is fun. Come back and post some more lies. I will be sure to tell others to come take a look at them.

Feb 12, 2009 - 3:27 am 148. David S:

147. AlexinCT:

The money spent on Iraq is one of the few things I think bush did right.

Just goes to show that we have different priorities. What do you see as the upside of spending trillions in Iraq?

Have you had a good look at the stimulus bill yet? Because if you have, making the claim democrats are “righting the ship” only proves ideological stupidity. This bill makes the spending under Bush look brilliant.

Yeah, I took a look at the spending in the bill, and the CBO report projecting large improvements in the economic outlook based on the spending included in the stimulus package. I’m not looking at ideology, so your claim of “ideological stupidity” appears to apply more directly to your own refusal to admit the obvious benefits of the package. There is nothing in the world that could make Bush look brilliant.

Diebold and ESS provide machines for counting votes that are known to be hackable, and have no provision for a recount. They cripple the democratic process. Whether they were used to change election results or not, they are a bad way to vote. Thankfully, even electoral manipulation can’t reverse a groundswell of support such as Obama enjoyed.

Oh please! The money in this bill might as well be burned up fr all the stimulus t will produce.

I wonder what economist provided that forecast. Oh, you say you pulled it out of your magic hat? How nice. Apparently economics is not your strong suit.

This bill is a joke and you defending makes it obvious you are a liar or have no clue. I think it is both.

I guess if the CBO projection is untrue, I would be guilty of spreading a lie, but I don’t think that is likely. Moreover, for you to claim that I have no clue, when I’ve been working so hard to help you find your own, is very funny.

I understand that you are very concerned about Bush leaving office, but in the long run, you will eventually be able to see your own blindness for what it is.

Peace.

DS

PS – Are you really this dense?

Feb 12, 2009 - 8:55 am 149. AlexinCT:

David S. First off, please quit lying. We have not spend trillions in Iraq. Second. The only war that we have spent trillions on, with absolutely nothing to show for it, is the war on poverty. $15 trillion and even more people sucking at the government’s teat. Maybe you need a civics lesson, but the Constitution allows government to collect and spend on defense. Not on socialism. Third. The big thing you libs do not want to admit was that Iraq gave us the perfect battle ground to destroy the majority of the Islamic radicals. We did not get another attack on our soil because all the lunatics went to Iraq where our military pounded them into dust. Get over it.

The CBO is full of it. Look at what how the stock market is doing and what collectivists around the globe see is the trouble because of that faux stimulus bill. About the one thing they got right was the catastrophic result of borrowing this kind of money and having to pay it off later will have on the economy. If we see any economic rebound it will be because of low energy prices and the fact that the burst housing bubble has now made the housing market a good thing again. Not because government created a ton of new bureaucrat jobs and injected billions of tax payer dollars into their election campaign schemes. And you are an even bigger liar because you continue to tout the short term effects the CBO projects while ignoring the warning they where forced to make that in the long run the stimulus will do more harm than good.

I am glad Bush left office. He did more wrong than he did right. Like I told you before: Bush was a big socialist that got the GWoT right. Heck, the man allowed Congress to spend money like a democrat and yet you hate him? He did his 8 years which is what he is allowed in the Constitution. What I am opposed is the nasty attempt to make Bush look worse than he was by petty idiots that in his place would have done much worse. That and the fact that these people then use their MSM propaganda machine and one heck of an effective campaign of lies and obfuscations to elect a moron that makes Bush look like Einstein, and then have the gall to try to force us to say that he is the next coming.

The only blindness I see is from the idiots that blame Bush for everything, including natural disasters and every whack job conspiracy possible, while telling us that Obama is great. Kind of like you. Keep trying to pretend this stimulus will be good. Democrats passed it on a party line vote. I am sure when it fails you will blame Bush, but people will only buy that for so long.

PS – Are you really this shameless and crooked?

Feb 12, 2009 - 9:29 am 150. AlexinCT:

And David S. Your CBO now projects that the cost of this debacle is $3.27 trillion over the next 10 years. My bet is that doubles at a minimum. You going to complain now that Obama is on track to spend more than Bush did just on a non-stimulus patronage bill (remember that we will also have him increasing spending on our regular annual bill)? Welcome to a devalued dollar worth nothing and a banana republic. But hey collectivism won, so it is all right….

Feb 12, 2009 - 9:44 am 151. David S:

@149. AlexinCT:

We have not spend trillions in Iraq.

Yes we did:

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.
…
Only one economist, William D. Nordhaus of Yale, seems to have come close. In a paper in December 2002, he offered a worst-case estimate of $1.9 trillion, “if the war drags on, occupation is lengthy, nation-building is costly.”
…
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.

The only war that we have spent trillions on, with absolutely nothing to show for it, is the war on poverty. $15 trillion and even more people sucking at the government’s teat.

Wrong again. Your $15 trillion figure is overinflated. And we do have other trillion dollar wars on tap. War on Drugs costs/benefits.

The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition — with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war?
…
terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.

you continue to tout the short term effects the CBO projects while ignoring the warning they where forced to make that in the long run the stimulus will do more harm than good.

