Pajamas Media

124 Comments

1. DavidN:

Frankly, I don’t really buy the comparison, here. I will grant you that Lincoln was President during a time of deeply divisive discord in the country, as has Bush. There are significant differences, though. Lincoln is perhaps the best-known President in terms of speech writing (and in those days they wrote their own speeches). The Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural are considered two of the best speeches delivered by a President during his term in office. Perhaps Frankly Roosevelt (”The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” and “…a date that will live in infamy…”) or John F. Kennedy (”Ask not what your country can do for you…”) would rival him, but frankly I don’t think so. Can anyone name a speech George W. Bush made during his presidency that had any effect on the country, in terms of leadership and inspiration? I don’t think so.

Also, Bush has had terrible luck, and horrible judgment at times, when it comes to the image of the Presidency. The whole Katrina mess is a great example. The President himself didn’t do anything particularly wrong, other than appointing that idiot Brown to be head of FEMA. But between the plane flight over the disaster site, sticking with Brown after he’d screwed up and been incredibly insensitive, and the like, he managed to turn what should have been a minor P.R. problem into a late-night talk show punchline that implied he was a racist and left black people in New Orleans to suffer because they’d supposedly voted against him. Not exactly Lincoln-like leadership.

Lastly, Lincoln benefits in our estimation from a strange phenomenon specific to American politics. Since he was killed while in office, at some point it became tough to criticize him. At times critics have stated their impressions, but usually they’re not received very well. By comparison George W. Bush lived out his presidency, and will retire to Texas and write his memoirs. He’ll be dogged by controversy the rest of his life, and after he dies there will still be people disgusted by him and his legacy. I do think that eventually his reputation in historical terms will increase and improve, and frankly I think this is deserved, but when he’s done increasing, he still won’t be Lincoln.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:14 am 2. TruthHurts:

If I recall, Bush offered the “I’m like Lincoln” rationale in one of those one-on-Fox interviews that he did a year ago…Do yourself a favor: Google the Lincoln Second Inaugural address..Read it carefully and you’ll never put “Bush” and “Lincoln” in the same sentence again.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:22 am 3. Steve Campbell:

I too shall miss the steadfastness of G.W. and his conviction of purpose. I’m always amazed at the blindness of those who pretend to be journalists and historians in our land today. Blindness at the similarities between these two. A large part of the problem has been the perceived lack of communication ability by G.W., especially compared to Abe. Wonder what we would think if Abe had not just been quoted from prepared speeches but shown everyday on Television, then ridiculed and mocked as a dummy. Some how, when the print news ripped into Lincoln as a buffoon, a monkey, a yokel, it just didn’t stick to him as it has to G.W. History will sort this out and I only hope that a generation of historians will look at what actually took place rather than media accounts of G.W.’s years in office.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:46 am 4. Zbigniew Mazurak:

Eh, Shiver is blathering nonsense, i.e. business as usual.

“George W. Bush may very well acquire the near-saintly remembrances inspired by Lincoln at some future date.” I hope not.

Bush said that he would regard every terrorist-sponsoring state as a hostile regime, but he has done NOTHING to combat Venezuela, Syria, Iran or North Korea. It was on his watch that North Korea, an implacable foe of America, was allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and because of Bush’s appeasement, Iran might build nuclear weapons this year. LTG Thomas McInerney advocated a massive invasion of North Korea and a massive 1972-style bombing of Iran, but Bush and Condomleezza Rice refused to do that.

Bush, Condomleezza Rice and Gates also ignored the threat posed by the largest terrorist organization in the world – the KGB, which governs Russia. (Vlad Putin is a former KGB colonel.)

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:07 am 5. festdir:

Lincoln actually WON a war. He was socially liberal, and economically liberal (nationalized the rail system, put into place the first income tax). The conservative South hated Lincoln. Lincoln was competent and loved by the (non-traitorous) American people. Gee, but other than that….
Isn’t it amazing how conservatives eventually try to claim liberals as their own?

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:16 am 6. RE:

In that today’s Democrats behave just like they did in the 1860’s (the Copperheads), doing everything in their power to undermine the Union’s attempt to win the Civil War, one can easily see a parallel between Lincoln and Bush.

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:20 am 7. Jarhead91:

RE: Exactly – It’s the Democrats who most closely resemble their 1860’s forefathers.

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:22 am 8. dangerbird:

Its not that G.W. is necessarily like Lincoln, it is true however, and I’ve been saying this for quite a while, that today’s Democrat party more closely resembles the Democrat party of the 1860’s than the Democrat party of the 1960’s. The main difference being that now they want to enslave us all. Not just a particular people of a certain skin color. Upon Lincoln’s election the Dems fired on fort Sumter. At the prospect of losing their supposed right to power they decided to declare war and proceed to rip the country asunder. At the election of George W. Bush and what looked then to be their possible loss of their supposed right to power, today’s Dems conducted an undeclared war. a while no shots were fired and no uniforms were donned in this war, it has been a war. A low level war. But a war. Everywhere and always. Attack, attack, attack. Do things our way or we attack. The siren call of the totalitarian. Think like we think or we rip the place apart. Bush cited the same evidence about Saddam that did team Clinton. His approach in dealing with Saddam was different. So that makes Bush Hitler. Bush didn’t treat Arafat like a poor mis-understood Ghandi. (One of the main reasons he is hated). He treated Arafat the way he should have been treated all along. Like a terrorist. Therefore all manner of war-rhetoric was unleashed upon the public conversation. Bush is a Nazi. yadda yadda. The ugliest anti-Jew fest since pre-war Europe. Bush is controlled by the Jews,( Neo-cons). The hated neocons. Cheney is a monster. I could go on. You all know the tune. The point is that this is not normal political to and fro. And I realize that politics is war by other means, but the depth and breadth of the division sown by today’s Dems is only comparable to the division sown in the 1860’s. And while the Repubs won the war back then. They lost the peace. And the blacks suffered for it. Now the Dems are back in power, absolute power. And we will all suffer the consequences of their raw lust for power.

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:52 am 9. JohnRJ08:

I think the comparison was stated improperly. Just because similar events occurred to Lincoln and Bush at approximately the same times during their administrations does not mean that the two men are similar. The article’s headline is misleading. Bush will go down in history as the intellectual low-point for the U.S. Presidency. And his cerebral deficiencies directly contributed to horrendously stupid appointments, statements, and decisions. When a man who has been in public life for two decades demonstrates a repeated inability to master his own language, that is all the evidence you need. It’s not a matter of style over substance. It’s a question of whether or not an elected official has the requisite brains to handle a complicated and highly stressful job in a competent manner. Every time George Bush opened his mouth, he proved his own incompetence. Comparing that man to Abraham Lincoln in any way is absurd. I think a fairer comparison would be George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Now, there’s two peas in a pod.

Jan 16, 2009 - 5:55 am 10. Anton:

The biggest difference is that there is no Mason-Dixon line dividing the traitors from the faithful. I would suggest that if you were to choose the twenty most corrupt (criminal, broken down s#$@-hole, violent your pick, they will all be the same list) cities in the US and draw a circle with a fifty mile radius around each one you would find the “Seccesionist States”, those areas are full of traitors dearly wishing for the defeat of the American ideal.

Bush has had to fight an enemy abroad (who at least has the honesty to say out loud that they wish to destroy the US and all it stands for) while constantly taking fire from the traitors in his own land. The comparison with Lincoln stands there as well as being called every imaginible insult for trying to do what thought was best for his country.

The hard path always makes enemies, cowards howl when a man with resolution takes action, they are always preferring the quiet path to dissolution and extinction

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:01 am 11. john from cinncinatti:

i can see the comparison of their presidencies.
how did Sarah Palin get involved? is she like Mary Lincoln or something?

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:12 am 12. John:

Sorry lady, but you couldn’t find a clue if it stuck to your shoe.

GWB, has lied, tortured, and screwed up his way through 8 years. Not only should he be ashamed, but your whole country should be for being so stupid.

He is categorically a failure. Your nation’s image is in tatters. Russia and China emboldened, the Middle East on fire, the economy crashing, and your military exhausted.

You guys think you’ve lost because of the crafty democrats and soros? you lost because you screwed up everything you touched. See, you have to actually deliver. People want to see results, and eventual, the fantasy you perpetuated fell apart. You guys are elitists at screwing up.

And all because that numbnuts of a president you voted for (twice!!!) can’t put a thought together any better than he can a sentence.

He’s a loser. And he will go down as such. You too by the looks of it.

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:34 am 13. Cybergeezer:

Nice work, drawing the parallels between these two Presidents. This article appears to be an excerpt from a book.
GW, without a doubt, had his own style. Not elevating himself above his peers, was what precipitated and enabled his criticism. I think he realized how humbled the most powerful position in the world could be, on 9/11/2001. The weight of the Free World was placed precisely on his shoulders.
I am certainly grateful that he did not put on an air of elitism. Great leaders of history have all had their defining moments. George Bush’s moment was one that greatly exceeded many of the others. I am sanguine that George can expound on what his “doctrine” would have been had not 9/11 occurred.
From the criticism he has received from the main stream media, one would think he was responsible for a war more costly and lengthy than Viet Nam.
I shall be looking for comments by Presidential Historians Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin to see what their perspective is.
Thanks George, for keeping me and my family safe the last seven years.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:07 am 14. Zbigniew Mazurak:

Ah, Kyle-Anne Shiver likes Lincoln, doesn’t she?

By admitting that she does, she has revealed her true face: she’s a big-government liberal just like Bush and Lincoln.

Lincoln CRIPPLED the American economy with huge taxes. He was a high-tax liberal.

Bush’s big government programs include increasing funding for the ED, the NCLBA, Medicare expansion, the TARP, and the bailout for Detroit. I am opposed to, and critical of, all of these programs.
As a result of Dubya’s disastrous big-government fiscal policies, America is in debt to the tune of $11 TRILLION.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:07 am 15. Matt:

I’m not even going to try to argue. If you don’t see Bush for what he is by now then you never will. He has sullied our national charachter and reputation, destabilized the Middle East, and sold our country out from underneath us to foreign countries in order to pay for ‘his victory in Iraq.’

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:07 am 16. Cybergeezer:

For you illiterate kool-aid sipping lemmings, this article is posted for you:
“Bush Is No Lincoln”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/bush-is-no-lincoln/

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:15 am 17. Robert Hurley:

This column is a joke! Next your will be coparing him to Jesus Christ!

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:16 am 18. Jarhead91:

John is a foreigner who will really miss the Copperhead rhetoric – they did all the America bashing for him.

We get it; Bush is a dummy who went to Harvard Business School while Obama is a genius from Harvard Law School.

By the way, I can assure you that our military is not “exhausted.” Trained, blooded and experienced like none other on Earth, but not exhausted.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:18 am 19. Cybergeezer:

And, thanks to GW, you illiterate, kool-aid sipping lemmings can write denigrating comments to this post instead of praying on a piece of carpet three times a day.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:19 am 20. atlargeinohio:

John-
LBJ didn’t deliver, Carter didn’t deliver , and Clinton didn’t deliver on much of anything(remember the Universal Health Care fizzle?). What will be the excuse when thing get truly screwed up in the next four years (versus the fanciful, imaginary screwing up that many imagine Bush has done -while we have been prosperous and safe these past 8 yrs after 9/11). Just thinkin’ ahead. I may not even be able to write “hate speech” like this in a few years because I’m dingin’ the wrong group.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:30 am 21. Libertyship46:

Hey John (#12), why don’t you take a break or a chill pill? You and your kind won the election, so you should be as happy as clams in mud (and, since that’s where the bulk of liberals like to conduct public discourse, in the mud, you should feel right at home). Really, if all you are going to do is repeat MoveOn.org talking points, you should find another home. Seems to me not too many Americans were complaining about the economy for about seven years when it was growing steadily, inflation and unemployment were lower than the Clinton administration, and the stock market and housing markets were booming. Seems to me that not too many people have complained about the fact that we have not been attacked on American soil by terrorists for over seven years since 9/11. Seems to me I don’t really care what Russia or China thinks about the United States, so long as they respect and fear us. Seems to me people like you also didn’t object when the Bush Administration spent millions (that’s right, millions) of dollars to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa. Seems like people like you didn’t object when spending on education in this country skyrocketed under the Bush administration. Seems like people like you never complained (although true conservatives did) when Government spending for pork projects and entitlements (programs liberals and democrats love) exploded under the Bush Administration. Seems like people like you never complained when interest rates were incredibly low for most of the Bush administration, thereby allowing more people to buy homes (even if they couldn’t afford them). And nobody seems to care that a psychopathic dictator who was a threat to the entire Middle East and who broke more than a dozen UN resolutions, is no longer in power and that for the first time in history a major country in the Middle East is a functioning democracy. You seem like a “glass half empty” kind of guy, John, and people like you give me a swift pain for not being able to consider history objectively. Was Bush the best president we ever had? Certainly not, but he wasn’t the worst, either. He has plenty of accomplishments to be proud of as well as several major defeats (the immigration debacle certainly comes to mind). I believe that in coming years Bush will be treated like the plain-spoken Harry Truman. When Truman left office his approval rating was about 26% and people thought of him as an absolute failure, with the war in Korea still raging as he left office. Today Truman is considered one of the best presidents of the post World War II era. With the war in Iraq almost over and success on the horizon, Bush leaves office in a much better position than Truman did, with success in Korea still very much in doubt. John, people like you should crack open a history book every now and then and maybe, just maybe, see how foolish your statements really are. You really should just MoveOn with your life, John.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:36 am 22. Barry:

dangerbird: I have discovered that those who can’t properly use the adjective form of the word “democrat” are genrally as crazy as a shiat house rat. I don’t know how this works, but it does.

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:02 am 23. dangerbird:

If they were democratic in their behavior I would use the term in its proper context. There is no use in saying democratic when they are actually totalitarians. Witness the global warming deabate. Oh, I forgot. That debate is over. Settled. Just like that.

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:26 am 24. Scott:

Why such anger and frustration?

Why post an article to retort what this article was saying. Can’t everyone just get along? Lincoln was a good man. Bush Jr. and Sr. were good men.

This country stood behind Bush after 9/11 and you are just looking for someone to blame. If I remember it correctly, Clinton lied too. Mrs. Clinton has also lied. We are in a time of lies. Clinton signed the free trade agreement and allowed people to work outside of this country which has caused millions of American jobs to be lost.

Both sides have equally gone wrong. Maybe its time to create a real third party? All we need is someone to stand behind.

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:43 am 25. Pat J:

The only thing those two have in common is they are both Republicans.

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:45 am 26. Cybergeezer:

The Department of Health and Human Services is offering free internet prostate exams an January 20th at 12:00 P.M. If you go to http://www.Obama’sHealthPlan.org, turn on your web cam, drop your pants and place your posterior over the key board, you shall be given this free exam. The results will be emailed to you.

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:48 am 27. atlargeinohio:

How about Democratish or Democratly? Or Democratoid? Or just Socialist? They are definitely not democratic.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:11 am 28. Kyle-Anne Shiver:

Since I see Rick Moran has made me look like an idiot here, I feel compelled to chime in with a bit of derriere-defense. In fairness, Rick had the advantage of reading my column before writing his own.

Lincoln, in my opinion, is revered historically largely on 2 accounts: #1 Emancipation and #2 Assassination. If not for these 2 things, I doubt he would be held in such high estimation today, even with this much time elapsed between the rancor he inspired in his own lifetime and our day.

I would simply offer this little rebuttal to those who think Lincoln was an inquisitive genius, who so dwarfed our own GW as to make it laughable. If Lincoln was such a genius, and so able, then why was he not able to convince more than a handful of the sensibility of freeing the slaves and protecting the Union at all costs?

The Civil War was the most unpopular war the northern states ever took part in, and they did it, arguably, only because of forced conscription and mass jailing for those who opposed. If Lincoln was so exceptional in his thinking, then why did he not leave a perfect plan for reincorporating the Southern states and helping the newly-freed slaves have a path to success?

No such plan existed. The aftermath of Lincoln’s assassination proved a free-for-all, among which there were no winners, only losers all around. Wow. What genius.

Shortly after Lincoln’s assassination, the pro-slavery Democrats ran roughshod over dumbfounded Republicans, who mostly never agreed with Lincoln on the slaves anyhow, and trashed any hope of solving the matter. The Southern states, under Democrat-Party domination, quickly instituted the Jim Crow system of segregation.

Yes, I believe Lincoln was a great President. Yes, I believe Lincoln was definitely in the right to both save the Union and free the slaves. Do I think he was a lot smarter, more wise, more inquisitive than George W. Bush? No. If he were that smart, he would not have made so many horrendous mistakes that directly contributed to another 100 years of slavery by another name and the continued enmity between North and South. Lincoln was no peacemaker. Not in the least.

So, if Barack Obama plans to wittingly devise his own presidency on Lincoln’s model, those of you seeing all goodness and light had better readjust your expectations. Lincoln was, as Bush has been, one of the most reviled and hated presidents during his own day of any man to ever hold the Office — by both north and south, and by both Democrats and Republicans.

That’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it. Historians can decide whether there is any merit to it, but remember, historians are people too. And their opinions are just as open to human error and divergent perception as are yours and mine.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:19 am 29. John:

“Seems to me not too many Americans were complaining about the economy for about seven years when it was growing steadily”

That’s because you economy was growing on lies, and loans. All of which have evaporated.

“Seems to me that not too many people have complained about the fact that we have not been attacked on American soil by terrorists for over seven years since 9/11.”

Er… yeah, but you were attacked on Bush’s watch. He was warned, and did nothing. Al Quada attacked on his watch, because they knew they could kick your ass, and they did. You acted exactly how they wanted, and now you’re in a mess. Bravo.

“Seems to me I don’t really care what Russia or China thinks about the United States”

Yup, they fear you. Enough that you’ve started a new arms race. Good going numbnuts. That’s far better than working together.

“Seems like people like you never complained (although true conservatives did) when Government spending for pork projects and entitlements (programs liberals and democrats love) exploded under the Bush Administration.”

Actually liberals were pointing this out constantly. That your debt was out of control under Bush, which is funny for a conservative who always whines about gov spending. Pork barrel is the least of your problems, but while were talking about it, lets remember the state that gets the most dough. Who is it? Ding ding ding! Give that man some free bullets. It was Sarah Palin’s Alaska, land of the free handouts!

“And nobody seems to care that a psychopathic dictator who was a threat to the entire Middle East and who broke more than a dozen UN resolutions, is no longer in power and that for the first time in history a major country in the Middle East is a functioning democracy.”

That’s because you screwed that up to with failed policies, lies, and incompetence beyond all imaginings. Throughout his terms in office, Bush hired for loyalty, not for expertise. That’s a big reason why you’re in this mess.

Conservatism is a joke. It’s a failure. The only ones who still don’t see that are conservatives, and that’s not surprise. Most failures don’t realize it, or if they do, they think it’s someone else’s fault.

Nobody is saying you have to go out and hug a gay, or bury your gun. But you do have to acknowledge that everything you’ve advocated for hasn’t worked the way you expected.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:20 am 30. SCOOTER:

Plenty of similarities between President GW Bush and President Abraham Lincoln. Unlike Obama, his similarities are only in the Bible that he will use for the inauguration ceremony, the train ride, the magnolia-flavored paraders and the menu…. what happened to the similarities with FDR and Clinton?… I guess there’s more to come. Lincoln was Republican? The Democrats are like the Copperheads of 1860s – and the Communists of the 1950s. Then, you have all the bloody Bush-haters that keep on keeping on, like an endless drone…. what’s their carbon footprint for all the energy wasted in absolute hate? Finally, let’s talk about those who opine from safe havens, like monday morning quarterbacks…. it is easier to edit than to be a genuine, creative writer…. which takes originality and superb character.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:25 am 31. Paul the American:

This is a reply to John number 12 from a country he is afraid to claim as his own. John, you are obviuosly from a place that our country had to bail out from some totalitarian leader at some point in history. Perhaps it is in your genes that your testicals are so small that you desire to rip our country and our president and wish us such doom. When the next Hitler or Hussein gases your people, you will once again welcome the Americans to come to your aid. Unlike other countries in the past, we ask not to take your lands in return, just enough to bury our soldiers who fought for your liberty and ours. You have made a point to rip our Commander in Chief and our country. Jsut remember this as you bury your head in your covers tonight, were it not for Americans, you would definitely not enjoy the freedoms you enjoy toonight. Good riddance to John the coward!
Paul from Wichita, Kansas, USA

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:46 am 32. Anton:

John, it sounds like you live in one of those countries whose sole accomplishment was devising a flag.

The attack that we suffered on 9/11/01 was the product of a long-established cell of terroists that were put into place by Bin Laden. The only reason that Bin Laden is alive is that Bubba didn’t have the balls to kill him when the chance presented itself. The only warning that was provided was a general threat assesment that indicated that “something” would happen.

Re: the economy, check the ISM website to veiw the real growth in the economy. While not on a par with the Tech Bubble years of the Bubba administration there is real growth in all sectors. The biggest problem and one of the significant sources of our current (worldwide) problems is that the money the the federal mortgage loan agencies were giving away infected the commodities market and allowed speculation in oil prices. This bubble burst and forced many speculators to cover shorts, which forced them to sell properties that the had mortgaged leading to a glut on the market thereby bursting the home bubble. This is another Bubba legacy.

RE; our international friends. Nobody in their right mind would trust Russia, they never liked us (why is that you need to be liked? bad childhood?) and never will. The Chinese term for all non-chinese is still “barbarian” they were only our friends while cozying up to Bubba to get “most favored nation trade status”. The arms race is largely in your imagination.

I agree with you about spending. Clinton balanced his budget by destroying our military. Obama doesn’t even have that room. He is just going to print money for his cronies. By the way how did I miss the “Free Bullets” deal?
BTW: Sarah Palin was spending her state’s tax income from those big bad oil companies by giving to the citizens not pissing it away on some counterproduvtive program. No Federal money there.

“And nobody seems to care that a psychopathic dictator who was a threat to the entire Middle East and who broke more than a dozen UN resolutions, is no longer in power and that for the first time in history a major country in the Middle East is a functioning democracy.”

That’s because you screwed that up to with failed policies, lies, and incompetence beyond all imaginings. Throughout his terms in office, Bush hired for loyalty, not for expertise. That’s a big reason why you’re in this mess.

Are you suggesting that Saddam is still in power? Or that by following the UN’s resolutions we were screwing up? The last sentence looks like it was cut-n-pasted from something else.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:01 am 33. Barry:

“Seems to me that not too many people have complained about the fact that we have not been attacked on American soil by terrorists for over seven years since 9/11.”

Umm…
Reasonable people might have the notion that one of the most fundamental duties of the president is to provide for the safety of its citizens. Now, naturally, this is not a one-person job assigned solely to the president. Rather, there are literally battalions of advisors, intelligence experts, military specialists, spies, etc to appraise a president of security risks. With all these resources at one’s disposal, presidential leadership and judgment would seem to be a reasonable expectation. GW Bush did not become president on September 12. His utter flatfooted failure of being asleep at the switch Sept 11th is virtually unrivalled in its negligence and ineptitude. He has failed in a primary manner in which virtually every other president has succeeded. To marvel that he was awakened from his stupor Sept 11 and was suddenly transformed into a level of partial competency similar to all of his predecessors is a spectacular mental contortion. It is akin to congratulating Capt Edward Smith for having lost only the Titanic.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:03 am 34. Bilgeman:

Ms. Shiver:

Bush and Lincoln as you point out, are similar largely becuse of the times they inhabited. It appears that both men realized one simple principle and hewed to it with a single-minded determination.
In Lincoln’s case it was the preservation of the Union, in Bush’s it was the realization that we do not have the luxury of splendid isolationism, and that the enemy we face must be engaged on foreign shores.

I think though, that Bush also bears a lot of similarites to Woodrow Wilson, who also was reviled during his tenure by those who disagreed with his internationalism. Wilson’s ill-concealed connivance at bringing the USA into the slaughter of World War 1 and his attempt to engage with foreign governments met violent resistance from those who held that we could remain a nation apart.

In some ways, the anti-Bush crowd are reacting, at some level, to the ugly realization that they are not secure in their homes here. They would, like frightened children, rather pull the covers over their heads and wish it all away, and they blame the person who forces them to confront their fears.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:12 am 35. Terry Gain:

“If I recall, Bush offered the “I’m like Lincoln” rationale in one of those one-on-Fox interviews that he did a year ago…Do yourself a favor: Google the Lincoln Second Inaugural address..Read it carefully and you’ll never put “Bush” and “Lincoln” in the same sentence again”. (TruthHurts #2)

I’m sure it does in your case. Bush’s speech after 9/11 was positively Churchillian.

See the post immediately below yours (# 3 ) and get a clue.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:27 am 36. Libertyship46:

Wow, John (#29), seems like your meds have not kicked in yet but, hey, the day I don’t reply to a left-wing loon like you is the day I actually vote for a left-wing loon like you, which is never going to happen. You said, “your economy was growing on lies, and loans. All of which have evaporated.” Newsflash John, in capitalistic systems economies go up and they go down. When Bush came into office he inherited a recession from Clinton because of the .com bust, but nobody gives Bush any credit from getting out of it even though 9/11 took place only a few months after he entered office. And while we’re on it, the typical song of the lunatic left, of which you seem a main member, is that “yeah, but you were attacked on Bush’s watch. He was warned, and did nothing. Al Quada attacked on his watch, because they knew they could kick your ass, and they did.” Wow, if that isn’t a really seriously demented statement I don’t know what is. The only accurate thing you said was that we were attacked on Bush’s watch. Other than that, you really need some serious help. Bush was not warned and there was nothing to do since there was no indication where the attack was coming from and from who. As far as Al Qaeda (check your spelling, son) is concerned, some “ass kicking” they gave us. I guess that’s why bin Laden is being forced to end his days in a cave in northern Pakistan and so many of his followers have been either killed or captured. I only bring this up because left-wing lunatics like you seem to never have the brains to think beyond your MoveOn.org talking points. Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth according to you people, right? As for the rest of your post, it just bores me. Lies and distortions always bore me, just like the liberal left bores me. The one thing I will say is that you remind me of that guy who walks into a psychiatrist’s office and says, “Doctor, you have to help me, my brother thinks he’s a chicken.” The psychiatrist says, “That’s terrible, did you ever think of having him committed?” And the man replies, “We would, but I need the eggs.” John, seems to me that you need psychiatric help as well as eggs.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:27 am 37. deguello:

Yeah Bush reminds me of Lincoln;they both wore shoes,they wore pants; they ate lunch,Lincoln won the civil war,Bush tried to pimp out the USA to Vicente Fox,and the mexican plutocracy;they both read books, (comic books in Bush’s case),Yup Bush reminds me of Lincoln! I think Shiver needs to go on anti-schizophrenic meds!

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:37 am 38. D Leaberry:

I agree that Lincoln and Bush had similarities. Both were evil and started unnecessary wars. Of course, Lincoln has more blood on his hands.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:41 am 39. Zbigniew Mazurak:

“Yes, I believe Lincoln was a great President.”

Again, Shiver has revealed her true face. Only a liberal would believe King Abe was a great president. King Abe hiked taxes by double digits, ignored General Scott, and appointed dozens of incompetent generals. He was a disastrous president.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:42 am 40. Steve White:

Thanks for writing this. I have thought the same thing for several years. I live in Springfield, IL where there is a new Lincoln museum. To see one of the numerous displays you must file down a fairly long hallway that is covered with critical and defaming articles and political cartoons about Lincoln published in northern newspapers throughout the Civil War. Maybe Bush should add a similar hallway in his Presidential Library with reprints and cartoons from US newspapers. He would certainly be in good company.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:43 am 41. Rob:

I just want to respond to the claims made by some that insist that G.W. Bush was clearly unfit to be president and how poor his decisions may have been. Eloquence is not a necessary trait of a good decision maker. The fact that someone’s vocabulary is not up to the standards of formal academia should have no bearing on one’s ability to govern (is it the accent that is so deceiving?…). This is why they have people writing speeches for them is it not? Take BHO for instance. Clearly his vernacular far exceeds Bush’s…no comparison, but what he makes up for in public speaking, he lacks in experience. I doubt Obama’s words and empty rhetoric will make up for his inability to make smart, tough decisions when the time comes.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:47 am 42. David S:

George W. Bush reminds me of Abraham Lincoln, but not because of any similarity between the men. George W. Bush makes me look back at our history, and wonder how the Republicans fell so far from the days of Lincoln.

There is no comparison between the two. One took a nation from a terrible crisis to a successful resolution. The other took a successful nation into a terrible crisis.

They are like mirror images – Lincoln was the great uniter, and Bush the great divider. Lincoln was successful, and Bush was, quite memorably, the greatest failure to hold the office.

Peace.

DS

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:19 am 43. Shef Rogers:

This is satire, right?

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:22 am 44. RE:

Rob,

I agree that George Bush stumbles trying to find the correct words to communicate his ideas, while Obama expertly articulates his lack of them. I anticipate the latter will prove to be far more damaging to our nation.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:26 am 45. Shef Rogers:

By the way, Ms. Shriver, “sensibility” see your comment #28) doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:27 am 46. atlargeinohio:

Did Lincoln fire on Ft. Sumpter or encourage the South to secede? Did George Bush attack the US on 9/11/01? I guess I must be getting my history from a different source than Mr. D Leaberry. And to call them both evil? Can you quantify or qualify that for us?

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:36 am 47. LiebermanDem:

Lincoln was competent and loved by the (non-traitorous) American people.

No he wasn’t. He was considered a warmonger and an idiot.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:37 am 48. atlargeinohio:

It amazes me how this crisis of 9/11/01, which had been brewing under President Clinton and not dealt with, was “caused” by GWB. Even Al Gore wanted us to take down Saddam Hussein in the 1990’s for having WMD’s. Clinton was concerned about focus groups and opinion polls and GWB was concerned about “gettin’ ‘er done”, popular or not. I think too many people are getting their education from blogs instead of history.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:55 am 49. Jarhead91:

David S – Licoln united by invading the southern half of the country with the largest armies the U.S. ever fielded and burning cities to the ground. Luckily for him, approval ratings pols hadn’t been invented yet.

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:22 pm 50. Bart:

It still amazes me the degree of hatred and downright stupidity when I read comments that acutally blame Bush for 9/11 and his failure to connect the dots so the attacks could be prevented. These people have no clue and history is something to be avoided at all costs especially when their masters, Soros, speak. How many have actually studied the life of Lincoln and what he went through from childhood to the end of his life? I seriously doubt anyone has taken the time or had the inclination to do so.

Politics is war and this country has been involved in one of the bloodiest in recent history for the past eight years. The defeated Democrats refused to acknowledge they lost and with the complicity of their propaganda wing, aka Mainstream Media, they continued the war by using different weapons. The war of words and false ideology finally won out and this country has been left with scars that won’t be healed anytime soon if ever. We deserve what is coming.

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:31 pm 51. D Leaberry:

By 1860, what was once the United States of America had split into two very different nations. Read the literature and newspapers from both regions in the period of 1830-60. The hate and virulence between North and South was monumental. The North and the South should have parted amicably in 1861 as each had evolved in different directions. Instead, Lincoln chose war and invasion, 600,000 were killed and the South was set back decades.

As for Fort Sumter, the Yankees would not vacate Southern soil. The South fired on the fort because the Northern soldiers did not belong there.

With the divergence of two differrent Americas(one effete, urban and liberal and the other rural, masculine and conservative), I certainly suppport secession today. With the collpase of Wall Street and the bankruptcy of the American treasury, I certainly see radical times ahead.

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:33 pm 52. atlargeinohio:

Barry #33-

Think about what you are saying. If there are successes in GWB’s administration, well, there are a lot of other people helping him make decisions.They deserve some of the credit. True. But if his administration makes mistakes, it’s “all on him”. Will we see that analysis with Barry, or the opposite?

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:36 pm 53. David S:

@49

Jarhead91,

Licoln united by invading the southern half of the country with the largest armies the U.S. ever fielded and burning cities to the ground. Luckily for him, approval ratings pols hadn’t been invented yet.

No argument from me. Still beats the pants off what Bush has ‘accomplished’. Lincoln had the war basically wrapped up within four years – Bush has been muddling along in Iraq and Afghanistan for far longer, with nothing to show for it.

The Constitution does not provide for secession – once you join the Union, that’s that. Lincoln made difficult decisions and restored the United States, making the following century of progress possible.

Bush, in contrast, has spent all the blood and treasure he could borrow to pursue a purposeless conflict with countries that never were a threat. So much for progress.

Peace.

DS

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:03 pm 54. Libertyship46:

Hey David S: I love how people like you say the most idiotic things and then sign their notes “Peace.” That must be a new liberal thing, where people want to sound nice even though they say viscious things. You said, “Bush has been muddling along in Iraq and Afghanistan for far longer, with nothing to show for it.” I guess overthowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrowing Hussein in Iraq doesn’t count for much, installing democratic governments in both countries doesn’t count for much, and having firm bases in both countries from which to launch military operations against Muslim fanatics doesn’t count for much either. Not to mention that we now have a major oil-producing country that is friendly to the United States (Iraq) and that Iraq may also prove to be a major ally against Iran. Also, a psychopathic dictator in a large Middle-Eastern country has been brought to justice and hanged and his two homicidal sons, who were responsible for countless acts of terrorism and torture, were disposed of as well. And for the first time in history a major Middle Eastern nation has a really good shot at maintaining a democratic form of government. Are things perfect? Of course not, but they are a lot better now than they were three years ago. Nope, I guess to people like you this was all a waste of time and effort. Funny, people who thought like you also ran the Clinton administration, which never had the stones to kill Osama bin Laden, a policy that brought us straight on the path to 9/11.

Peace.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:36 pm 55. David S:

@54

Libertyship46,

”I guess overthowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrowing Hussein in Iraq doesn’t count for much, installing democratic governments in both countries doesn’t count for much, and having firm bases in both countries from which to launch military operations against Muslim fanatics doesn’t count for much either.”

Agreed. Overthrowing regimes that we previously anointed is not a good use of resources. Making war against the Middle East has never been a winning strategy. Now we’re stuck in two wars, with no exit strategy.

“Not to mention that we now have a major oil-producing country that is friendly to the United States (Iraq) and that Iraq may also prove to be a major ally against Iran.”

Glad you mentioned it. Now we are occupying a major oil-producing country in hopes of taking over their resources, and rekindling the nascent Iran-Iraq war in which we have been involved for decades. Wonderful plan, no?

“Are things perfect? Of course not, but they are a lot better now than they were three years ago.”

Perhaps things have improved in the past three years, but it is clear that things are much worse than they were eight years ago.

” I guess to people like you this was all a waste of time and effort.”

You got that right. 100%.

“Funny, people who thought like you also ran the Clinton administration, which never had the stones to kill Osama bin Laden, a policy that brought us straight on the path to 9/11.”

Interesting. So Clinton keep tabs on the guy, hands over massive amounts of intelligence to Bush, and Bush fails to follow up. Yet somehow the failing is Clinton’s? What exactly are you trying to prove?

We’ve gone a little off topic here… what exactly do you think Bush has in common with Lincoln?

Peace.

DS

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:02 pm 56. Bilgeman:

#36 Libertyship16:

“Wow, John (#29), seems like your meds have not kicked in yet but, hey, the day I don’t reply to a left-wing loon like you is the day I actually vote for a left-wing loon like you, which is never going to happen.”

Don’t feed the troll, he’s just another foreign loser who thinks that anyone ’round here GAS about what his opinions about our domestic affairs are.

He won’t be around long, he has to be go pick up his social welfare check and then lock himself into his wretched council flat before the yobs and Islamist immigrant “youths” begin their nightly riots.

Really, EuroLiberals lead such pitiable and empty lives.

The envy of the passive eunuch towards the active manly.

With a few notable exceptions, scrue the Euros…give me our Latino neighbors anyday, Hard-working God-fearing folks who know good and well what’s what.

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:06 pm 57. JH Spyker:

[golf clap]

Usually Kyle-Anne Shiver’s stuff is simply retarded. This, though, is pretty funny.

Bravo, young wingnut!

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:49 pm 58. Marc Malone:

Lots of good comments here. I, too, see many similarities between the two Prez’.
The country was divided then as now. Both had extreme opposition from the press.
Both were ridiculed as dummies. (That’s right: Lincoln was pilloried as an unsophisticate. The Gettysburg address was mocked as amateurish. Bush’s speech to Congress following 9/11 was written by him… and rallied the nation.)
Both chose war, not yielding.
Both chose to set aside parts of the Bill of Rights to pursue that war.
Both became single-minded.
Both were successful in that pursuit. (Yes, terrorism is on the run.)
Both left a mess in their wake (pun unintended)… to be exploited by the Dems.
Both are succeeded by corrupt incompetents and carpetbaggers. Now, the carpetbaggers are the beggar capitalists, the Ivy-graduates with their hands out, plundering the country. Homes and assets will be siezed soon, mostly via taxes. A severe depression followed then. So, too, will one now.

Lincoln was exalted by history. He was, indeed, an unsophisticate… but, he had great moral clarity. He did what he had to do. His was an easier war to win. Although he botched much of it, he eventually got it right. The country was greatly damaged in his term, but it was necessary. The pillaging after was not necessary, but also was not his fault. That was his foes’ doing.

In the future, Bush’s failings will be mostly forgotten or devalued. If the war on terror is successful long-term using his policy, then he, too, will be seen much like Lincoln. Unfortunately, the current looting may well prevent this.

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:25 pm 59. 888:

The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush did what he thought was right for Americans and America’s interests and allies despite being criticized and villified by the whole universe. Obama, on the other hand, will do what he thinks is right to get votes for his second term and to pay back all those lobbyists, special interests group and foreign donators he is beholden to, and America will look the other way because they are enamoured by the charlatan messiah.

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:29 pm 60. Libertyship46:

Hey David S., you’re kidding, right? You actually said (#55)”So Clinton keep tabs on the guy, hands over massive amounts of intelligence to Bush, and Bush fails to follow up. Yet somehow the failing is Clinton’s? What exactly are you trying to prove?” I guess what you just proved is how far off the lunatic fringe you are. If by “keeping tabs” on bin Laden you mean Clinton didn’t kill him, well then he sure did a great job, especially considering the fact that he had about seven years to get the guy and messed up every opportunity to do so. As for “handing over massive amounts of intelligence to Bush,” that was probably evidence from all of the crimes that bin Laden perpetrated but Clinton did NOTHING to either prevent or punish (such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Kobar Towers bombing, the African Embassies bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole). Yep, Clinton sure had a stunning amount of information to give over to Bush. And people like you keep forgetting that Bush was in office about 8 months before 9/11, whereas Clinton had seven YEARS to get bin Laden and failed to do so. So I guess I’m proving that to left-wing nutroots Kool Aid drinkers like you, you’re obviosly so biased that you can’t look at anything Bush did objectively. Even if Bush was another Lincoln, people like you would never admit it. So what’s the point in discussing the issue? If you look back on my original comment #21, you’ll see that I thought that a more accurate comparison would be between Bush and Harry Truman, not that a person of your ilk would care to objectively analyze both presidencies and see the similarities between the two.

Peace.

FU

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:42 pm 61. TurfMonster:

Bush will be thought more like Truman than any other president. He made his fair share of mistakes and had his fair share of successes and did so with a determination and a nobility that will leave reasonable people proud of him, even if they think he was more likely to be mistaken than correct.

But the comparison between the Copperheads and today’s willfully dishonest left-wing is pretty close to being spot-on, though I suspect it is unfair to compare the Copperheads with the scum that has hated Bush with every fiber of their being for the past eight years. The Left-Wing will be eviscerated by historians who don’t have an axe to grind for the willfully dishonest manner in which they pursued the reins of power (which is all that these scum are about when examined closely) in this country and their abandonment of the spread of liberty that this country once stood for and once defended. And this country will continue to suffer so long as this scum has any influence of any significance in the matters of our country.

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:12 pm 62. AST:

Thanks for that, Kyle-Ann. It seems to be a law of this world that the better a man is, the more vehement and howling his enemies will be. George W. Bush is truly a humble man, which is why he has tried to do what he feels God expects of him. It’s those who view the good opinion of the world as highest goal who resent his not seeking theirs.

We’re becoming polarized along the lines of humility and faith on one side and the wisdom of the world on the other. I want to be on God’s side, with Bush. There will be more mercy there.

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:24 pm 63. James:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/

Bush is God fearing haha ya right. But if it makes you feel good to think so. I mean skull and bones is a good God fearing organization isnt it. Just ask John Kerry

Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.

“You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son,”‘ Bush said.

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:53 pm 64. David S:

@60

Sure is nice that Bush took care of Osama. Wait, he didn’t? Eight years on, still no capture? Funny that.

I guess the “bin Laden determined to strike in US” report was just overlooked?
At least Clinton had the intelligence to avoid a middle east ground war. You aren’t helping your case here. Truman may be considered a good post war president if you compare him with the other Republicans that followed. That is not a glowing endorsement.

Bush has the added bonus of being reviled throughout the world.

Peace.

DS

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:18 pm 65. Lyddea:

Here we see the “Big Lie” in all it’s glory. We have all lived through George Bush’s presidency, and the truth of his performance is as clear as the nose on our face. In light of such contradicting evidence comparisons to even middling past presidents seem absurd. Therefore, if the PJM mandated “balanced journalism” assignment of positively spinning Bush falls to you, then embrace that absurdity and compare him straight to Lincoln.

Bravo Shiver, let us always believe on Wednesday what we believed on Monday, no matter what happens on Tuesday.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:35 pm 66. myth buster:

It would have been easy for Lincoln to simply let the South succeed, but he chose to do what was right, rather than what was easy. The Republican Party is the party of liberation and defense of the weak and defenseless. We are the anti-slavery party, the anti-totalitarian party, and the pro-life party. The Democratic Party is the party of Copperheads, slavery, subterfuge, and abortion. We hate injustices- real injustices like innocent people being tortured and killed, not phony injustices like racial issues solved a generation ago.

Maybe if Lincoln had survived the attempt on his life, Jim Crow could have been avoided. Jim Crow was not an indictment of Lincoln, but of his assassin. We lament that Lincoln didn’t live long enough to see his policies through to the end.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:02 pm 67. Rob Peepers:

KA,

Hey, I read Rick’s and your dueling columns, and yours left him in the fact and logic dust.

You are the creme de la creme of writing. My friend Rick’s not so bad either.

And I loved the idea of two opposing viewpoints. Suggest you guys do it again. People try to dialogue in the cheap seat comments section, but guys like Hurley lob a verbal grenade and everybody goes balistic.

I prefer discussions with decorum as in the old SNL days in the point-counterpoint political bit when the woman would say something thoughtful and the guy would say, “Clara, you ignorant slut.” Those were the days.

Seriously, Kelly, both you and Rick came off great.
Regards,
Rob

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:12 pm 68. mike m:

The most striking similarity is thatis that Lincoln and Bush both won hard wars that liberated the oppressed and enslaved people.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:17 pm 69. Rob Peepers:

Sorry, Kyle-Anne. Not Kelly. Reminds me of the episode when Jerry forget his date’s name. It was Dolores. Remember?

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:18 pm 70. James:

Yea thats right the Iraqis too will enjoy the wonderful benefits of the UN and World Bank. Thanks Boosh. Mission accomplished.

Jan 17, 2009 - 4:53 am 71. LynnS:

He’s like Lincoln because he held the Union together when it was divided. He’s like FDR because when the sleeping giant awoke he rallied the nation to the challenge.

The fringe (for example #70) want to go back to sleep and are like very angry two year olds woken too early from their nap. Don’t worry we will prevail.

p.s. Thanks President Bush for protecting this nation from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Jan 17, 2009 - 7:19 am 72. Libertyship46:

Hey David S., I love how Bush haters like you love to distort history to suit your own warped views. You said (#64) that, “Sure is nice that Bush took care of Osama. Wait, he didn’t? Eight years on, still no capture? Funny that.” Well at least we have him on the run, hiding in some cave in Pakistan, with his minions being blown to pieces by Hellfire missiles (I think we bagged approximately 6 of them in the last few weeks, probably much to your shock and dismay). Clinton literally botched two major opportunities to actually kill bin Laden (once in the Sudan and at least once, maybe even twice, in Afghanistan). And who do you think bin Laden actually fears more, Bush (who takes every chance possible to try and blow him to pieces), or Clinton, who was more concerned with his affair with Lewinsky rather than concentrate on the war on Islamic terror? Please, it isn’t an accident that we haven’t been attacked here in the United States for over seven years since 9/11. But to Kool Aid drinkers like you, this was simply an “accident.” See, you are so blinded and warped by illogical hatred that you can’t even give credit where credit is due. Left wing loons like you also love to state, “I guess the “bin Laden determined to strike in US” report was just overlooked?” Again, it shows how ill-informed haters like you distort the truth. That report just stated that “some” attack “could be” imminent, but it gave absolutely no specifics, didn’t indicate where the threat was coming from, who was behind the threat, let alone how the “attack” was going to be carried out. Not much information to go on, but to people like you “Bush just knew” the attack was coming and did nothing about it. Dishonest people like you should really go hide in a hole somewhere (maybe you already are) for being that dishonest. As for being “reviled” around the world, well, when we were supposedly “loved” by Euro trash under the Clinton administration, we got the first attack on the World Trade Center, the deadly attack on Kobar Towers, two US Embassies destroyed in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. Wow, I wonder how bad things would have been if those same people you seem to love really hated us?

Dishonest people like you are such losers.

Peace.

FU

Jan 17, 2009 - 8:19 am 73. Gus:

Yeah, and there were no terrorist attacks on US soil for a long, long time BEFORE George Women Bush became Alcoholic-In-Command.

Jan 17, 2009 - 12:48 pm 74. Pat J:

Lincoln never had a cell waiting for him at The Hague.

Jan 17, 2009 - 1:59 pm 75. Libertyship46:

But I think there’s one waiting for you, Pat J. You can share it with your friend Gus.

Jan 17, 2009 - 4:09 pm 76. Valerie:

Bush last weekly radio address

If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.
As we address these challenges — and others we cannot foresee today — America must maintain our moral clarity. I’ve often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense — and to advance the cause of peace.

***************

He DID learn how to give a speech. Our press never bothered to transmit.

I would respectfully remind those who see the words of Lincoln all over all our buildings in DC: Abraham Lincoln was not regarded as particularly eloquent in his time. His speeches were not regarded as stylish, and the Gettysburg Address was over before the photographer had time to properly set up.

Uh, gus, do you know anything at all about what Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States had to do (and say?) about the Barbary Pirates? The simple fact is that criminals using Islam as an excuse to attack Americans wherever they can find them have been around since about the founding of our country. The ability to mount an attack on the scale of a country at war — that was new.

Jan 17, 2009 - 5:05 pm 77. DavidN:

17. Robert Hurley:

This column is a joke! Next your will be coparing him to Jesus Christ!

No way…*That* honor is restricted for Obama…

Jan 17, 2009 - 6:53 pm 78. Wadeusaf:

Kyle-Ann,

Thank you for a thought full piece. I agree with you that the presidencies of Lincoln and Bush 43 were similar in some broad areas, and surprisingly in a great many narrower ways as well. The first similarity that struck me way back in 2001/2002 was the calls for negating the constitutionality of the votes that made them president. The paralysis that was caused in government due to the reaction of the Democrat party, which both bordered on and crossed the line of treason, was more easily seen in President Lincoln’s day. As family and friends had to choose sides in Mr. Lincolns time, on September 12th there was no doubt where anyone who was an American citizen stood. But determining who the culprits were and finding ways appropriate to respond as a nation and as individuals is more difficult today than during the time of Lincoln. Lincoln did have many of the same challenges with the press and traitorous leaders of the “loyal opposition” as have plagued President Bush. It is not by accident that democrats looked to history for examples of how to be so ill mannered or for guides to treachery and intrigue. However the south which united in defiance of President Lincoln and Federalism has been mainly stalwart in support of the President and the GWOT. Like Lincoln it is in the Northeast (today please add the west coast) population mecca’s that so much trouble is suckled, where opposition has spurred on frivolous and dangerous litigation and spawned so many lies and so much vitriolic hate for the president.

IMO America today is still grappling with the last vestiges of slaveries’ scourge. Here there is can too be found parallels between the Presidency of George W Bush and what should have been the second Lincoln term of office. A healing process set in motion by President Lincoln was undermined in short order by Carpetbaggers, who rose to power on the backs of freedmen. Having denied the southern population the protections of Federal Troops and protections of Due Process, political forces opposed to the reconstruction plans of Lincoln as implemented by President Andrew Johnson, set in motion a Trial of Impeachment. President Lincoln had the political prowess to avoid such a trial and such and outcome. And I strongly disagree with your assertion that there was no plan for the reconstruction of the south or the binding of wounds caused by years of war. The early efforts in LA and in Northern controlled portions of the south were a model for just such efforts. Efforts which were brought to a ugly and untimely end by the advancement of racism and acts of terror by groups like the KKK.

By sticking to principal and stalling off the efforts of the Democrat Party to derail the efforts of our troops and the political process in Iraq, President Bush compelled the Iraqis to grow beyond the point where assassination or alien intrigue can easily cause an abandonment of democracy’s course.

That Federalism that was forced on Lincoln is one area of contention. Just as the growth of the federal government required by a necessary response to terror, under President Bush, the emergency measures installed in creating the DHS, or the creation of a War Department, is an economy of administration. The trouble is in downsizing to utility in times of peace, without loosing the desired sharp edges required for war as a means of honest deterrence. There is little to recommend a return to how things were in 1787. there is less to suggest a return to the complacency of either December 6th, or September 10th.

I do not think Mr. Moran has given you the look of and idiot. In attempting to paint your article in poor light, Mr. Moran has not only made a case that is out of focus but also out of spite. His is not worth the effort of a response (although I did blow off a bit of steam in comments under his leavings).

To sum up, As men there are great differences between Lincoln and Bush. As Presidents in my opinion, there are remarkable and inspiring similarities.

Thank you again for your thoughtful composition.

Jan 17, 2009 - 8:00 pm 79. vivo:

Bush and his crew were just geniuses.

They created the Iraqi conflict with the purpose of dominating the Middle East with a base right in their middle.

They didn’t capture Bin Laden to perpetuate an image of danger and allow the military complex to enrich the weapons and supplies manufacturers and security providers.

They created (long term) control of Iraqi oil supplies for the benefit of the American demand.

They could only do it by doing what they did. The problem is that the rest of the world could see through the whole thing and think the USA are pirates.

But they succeeded. And of course, they give a fig what the opinion has to say. Bush was the perfect guy for this. It’s done and the money is in the bank. And let the taxpayers foot the bill for years to come. That’s the legacy.

The housecleaning is left to the next administration to salvage whatever will dig the American people and allies from a deep hole. It’s not time for divisive partisanship, whether you like it or not. Be realistic. And pay your taxes.

Jan 18, 2009 - 4:21 am 80. bod more:

Are you sure you don’t mean Jefferson Davis, rather than Lincoln?

Despite the pathetic spin attempts by Bush and his criminal band in the waning days of his Reich, he will go down in history as the most inept, divisive president this country has ever had the misfortune to endure. And the Republicans will be known as the Party of Treason to future generations.

Jan 18, 2009 - 5:53 am 81. Libertyship46:

Wow, bod more (#80), but who’s biased, right? I thought nuts like you had a home on the Daily Kos? But it’s nice to know that you’re open-minded enough to objectively look at other points of view. You should be very happy that your massiah is being sworn in soon. I’m sure the heavens will smile and all will be well in this land of ours once Saint Barak, the true embodiment of Lincoln, will grace us with his warm, glowing wisdom and knowledge. What bunk. You really need some help if you think the Bush administration was that bad. Put down the Kool Aid for a bit and things may look a little better. Why do people like you even bother reading these posts?

Jan 18, 2009 - 8:28 am 82. TurfMonster:

LOL, historians are going to have a field day categorizing the variety of psychiatric problems that the Bush haters have today.

Keep it up, KosKids! You’re on Candid Camera!

Jan 18, 2009 - 8:44 am 83. Bilgeman:

#81 bod more:

“And the Republicans will be known as the Party of Treason to future generations.”

I rather doubt that. Since the Homosexual lobby and Abortion-on-demand-at-taxpayer-expense-even-for-minors-without-parental-notification-crew are more at home in the Democratic Party, it sure looks like future generations will be of largely Republican heritage…

Jan 18, 2009 - 9:39 am 84. Terry Gain:

Taking a train ride and all to his unauguration Obama is now pretending to be Lincoln and in today’s upside down world the MSM attempts to take America along for the ride. This comparison insults our intelligence.

Despite fierce opposition from the Democrats Lincoln (Bush) saw the mission through to completion.

Lincoln saw his nation suffer 700,000 deaths rather than see it broken into two.

Bush saw his nation suffer 4200 deaths rather than concede Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran.

Obama agitated to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran and not even the prospect of genocide deterred him from his devotion to that goal. And he pursued this goal for at least a year after it was obvious that Iraq was being inexorably pacified. He then claimed to be surprised by the success of The Surge.

Obama is the polar opposite of Lincoln.

If Lincoln were Obama, then today Obama would be a slave rather than POTUS.

The real intelligence failure is the inability to accept that if Hussein had not been removed from power he would have resumed his pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as the financing, harboring and training of terrorists as soon as sanctions ended.

Jan 18, 2009 - 10:16 am 85. James:

Now now now. Republican Democrats just different wings of the same bird.

Jan 18, 2009 - 10:49 am 86. David S:

@83

Keep dreaming.

Peace.

DS

Jan 18, 2009 - 2:08 pm 87. Bilgeman:

#86:

“Keep dreaming.”

No problemo…and tell your chums over that way to keep on sodomizin’ and abortin’.

The future belongs to those who breed.

Know any Shakers?

Jan 18, 2009 - 3:05 pm 88. jaj:

I will also miss President Bush. He made mistakes, but he courageously faced some terrible, tumultuous times in America. He always tried his best, and did what he thought was best for the country. He is, to use his own words, greatly “misunderestimated.”

Jan 18, 2009 - 5:57 pm 89. David S:

@87

Bilgeman,

You are no doubt aware that the only age category won by the GOP in the most recent election was 65+, and that most of these folks aren’t exactly “breeders”.

The future belongs to those who evolve.

Peace.

DS

Jan 18, 2009 - 8:36 pm 90. David S:

@59

888,

Did Bush not do what he thought would get votes for his second term, and pay back all the lobbyists, special interest groups and foreign donators he is beholden to? And did America not look the other way?

Bush did what he was told to do by the PNAC crowd. If he stopped for a second to think what was right for Americans and America’s interests and allies, we would not be in the present pickle. Are you working for Haliburton or Blackwater, or do you comment solely for the love of seeing your words in print?

I admire your capacity to believe Bush is blameless in spite of all the evidence; I expect it is something you were trained for from an early age.

Peace.

DS

Jan 18, 2009 - 11:43 pm 91. Jim C.:

One more comparison.

The extreme left sometimes called Bush “chimpy” or “smirking chimp”.

Lincoln was depicted as a monkey. http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/cartoon/monkey.html

Jan 19, 2009 - 1:43 am 92. Jim C.:

And Stanton (pre-cabinet) referred to him as “the original gorilla”.

Jan 19, 2009 - 1:45 am 93. James:

Jorge W. Booosh(our first Mexican president) is merely a puppet. He ran nothing.

Jan 19, 2009 - 4:54 am 94. Jarhead91:

Gus – You are joking right? You forgot the first World Trade Center Bombing, Oklahoma City (I know – domestic), and the 1998 U.S. embassy (which are U.S. soil) bombings. Clinton fooled around with interns while the terrorists ramped up their capabilities and operations.

Jan 19, 2009 - 5:31 am 95. Bilgeman:

#89 David S :

“The future belongs to those who evolve.”

What’s evolving? Growing up fatherless in a housing project while subsisting on government welfare checks and attending a monopolistic public school system that instucts you in moral relativism,(thereby ensuring that you never develop a moral compass), and demands that you “celebrate the diversity” of those cultures that would enslave, sodomize, and/or behead you?

That ain’t “evolving”, chum. That’s a dead-end. And it’s what 40 years of the Cultural Left’s social engineering is trying to accomplish.

“You are no doubt aware that the only age category won by the GOP in the most recent election was 65+, ”

You claiming to see a trend from this one sample?
Why not? The boosters of that chap who claims to have been born in Hawaii are claiming he was elected in a landslide, (although when Prop 8 passed in California…by the same margin, it was characterized as a “narrow defeat”).

I wouldn’t bank too much on that, though. the 65+ set were born in 1943 and earlier, so in the next 4 and 8 years, we’ll be seeing the first cohorts of te Baby Boomers hit that age group. Big numbers, pardner.
Whether they vote “Summer of Love” or “Reagan Revolution” remains to be seen, but I’d note that folks generally vote their jobs and their pensions.

Jan 19, 2009 - 3:20 pm 96. David S:

@95

Bilgeman,

Go back and read the origin of species. Take the long view. I’m not going to review high school science here for your benefit.

I could provide plenty of additional samples that show the aging of the GOP base, and the broadening support for Democrats amongst the youth of America. What is more interesting is looking forward.

The future for the GOP looks quite bleak. Baby Boomers have all just been treated to a very good example of what the Republicans do when they hold the reins in Washington. If Obama accomplishes 1% of his goals, he will have improved upon Bush by a large margin.

If people vote their jobs and their pensions, the GOP is as good as dead.

Peace.

DS

Jan 19, 2009 - 4:32 pm 97. Pat J:

The GOP base is going the way of the dinosaurs. They’re dying off hopefully faster than Bill O’Reilly’s TV audience.

Instead Dr. King’s dream is on the verge of coming true. And I like it a lot.

Jan 19, 2009 - 6:20 pm 98. Wadeusaf:

“Instead Dr. King’s dream is on the verge of coming true. And I like it a lot”…

There is no relationship between Dr. Kings dream and Barrack Obama’s becoming President. His dream involves much much more than that, and demands much much more of you, than President Obama’s policies are likely to allow. Enjoy the festivities, but be ready for the let down.

Jan 19, 2009 - 9:05 pm 99. JackT:

my god to even mention george bush and Lincoln in the same sentence, you get 40 lashes.

Jan 19, 2009 - 11:29 pm 100. Govan:

that’s like comparing Hitler to Gandi
some people will write anything – and then there are those like me who read it – a total waste of my time

Jan 20, 2009 - 5:48 am 101. LynnS.:

I think that President Bush is also like President Lincoln because if he had listened to ALL of the chattering voices around in the lead-up and execution of the Civil War he would have become paralyzed with inaction and indecision, the country would have been shattered and we would have become a land of nation states at war with each.

If President Bush had listened to ALL of the chattering voices around him after September 11th he also would have become paralyzed with inaction and indecision and the country would have become further divided as the Islamic terrorists had hoped.

The actions by both these Presidents has led us to where we are today, celebrating the first African-American President in a United States that has not since September 11th 2001, been attacked by foreigners on our soil for over 2,500 days.

Jan 20, 2009 - 8:25 am 102. David S:

@101

LynnS,

You misunderestimate the Jihadi. Bush did exactly what they hoped he would – committed the US armed forces to a conflict within the Middle East, and providing an endless stream of new volunteers to the Jihadi cause.

I agree, Bush has helped to make it possible for Obama to be elected, mainly by his complete ineptitude as President.

Peace.

DS

Jan 20, 2009 - 9:08 am 103. LynnS.:

#102 David S: I am so sorry…..I wasn’t listening. What were you blathering on about? Oh yes…..Former President George W. Bush is to blame for every ill the world has suffered since…. forever. Go ahead continue saying the same thing over and over again.

Jan 20, 2009 - 10:28 am 104. David S:

@103

LynnS,

Yes, I can see you haven’t been listening to much of anything for the past eight years. No need to pull your head out of the sand now. As you were.

DS

Jan 20, 2009 - 10:51 am 105. LynnS.:

#104 David S:

Now that President Bush is no longer seated you may go back to sleep and dream of a time before President Bush where the world was at peace, there were no terrorist attacks, everyone was happy and healthy and bursting with love. Let me help you with a little chant you are familiar with:
Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama

There… there you are getting sleepy…very sleepy….hypnotised in fact.

Peace

LS

Jan 20, 2009 - 11:21 am 106. David S:

LynnS,

If only it were so simple. It will be hard work, but the damage is done, so repair it we must.

Peace.

DS

Jan 20, 2009 - 11:38 am 107. LynnS.:

#106 David S:

Yes, it is that simple, and as usual after you make a mess of things “repairing” what doesn’t need fixed, the conservatives will remain to clean up, while you on the other hand after a little hard work, will throw your hands up and walk away because reality has a funny way of intruding into your make believe world. And of course if you follow the usual pattern, you do a much better job of blaming others (usually the wrong ones) for the things that go wrong than you do actually contributing to something. So blame you must.

Peace

LS

Jan 20, 2009 - 12:22 pm 108. David S:

@107 LynnS:

If conservatives intend to clean up the same way they have for the past eight years, no thanks.

I do have one thing to thank the GOP for: helping Obama get elected.

Don’t worry yourself – we’ll take it from here.

Peace.

DS

Jan 20, 2009 - 1:20 pm 109. LynnS.:

#108 David S:

Sure, take it for now and would you try not to be such wimps like the last time your party was in the White House. And when you leave, try to act with some dignity, turn out the lights, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass. And for goodness sake leave the furniture alone and the keys on the keyboard and stay away from the interns.

Peace

LS

Jan 20, 2009 - 2:24 pm 110. greg:

“Can anyone name a speech George W. Bush made during his presidency that had any effect on the country, in terms of leadership and inspiration? I don’t think so.”

Well I don’t know what your definition of inspirational is, but I sure as hell was inspired when bush was standing on top of the rubble at ground zero three days after 9/11 with a megaphone in one hand and his other arm around the shoulders of a fireman and hundreds of rescue workers around him while he shouted: “I hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon.”

Jan 20, 2009 - 3:11 pm 111. David S:

@110

Talk about MSM bias.

DS

Jan 20, 2009 - 4:28 pm 112. dangerbird:

David S
Thank you for standing athwart the hill and not allowing any thought to be expressed which veers from your pre-approved list of thoughts which are permissible to be expressed. We wouldn’t want anyone to express thoughts which are henceforth impermissible. A battle in every corner. This is evidently your little corner of the world. Hold that ground, peace man.

Jan 20, 2009 - 6:49 pm 113. Bilgeman:

#96 David S,:

“I could provide plenty of additional samples that show the aging of the GOP base, and the broadening support for Democrats amongst the youth of America. What is more interesting is looking forward.

The future for the GOP looks quite bleak.”

If that is so, then why not be gracious towards W as he leaves office?

Your crew over there on the portside has been anything BUT.

I’ll venture a guess. Deep down in your guts, you know that the future is not Leftist.

Even Obama recognizes this, which is why he’s moving towards Bush’s policies and away from the Daily Kos, MoveOn and the rest.

“I could provide plenty of additional samples that show the aging of the GOP base, and the broadening support for Democrats amongst the youth of America. What is more interesting is looking forward”

That would really be bucking the tide. Decades of experience has shown that voters trend to vote more conservatively the older that they get.

But you got “samples” huh?
Well, good for you, ace.

Just as a sidebar, you DO know what a “neocon” is, don’t you?

“Beard-o the Weird-o” selling acid at Woodstock turned “Roger Republican” buying shares from Paine-Webber.

Got that?

And from an earlier era, there were quite a few card-carrying Communists who ended their days as John Birch Society members, (one of my grandfathers among ‘em…I very narrowly avoided being born in the Soviet Union, the grandson of an American immigrant who wanted to help build the Workers’ Paradise).

fred who posts here has his own tale of his escape from the groupthink of Marxism.

But back to the theme…Obama was a fluke. Hillary the UberFrauFuhrer’s primary victories in Florida nad Michigan were disallowed by the DNC, and the GOP fielded the weakest candidate, the sitting GOP incumbent has historically low approval ratings in a near free-falling economy, has been savaged by the Left and their MSM lapdogs, and yet Obama could only pull a 10 percentage point win?

Keep telling yourself about the “Obama Mandate” and how the Right is a dying species…
And as I said, keep on sodomizin’ and abortin’.

Jan 20, 2009 - 9:02 pm 114. David S:

@112

dangerbird,

Thanks for the encouragement, my sarcastic friend. No thoughts were injured in the making of this comment. I’m not seeking to muzzle anyone – bunk is for debunking.

I am genuinely interested in what makes a person liken GWB to Lincoln, or entertain the notion that the challenges they faced could be compared in a meaningful way.

I want to find out what made the Bush lovers love him so much, so I can help to ensure that America never repeats the error.

I am here to learn and to teach, like any good minister.

Peace.

DS

Jan 20, 2009 - 10:39 pm 115. LynnS.:

The only thing David S learns is what has been spoon fed to him by the left until he’s so full he can’t help but spew it back out at his unwilling audience. He’s never curious enough to look elsewhere for enlightenment nor would he recognize it, helpless in his high chair kept prisoner by his adult keepers. He doesn’t understand that until he stops eating the food of the left and looks to feed himself the only thing he will be a minister of his someone else’s religion.

Jan 21, 2009 - 6:03 am 116. David S:

@115

LynnS,

Nobody forced you to read my comments. I’m providing a valuable service by giving you the opportunity to strengthen your beliefs by providing convincing evidence, or to change your beliefs, by looking at the convincing evidence you have heretofore ignored.

I was curious enough to come and spend some time at Pajamas Media. Do you have something interesting or insightful to say, or are you just interested in denigrating me, rather than addressing the very real issues of history and how it is recorded?

I hope you will come to see that I am not here as a minister for anyone but myself. Try re-reading your own comment with “LynnS’ and “right” in place of “David S” and “left”. You will see how vacuous your own statement is. How have you personally benefitted from GOP governance? How has the country benefitted? These are important issues that should be carefully considered by any serious citizen.

Peace.

DS

Jan 21, 2009 - 8:38 am 117. David S:

@113

Bilgeman,

“…why not be gracious towards W as he leaves office?”
Because criminals should be prosecuted, lest others follow their example. Bush ought to be held accountable.

I’ll venture a guess. Deep down in your guts, you know that the future is not Leftist.
The future doesn’t play favorites – it belongs to those who earn their place in it. I don’t believe that the conservative movement understands the nature of progress , or the changes that have shaped our nation. You can guess all day long, but that doesn’t make it true.

Even Obama recognizes this, which is why he’s moving towards Bush’s policies and away from the Daily Kos, MoveOn and the rest.
Obama will be a much more liberal and thoughtful leader than his predecessor. His policies are bold enough to put a smile on my face. I understand that compromise is part of the process, and I have developed patience over the past eight years.

Decades of experience has shown that voters trend to vote more conservatively the older that they get.
Voters who voted for Obama are likely to carry Democrats into power for decades to come.

“All the evidence we have found refutes the idea that as people age their attitudes become more conservative or more rigid,” said Nicholas Danigelis, a sociologist at the University of Vermont. “It’s just not true. More people are changing in a liberal direction than in a conservative direction.”

Just as a sidebar, you DO know what a “neocon” is, don’t you?

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush’s second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the “main characteristics of neoconservatism”[35]:
-”a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
-low tolerance for diplomacy
-readiness to use military force
-emphasis on US unilateral action
-disdain for multilateral organisations
-focus on the Middle East”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

…Obama was a fluke.
According to… Bilgeman.

Keep telling yourself about the “Obama Mandate” and how the Right is a dying species…
And as I said, keep on sodomizin’ and abortin’.

Yes, sir! Thank you sir! May I have another?

Peace.

DS

Jan 21, 2009 - 9:16 am 118. Bilgeman:

#117 David S.:

“The future doesn’t play favorites – it belongs to those who earn their place in it.”

That all starts AFTER you show up. You have to be born, first. A wee little fact that the Left isn’t exactly in favor of.

“I don’t believe that the conservative movement understands the nature of progress , or the changes that have shaped our nation. ”

Ahhh, but we DO…we REALLY DO! I even outlined your “Progress” here in my comment #95:

“Growing up fatherless in a housing project while subsisting on government welfare checks and attending a monopolistic public school system that instucts you in moral relativism,(thereby ensuring that you never develop a moral compass), and demands that you “celebrate the diversity” of those cultures that would enslave, sodomize, and/or behead you?”

See, chappie, all the highfalutin’ rhetoric is secondary to the results you get.
You want to know how Leftist “Progress” shaped our history?

It birthed the Conservative movement. The Rockefeller GOP atrophied, to be replaced by the Goldwater strain…in reaction to the hideous environment that your fetishization of government social programs have condemned all too many of our fellow citizens to.

“Obama will be a much more liberal and thoughtful leader than his predecessor. His policies are bold enough to put a smile on my face.”

You really should do a little research on the district in ChicagoLand that Obama represented as a congressman and a state representative…you might not be smilin’ all that much.
(Here’s a hint…that’s where Rezko comes in.)

“Yes, sir! Thank you sir! May I have another?”

I’m not licensed to give you the one, nor inclined to give you the other.

Jan 21, 2009 - 10:13 am 119. David S:

@118

BM,

Conservatives have always been a force in politics. It was conservatives that attempted to prevent the formation of this Republic. Conservatives are always behind the times, perpetually playing catch-up in a world that values progress.

America is a liberal and radical nation by its very nature.

DS

Jan 21, 2009 - 10:32 am 120. dangerbird:

David S. You’re lying. You’re not interested in anything anyone has to say. If you were really interested in an honest exchange of ideas you wouldn’t feel it necessary to prat every time someone utters a sentence about Bush that doesn’t comport with your abject, baseless, totally irrational, visceral hatred for Bush, or anyone with an (R) by their name. Its not that those of us of the non-hate sector of our society love Bush. Its impossible to have an actual discussion about the merits or demerits of any Bush policy or action with the hate sector of our society (i.e. Democrats, or the left in general), because the absence of visceral slathering hatred in our conversation comes across as an adoring love of Bush and everything he has done. So when Ms. Shriver attempts to explore the possibility that there may be some similarities between Bush and Lincoln, baying crones like you automatically assume we are engaging in a love-fest for Bush. Wrong! You want an irrational love-fest? Watch just about every news outlet out there in relation to Obama. Again. Any rational discussion is precluded by the opposite of your abject loathing of Bush. The abject, irrational, adoration of Obama. And you will not countenance any utterance of someone who thinks differently than yourself without an attempted immediate smackdown. And its childish at best. And totalitarianesque at worst. Robespierre however, would be proud of your diligent attempts at countering every counter-revolutionary wisp of a thought that appears on the scene. Hold that ground, peace man.

Jan 21, 2009 - 5:49 pm 121. David S:

dangerbird,

I have no trouble with an honest exchange of ideas. I posted my thoughts to this thread like anyone else. Jarhead91 directed a comment at me, which I took as an invitation to clarify my position. Libertyship46 took issue with my point of view, and we had a mostly civil exchange on the topic of Bush’s failures.

Bilgeman made a statement at #83 about the future of the Republican and Democratic parties, and we proceeded to debate his assertion. 888 made a statement comparing Bush and Obama, which was clearly in need of rebuttal, and I was happy to oblige.

An exchange followed with LynnS, and I made a brief comment on greg’s post when you elected to address me directly.

I hardly responded to every objectionable sentence about bush – and many of my posts were part of ongoing dialogue, much as this one is. After all the evidence that has been aired, I find it odd that you believe I harbor “abject, baseless, totally irrational, visceral hatred for Bush, or anyone with an (R) by their name”. I have shown here and elsewhere that my distaste for Bush is founded on specific policy and executive decisions by his Administration, a perfectly rational basis on which to disagree.

There is no hate, nothing visceral about it. I have intelligent objections to Bush policy, and as a corollary, I disagree with those who feel he was a good leader.

From my original comment on this article:

One took a nation from a terrible crisis to a successful resolution. The other took a successful nation into a terrible crisis.

Lincoln was the great uniter, and Bush the great divider. Lincoln was successful, and Bush was, quite memorably, the greatest failure to hold the office.

If you don’t agree, tell me why. Don’t attack the messenger – that’s not constructive. Calling me irrational, or accusing me of being a totalitarian for engaging in a conversation with people who hold a different position, is simply intellectually lazy. I have provided reasons for my belief – why not try doing the same for your own, instead of projecting hatred on the interloper who asks the tough questions?

You at least have to admit that Bilgeman is entertaining when he gets upset…

Peace.

DS

Jan 21, 2009 - 9:59 pm 122. Jennie Maroney:

You don’t stand alone, Ms. Shiver. I share your admiration and sentiments regarding George W. Bush. I too will miss him and I predict that as we watch the new president dismantle all the policies that Bush instituted to keep us safe, more and more people will begin to miss him also.

They used to ask the question, “Are you better off than you were a year ago?” We should be asking ourselves, “do we feel safer than we did a few short months ago when a real commander-in-chief was in office?” With the new president announcing he will shortly (in this year) close Guantanamo, with no plan as to what to do with the terrorists housed there, I’m feeling less safe each passing day.

God bless you, George Bush. I believe history will paint quite a different story about you than the liberal media has done for nearly the entire time you were our leader.

Jan 25, 2009 - 2:23 pm 123. John Crippen:

Well here’s a book on the legacy of George Bush that’ll keep you on the seat of your pants…”The Legacy of George W Bush, A Collection of Confliction Opinions.

Feb 7, 2009 - 12:26 am 124. Nicolas Lugo (USMC):

Better late that never in my response.

I agree completely with this assessment and with the comparison between President Bush and President Lincoln. I have long seen that association given the profound and unpopular adversity each faced. The hardest decision is often doing what’s right even when the majority wish to do what’s wrong simply because it is the easier path. An excellent article, but many that have commented who oppose its logical conclusion are both ignorant and misinformed. Their desire to twist history is really quite pathetic and insulting. But, it demonstrates what lengths they are willing to go in order to be right–even if they have to lie. Well, just as President Lincoln was not appreciated in his time and even hated (so much so that he was killed by those that oppose his policies), President Bush will also be vindicated by history (May he become the next president to be placed on Mount Rushmore) and of that, I have no doubt.

Semper Fi Mr. President on a job well done–your presence and leadership is extremely missed!

Aug 13, 2009 - 2:50 pm

Write a Comment

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