You have not shown that such a warning was made. According to the latest projections, there is unlikely to be any substantial harm in the long term.
“Beyond 2014, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent. This long-run effect is slightly smaller than CBO estimated in its preliminary analysis of the Senate stimulus legislation last week due to refinements in our methodology.”

I am glad Bush left office. He did more wrong than he did right.

100% agreement here.

What I am opposed is the nasty attempt to make Bush look worse than he was by petty idiots that in his place would have done much worse.

Defending Bush by lying about his legacy and Obama’s policies is not likely to make him look better, and forces folks like me to gently correct you. He was bad enough that no attempt needs to be made to make him look worse – it would hardly be possible.

Are you really this shameless and crooked?

Nothing here for me to be ashamed of, except possibly continuing to waste time with Alex. I’ve been shooting pretty straight here.

Your CBO now projects that the cost of this debacle is $3.27 trillion over the next 10 years.

That would be great news for your talking points, except that projection is not a forecast for the bill in question. It is a shameless piece of propaganda, projecting spending that has not even been proposed, much less drafted into a bill. Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Peace.

DS

Feb 12, 2009 - 10:56 am 152. AlexinCT:

Hah hah hah! Oh man you are something else. You quote a NYT article from march 2008 where they clearly say we have spend $600 billion so far – and that number is suspect as I bet the usual DNC stooges at the NYT where tagging all kinds of numbers to it to make Iraq unpalatable and hope people would allow democrats to pull out the troops and have us lose – and then make some ludicrous projection of $1 to $4 trillion? Your claim was that we already had spent trillions on Iraq. Not that we where projected to. At most our cost in Iraq so far is $800 billion. That is from me projecting another year out and giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is likely lower with the surge working and all. And with the war now won, that massive $4 trillion fantasy the NYT was pushing in order to sour people on the war, is nothing but a pipe dream of the left. Fast & loose with facts again. Why not project $ 100 trillion? It is much more frightening a number.

My $ 15 trillion figure comes from CATO. I trust them on it. What? You also some kind of pothead that is pissed you are not allowed to do drugs? Frankly I could care less. Having seen the idiots that do drugs, and while many claim they have used and not been affected negatively I could care less about them because the ones that will cost me more will be the idiots that abuse it, remain opposed to its legalization. I have seen plenty of analysis that says that had we legalized drugs, even just marijuana, we would be spending trillions dealing with the consequences of rampant drug use. But that’s neither here nor there. All deflections from the real issue: the bloated and wasteful spending under democrats will make the Bush years look great.

And damn it David, let me link you to the CBO quote:

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

What part of that was unclear? And with the CBO now saying the bill’s final cost will be $3.27 trillion, you have got to be on crack to claim this bill is going to help. You can try to discredit the forecast by claiming it is propaganda, but you have no facts to dispute this with. Just covering your eyes & ears and then pretending you do not see the truth does not make it go away. At least it has not worked for me since I was about 5 years old.

Lying about Bush because of BDS is your big problem. You do a good job of hiding it but when the right buttons are pushed you lapse and show your true motivation. I am sad to point out that Obama has also in just 4 weeks made Bush look like a genius. If the MSM applied the same attitude they did to Bush Obama would now be in tears and considered a disaster. Instead, even with them covering for him, people are figuring out this guy has no clue what he is doing. And you have some gall saying that you have been shooting straight. Maybe in that fantasy land called your mind, but in the real world you have been nothing but wrong, and on purpose too.

Feb 12, 2009 - 2:33 pm 153. David S:

152. AlexinCT:

Sorry, Alex, but you keep misrepresenting your sources. I can’t go on humoring you. You keep repeating the same errors after I have clearly pointed out your mistakes.

If you really think that Obama has made Bush look like a genius, you are far gone enough that reality may be permanently out of your reach. If you come around, let me know.

Peace.

DS

Feb 12, 2009 - 9:20 pm 154. AlexinCT:

David S, please, you did not point out any mistakes. You lied and simply dismissed what you did not like and now pretend you have a clue. You need to stop the drug use. It’s not helping you. Just because you do not like the way things are and would like them to be different does not make them “mistakes” on my part. Fool.

Obama has had more drama and crap go wrong on him than any president in this past century. Do I need to enumerate all the lies that have been exposed, cabinet appointments that turned out to be crooks, people that bailed on him because he is lost in space, and he has basically not succeeded in getting anyone but democrats to vote along with this disaster of a bill let us just have a simple hypothetical situation. If Obama had been a republican, how bad do you think the press would have mauled him for all the crap Obama has done? Bush, even after Al Gore tried to steal the 2000 election and the MSM was nit picking everything he did, did not commit this many blunders. Obama is showing his lack of experience and ideology.

Don’t expect me to come around. Unlike you I do not suffer from BDS or collectivist psychosis, and I see things straight. Your over inflated opinion of yourself is getting in the way BTW. Go hit your bong and leave the adults that do not have mental disorders be please.

Feb 13, 2009 - 3:22 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: