Was President Bush Right?
| I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and this is one of those moments. Most of you know I am a pretty strong partisan when it comes to politics. But I try to be fair. I can't stand it when the two sides of our political divide are guilty of some horrible behavior when the other party is in office, but get chagrined when it happens to their guy. To me that is part of the problem in politics today. We need an atmosphere that will allow each side to celebrate the accomplishments of the other side, simply because it is, or even may be good for our country. Let's face it, Republicans are about as likely to be Worshipers of Satan as Democrats are to be part of the Sons of Hitler Facebook group. So let me say this. While I am not sure it will all work out as we might wish, President Bush was an early voice calling for democracy in the Middle East, something perhaps we are seeing in the earliest stages today in places like Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Additionally, let's give Bush and his administration credit for the work they did in curtailing the nuclear ambitions of Libya and their leader, Mr. Qaddafi. [ Read more about it here ] You might remember it was in 2003 that then President Bush and his administration announced the removal of the remnants of the Libyan nuclear program. Can you imagine what we might be looking at today in that country had that not come to pass? George Bush, it looks like ya done good! Labels: Bush Administration, Democracy, Democrats, Egypt, Libya, Nuclear Arms, politics, President Bush, Repulicans, Tunisia |
posted by Dave Miller at 9:17 AM
Comments on "Was President Bush Right?"
-
BB-Idaho said ... (6:09 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (8:16 PM) :
-
Tim said ... (2:12 PM) :
-
Tim said ... (2:14 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (5:49 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (10:13 PM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (8:21 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (9:41 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (1:39 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (2:29 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (5:57 PM) :
-
Tim said ... (11:42 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (1:41 PM) :
-
Tim said ... (6:59 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (11:06 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (3:34 PM) :
-
Silverfiddle said ... (4:37 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (7:04 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (7:14 PM) :
-
Silverfiddle said ... (7:59 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (8:11 PM) :
-
Tim said ... (3:01 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (7:27 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (9:14 PM) :
-
Tim said ... (5:02 AM) :
-
Tim said ... (5:06 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:18 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:20 AM) :
-
Tim said ... (3:38 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (8:45 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:20 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (1:55 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (7:36 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (12:11 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (1:34 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (2:12 PM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:58 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (6:02 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (6:07 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (6:13 AM) :
-
Tim said ... (10:38 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:08 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (11:20 AM) :
-
Tim said ... (9:01 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (1:03 PM) :
-
Tim said ... (1:22 PM) :
-
dmarks said ... (6:20 PM) :
post a commentWhile I disagreed with President Bush more often than not, he had his fine moments..and in retirement he has been a real gentleman. Rather peculiar,
his wife Laura was always treated (as far as I know) deferentially by the opposition, while Mrs. Obama has been villified
constantly. IMO, this informs more about partisan viewpoint rather than the integrity of either first lady...
You are right about that BB...
Ms. Obama has indeed been vilified at almost every turn, often shamefully so...
We have not seen how this plays out yet. Fingers crossed with a wait and see attitude before I start admitting that W. was some kind of visionary. First they must deliver tangible results to the masses before I'm on board. Don't forget Hezbollah and Hamas take on the trappings of democracy to ultimately undermine the very idea of it.
BB- Republicans are showing their true colors. They are outraged that the presidency, something that they view as their birthright, has been taken away by someone of an inferior class, and they are not above playing the race card to get as many rednecks on their side. Look at how viciously they went after Clinton. If his last name was Kennedy they way have been somewhat more civil (or maybe not).
mr. Obama and the First Lady have shown nothing but sheer class and poise by not sinking to this level.
And really Dave, wasn't W. calling for democracy really a crass attempt to justify invading Iraq because, in his own words, "they tried to kill my Dad!"
Tim, I agree the verdict is still out, but Bush was out front arguing that our long time policy of loving our dictators was inferior to democracy.
And yes, you are right that sometimes democracy can be messy and people do not always vote in who you want, as witnessed not only by your examples, but Mr. Chavez as well.
Nice Post, Dave.
If you Want to Make the Mud Slinging Comparison Fair, BB, then it would be Better if Michelle Obama was Compared to Sarah Palin. Boy has Sarah Palin gotten the Rap!! I've Never Seen anything Like it.
I Actually Chucked at Tim because it is not at all as if the Democrats have not been Playing the Race Card.
Ooh! I Hope some Other Republicans Participate, so Far the Discussion has been between Several Liberals, who are mostly Agreeing with Each Other. Yawn!
Lista, seems fair to compare the treatment of two first ladies, Laura &
Michelle. Palin is a different category and I would have to ponder her equivalent among the liberal women. Oh, OK...
Nancy Pelosi! :)
Lista & BB, as for Michelle Obama, there is absolutely no equivalency on this with her, or any other politician, including Sarah Palin.
Ms. Obama is the First lady, the wife of our President, and has not run for office, and is not surrently exploring that option.
Did she campaign for her husband? Yes, of course she did. Just like Almost every first lady since FDR's wife.
Ms. Palin has been a candidate, is an active commenter on FOX News, publishes her own opinion pieces, etc.
All of those facts, make her open game for legitimate ongoing criticism.
This is clearly the first time we have seen this level of vitriol directed at a first lady.
Lista, or any other conservative, why do you think that is?
Michelle Obama made One Really Big Mistake that I Think she was never Forgiven for. When She said that for the First Time in her Life she is Proud of America. That Put Up a Red Flag in a Lot of Conservative's Minds that have always been Proud of America.
Also, since Women in General are Becoming more and more Political, I Think this Makes the Criticism against Women in Politics, Regardless of the Position, that is Even First Ladies, more Venerable to Criticism than they Used to be.
Actually, her quote was "she was 'really' proud."
But I might counsel people to walk a mile in her shoes first, before making such a judgement and then making a decision to not be forgiving...
just a thought...
Good Advice, Dave, yet Good Luck at Convincing the Masses.
Lista, we really have heard enough from the reactionary right. We know they think Obama is a Muslim, was not born in the USA (Gingrich and Huckabee said he grew up in Kenya), and a hundred other lies to de-legitimize and undermine his authority as President. Never was W. put through such a ringer. Really, he did not experience a backlash until Iraq (and a mild one at that), which intensified in the aftermath of Katrina, and culminated with the utter collapse of the economy, all of which happened under his presidency. "Miss me yet?" a resounding NO! Even though I did not vote for him I did not really "turn" on him until he invaded Iraq. Republicans turned on Obama before he even set foot in the oval office and truly are not above wrecking the country for the middle class to return to power. It never ceases to amaze me how many simpleton Tea Baggers that they have managed to co-opt with their lies to protest for the Koch brothers. Then they lie by saying that if elected they will have a "jobs, jobs, jobs" agenda, then they promote nothing but attacks of abortion, repealing Obamacare, and slashing social programs. So I ask you, are you foolish enough to believe the lies, are just complicit in their hidden agenda of squeezing every last dime out of the middle class?
preach it Tim...
the dems were pretty much in left field when it came to opposing bush early on, and even stood with him on Iraq and Afghanistan.
But you are correct, from day one people have argued that Obama has had an illegitimate claim on the presidency, not because of how he won, as they did with bush, but because of who he is...
I would ask anyone to provide some realistic information to rebut those facts...
Dave I can see that we are both focused, lazer-like, on the lies of the Reactionary Right. I say RR because they have gone so far to the right of conservative (which is really what I am) that they have strayed into borderline fascism with their union busting tactics and talk of arresting elected officials and forcing them (at the point of a gun? brought back in cuffs?) to vote on something so repugnant that they went into hiding rather than allow them to strip away mutually agreed upon rights of collective bargaining. Michael Moore had it right yesterday when he said the rich had gone too far. They have taken the money away from the middle class and are now going after their very dignity by taking away their voice as well. If they succeed Dave, you won't have to travel to Mexico to do mission work, you'll be doing it in your own neighborhood as the rich drive us all into poverty with their insatiable greed.
"No country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources. Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order."
"The test of progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
These words are inscribed in stone at the FDR memorial in DC. I think that the Reactionary Right in congress should take a talk over there this spring and educate themselves.
Let's look at definitions:
"The term reactionary refers to viewpoints that seek to return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society". Back to a day when Blacks knew their place (not in the White House, and at the back of the bus, and women were home taking care of kids while the man worked, and gays were in the closet where they belong).
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
In my opinion, Obama is the conservative at this point.
Tim,
Once I have Realized who you Mean by the "Reactionary Right", I have to say that I Agree with some of what you have said. I'm not Sure, though, that every Accusation against Obama is a Lie. He has not Been Able to Produce a Birth Certificate, so as far as I'm Concerned, the Verdict is Still Out on that One.
Bush Received Plenty of Criticism. Personally, I Think this Silly Comparison of who is Picked on more than Who is a Little Silly, though. All Politicians get their Fair Share of the Ridicule.
I Fail to see how the Right is Responsible for High Unemployment. The Threat of Higher Taxes has a lot to do with this as well and I don't Hardly Think that Obama Qualifies as a Conservative. He may have Started Compromising more Lately, but that is Only because there were so Many Republicans Added to the House.
Lista, look at almost any graph of unemployment and job loss for the last few years and then respond on the charge of unemployment...
here's a good place to start...
http://politicalirony.com/2010/02/06/jobs-lost-bush-v-obama/
Nice post, Dave. You are gentleman for not merely observing this, but going out of your way to say it.
I think President Bush started with a good idea, but he did a terrible job convincing others and getting them on board. He showed that America can go it alone, but it is a long hard slog.
I made the point awhile back in my blog post The Road to Hell that Bush showed us that doing something badly is often worse than not doing it at all.
I alleged that he discredited the very idea of freedom and democracy by his ham-handed efforts. Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps even his previously discredited effort planted some hardy seeds...
I apologize for blog-pimping, but that post begins with Jesus' parable about counting the cost before you build that tower.
In my Most Recent Post, Unemployment and Wealth Tax, I discovered that Figures and Charts can be Produced to Support both Sides of the Issue of how Taxing the Wealthy Relates to the Unemployment Rate. I Find this to Be True so Often that I have Developed a Really Strong Mistrust of Figures and Charts.
I Wish that this wasn't So, but What am I Supposed to Do, when what is Presented by One Party, does not Match what is Presented by the Other?
Is what I just did Considered "Blog-Pimping"? I Hope not, cause I do it all the Time.
Also, I don't Really Think that What's been Accomplished in Iraq is all Negative. We Succeeded at Getting Rid of an Oppressive Dictator and now the Desire for Freedom has Spread throughout all of the Middle East. I Think that's a Good Thing and that Bush did Indeed Plant "Some Hardy Seeds".
I think, Pray! something good may come of it.
We're already seeing the fruits. Iraq's neighbors envy their freedoms.
I didn't mean to demean the whole enterprise. I just think Bush botched it.
I was there, and a lot of good people died giving birth to a new Iraq...
I don't Think that anyone is Going to Debate the Fact that the War in Iraq was not Fought in a Flawless Manner. News Flash! People are Imperfect, including Presidents and Yes, Many Good People Die in War. Unfortunately, that's just how War is.
Personally, I Think Bush did the Best he Could with the Information that he had at the Time.
The very fact that you are a "birther" makes you a member of the Reactionary Right Lista. I have voted for candidates of both parties and am an independent, but must agree with Dave that our best economic growth, longest period of peace, and greatest period of fiscal responsibility were under Clinton's leadership, where there was bi-partisan cooperation. Bipartisanship seems to have gone out the window with Bush. When the Reactionary Right screams socialism they are really saying "squeeze the poor and middle class so that our taxes can be lowered. I have issues with Obama as well, but the Reactionary Right fielded a guaranteed losing ticket with McCain Palin. I may have actually voted for a McCain Romney ticket, or a Romney at the top of the ticket, but not the combination of a very old man who may die in office a leaving a very unqualified Sarah Palin as the Leader of the Free World. Why do you think Bush #1 was not re-elected? Dan Quayle was a big reason for that. I am still willing to listen to Republicans but if they keep purging their ranks of anyone who will compromise in the name of bipartisanship and keep tacking further to the right I am afraid they will not get my vote. If I were a Republican I'd be getting called a "RINO" or Republican Light but anymore I think that they have lost their mind.
Tim, it is like proving a negative...
Saddam, prove you don't have WMD's...
The person doing the asking always gets to accept/determine the veracity of the proof...
Really Lista, what would prove Obama's birth in the US to a group of people predetermined to not believe him?
I Consider Myself a Moderate, Tim, and Detest anything that is Extreme. I Disagree with the Extreme, Zero Regulation and Zero Social Programs, just as much as I do with the Extreme of Socialism.
During Clinton's Term in Office, the Congress was Controlled by the Republicans and Clinton Ended Up with the Credit for a lot of the Republican Decisions that were Made at that Time.
I too Believe in Compromise and am Quite Annoyed at People who Think that such is a Dirty Word. You Really Shouldn't Judge me Based on Only One Issue. That's Pretty Narrow.
My Husband and I Voted for Romney in the Primaries.
Ok Dave,
You Make a Good Point.
Lista we are full circle to the beginning of the discussion. Obama is not a radical leftist. At best he is a centrist president who leans slightly to the left. You missed my point entirely on Clinton. How many times did I use the word bipartisanship? Yes, the republicans do deserve credit for WORKING TOGEHTER with Clinton. The current republicans are only interested in defeating Obama and do not care how badly the country is damaged in the process. We will see no further progress until the second Obama term. We will only see posturing from the right.
And as a Detroiter I say "THANK YOU MR PRESIDENT" for saving the car companies and not letting our battered state go off a cliff. Complain all you want about socialism, but the ripple effect of that would have been the final death knell of Michigan, and what a great waste that would have been. All while letting Wall St. completely off the hook.
Tim, I agree with you on Detroit. If I remember correctly, when Pres. Carter stepped in and guaranteed loans for Chrysler a while back, the GOP was worried then. But not that the gov't would lose the money because of failure, but that the program would work and people would expect help in the future.
Just an interesting take. I can be all for ideological purity, but I wonder how that serves the "common good" when we are talking about millions of potentially unemployed people.
This was about more than Detroit as I am sure you are aware.
On the Clinton years, there was bi-partisanship on some things, but not on the tax increases that Clinton and the Democrats said we needed on top of the Bush 1 increases to balance the budget.
Those increases, started under Bush 1, which led to his electoral defeat, and which every single Republican in Congress opposed became the key to the economic growth of the 90's.
The lesson I take from that is this... yes we need to cut spending, which Clinton was forced to do by the GOP after the tax increasing Dems were thrown out in 1994.
But we also need to raise revenues, as Clinton did, just as Bush 1 and President Reagan had done in their terms.
We saw taxes raised during Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton, and saw economic expansion in US history.
We saw all of that economic gain lost during the Bush 2 years of only tax cuts, no spending cuts, and massive increases in government spending.
Go figure...
Lista, i thought Romney would be a good candidate, but I believed, and still believe, that the GOP is not ready to nominate someone who is not part of mainstream Christianity.
Being a Mormon dq'ed Romney, even if the party did so under the guise of something else.
Just my opinion...
Dave I think that religion cost Gore/Lieberman the election in 2000. There are just enough people left that like a Mormon, would not vote for a Jewish man as VP.
Just my opinion...
And I am in complete agreement with your other comments as well. I just heard that the wealthiest 400 in America control more wealth than those of us in the bottom 50%
Tim,
I Fail to see how Clinton should get the Credit for the Fact that there were a lot of Republicans in the Congress. That Reality sort of Forces Bipartisanship, Regardless of who is in the White House.
Obama is Probably Going to Get the Credit Now for the Republican Influence that is in the Congress now, yet he was not Willing to Compromise Until Recently, since the Republican House is forcing him to.
There are Quite a Large Number of People who do not Agree with your Description of Obama as a Centralist. He has been Called the Most Radical Left President that we have ever Had. Even if such a Statement is a Partial Exaggeration, that Still would not Make him a Centralist and as I Said, he showed Absolutely No Evidence of Compromise, until the issue was Forced by the Republican House.
When I think of Socialism, I Think of Socialized Medicine and not Necessarily the Bail Outs. I'm Torn on the Bail Out Issues and do Realize that at Least some of that may have been Necessary.
Dave,
I Wish I Knew how to get Accurate Historical Information. All I Know is that Every Time that a Democrat Explains it One Way, a Republican Explains it Another, so I Can't Trust any of it and it is so Rare that it is Clear what Decisions were Made by which Party. The Credit or Blame is just Given to the President and that is so Very Misleading.
The Growth Following the Reagan Years, for Example, has been Explained by Tax Cuts, not Tax Hikes. But you are saying Something Different. Who am I Supposed to Believe?
Who Knows why People Vote the way they do? I Imagine there were some who Chose not to Vote for Romney for Religious Reasons, yet that has nothing to do with the Republican Party. That has to do with the Voters.
Lista, you are very correct in that people do in fact interpret results in ways that favor their viewpoint.
Your response to Tim prove his point though... the Dems [Clinton] did work with Republicans in bi-partisan ways during the 90's, as you said.
They pushed him to reduce spending, which he did, and he pushed them to raise taxes, which they did, except in the 1992 budget, where, and you can verify this as fact, every GOP member of the house voted against him.
As for the historical record, you can look it up... President Reagan raised taxes, massively. As did Bush 1, which was what led to his defeat in the election [remember his read my lips pledge?].
I know these are uncomfortable facts for many conservative people, but facts they are. We can differ on the interpretation of results from those increases, but not the fact that both of those Presidents raised taxes.
Did both of those Presidents also cut some taxes, of course they did, but to focus solely on those cuts, without acknowledging the other tax increases is just playing with the facts, which a lot of people do.
On whether Obama is a centrist or not, well that one is open to interpretation also. Perhaps one need not look any further than the fact that liberals are exasperated by him.
He has failed to close GITMO, increased troop levels and bombing in Afghanistan, has continued many Bush Admin security policies like the Patriot Act, in all it's intrusiveness, and has failed to really stand up to the GOP in a full throated defense of progressive values.
That to me, makes him more of a centrist, all on top of the fact that he did not fight for a single payer system for health care, a top left/liberal issue.
"Your response to Tim proves his point though..."
What Point? My Point is that Clinton does not get the Credit for the Bi-Partisanship that was Forced on him by the Republicans in the Congress, nor does he get the Credit for any of the Decisions that were Made by the Republicans.
The Only Way that I am Going to Know Anything for Sure is if a Conservative comes by and Says, yes that's True, yet I'd Bet Money on the Fact that such a Statement would actually be Stated as "Yes, that's True, but...". If there is anything I've Learned from my Blogging Experience, it is how No Body Seems to be Perfectly Honest about Historical Facts.
The Bush Tax Hike I do Know about, but How can President Reagan be Famous for his "Trickle Down" Idea if he was not Able to Carry it Out. President Reagan is not Famous for Raising Taxes. He is Famous for Just the Opposite. How can this be so if History doesn't Bear it Out. That Makes no Sense what-so-ever.
I'm not Uncomfortable with Facts, Dave. I just Wish that I Knew what they were.
Perhaps the Reason Why Liberals, or Actually the Radical Left, are Exasperated with Obama is because he made Promises that he was not Able to Keep. Many of us Knew that that was so before he even Took Office, but some were not Smart Enough to Figure that Out. What it Comes Down to is that there is a Limit to what any Politician from any Party will be Able to do before the Other Party Steps in and Stops him.
In my Opinion, Obama's Promises were Radical Left, yet he has been Forced into more of a Centralist Position because that is all that the Republicans will Allow. This Says Much More, though, about the Political Process than it does about Obama.
I Say, Thank God that he has been Forced into a Centralist Position, for the Way he Campaigned was far too Left and not at all Good for the Country. It's a Good Thing that the Political Process Keeps People like him in Line. I Don't Think that he hasn't Tried to Push Leftist Ideas. I Think that there were too Many Obstacles Placed in his Way by those on the Right and what this shows me is that the Political Process of Checks and Balances does Work. Thank God!
Lista, here's a quote from Forbes magazine, published by strong conservative Steve Forbes, who once ran for President as a Republican...
The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.
And here's the link...
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/02/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-budget-taxes-opinions-contributors-rob-shapiro.html
Here's a link to an article that lays out Reagan's tax raising strategy when he was gov. of California.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/reagan-centennial/
Here's alink debunking the Reagan fiscal aura, written not by a liberal dem, but by his former budget director and authour of the "Trickle Down" theory, David Stockman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html
We'll just have to disagree on the bi partisanship of the 90's and Obama being a centrist.
But there should be no doubt, Reagan believed in, and lived out rising taxes when necessary to fund the government and eliminate deficits.
I wonder if I should Just Allow this Comment to Inspire another Post, Instead of Trying to Write all of what I would Like to say Here. One thought that Came to my Mind Right Away, though, was Why is Reagan Famous for a "Trickle Down" Idea if it Never did Work?
And as to the Bi-Partisanship of the 90's, Unfortunately, I do not Know the History well Enough to Respond to that, yet I have been In Touch with the News During the Obama Era and all I Can Tell you is that the Concept of a Centrist is a Relative One.
Someone whose Ideas are Farther to the Left is going to View anything that is to the Right of their Own Ideas as Moderate or Central, but someone whose Ideas are Farther to the Right, yet Views Oneself as a Moderate or Centrist, is going to View Ideas that are Farther to the Left of their Own Ideas as more Extreme. So you see, it is all Relative and it just Depends on what these Ideas are Being Compared to.
Next, I would Like to Write a Post Based on some Ideas that I Learned in an Economy Class.
He's famous because that was his saying...
A rising tide will lift all boats, that type of rhetoric.
The problem is, as his own budget director pointed out, it was not true.
The lower end did much better moving up the ladder in the 90's than they did in the 80's.
And then in 2000, that lower class again started sliding backward.
Here's a question Lista, because your view of the Clinton presidency is pretty well shared by the majority of republicans I talk to...
If the republicans get credit for the economic increases of the 90's [the GOP dominated Congress forced Clinton to do it], why are the current problems not a legacy of the GOP dominated congress?
A lot of republicans do what you did in ascribing the success of those times on the GOP, even though a Dem was in office.
And then when a Dem is in office, he also gets the blame when things go bad.
Is there ever a time for a republican when something good can be as a result of the Dems?
Just askin...
And remember, my post was titled "Bush was Right."
"If the republicans get credit for the economic increases of the 90's [the GOP dominated Congress forced Clinton to do it], why are the current problems not a legacy of the GOP dominated congress?"
For Goodness Sake, Dave, the Republicans just Barely Got in there. You Can't Expect Change to Happen Immediately. That's Absurd!
"A lot of republicans do what you did in ascribing the success of those times on the GOP, even though a Dem was in office. And then when a Dem is in office, he also gets the blame when things go bad."
Exactly, and the Democrats do the Same Exact Thing. Don't Treat me like an Expert, Dave. All I Know is What Republicans and Democrats have Said and there is not a Single Form of Bias that you can Accuse a Republican of that Democrats are not Guilty of as well and that's just the Problem and this is Why Truth is so Very Hard to Discern.
I Don't Know the Answer. All I Know is that I Find no Reason to Trust you any More than any Republican that I also have Respect for. I Mean no Offense. This is just the Way it is.
I Hope you will not Mind that I just did a Post in Which I have Quoted you, More Liberal Facts and Figures. I am Hoping that More Republicans will Read it on my Blog, than on yours, for the Republicans do not Appear to be Present here at the Moment.
If you can do a Post in which you Imply that Bush is Right, then I can Quote you on my Blog and that is the Same Sort of Gesture. Not that there is any Reason to Compare such Things. This isn't About you and me, Dave. It is About Republicans and Democrats in General and the Biases of both.
Tim said: "We have not seen how this plays out yet. Fingers crossed with a wait and see attitude before I start admitting that W. was some kind of visionary."
Look no farther than his work in Africa, unsung and unrecognized, as Africa is pretty much the "oh, is that still there?" continent for most Americans.
Check into it.
Tim also said: "And really Dave, wasn't W. calling for democracy really a crass attempt to justify invading Iraq because, in his own words, "they tried to kill my Dad!"
Actually, the retaliation against the terrorist regime in Iraq was entirely justified for its aggressions and significant cease-fire violations. After 9/11, its ongoing promotion of terrorism, also a cease-fire violation, made even less sense.
Despite your apparent claim that it was OK for Saddam to try to assassinate a US President. Would it have been just as OK, say, if Saddam had tried to assassinate Jimmy Carter? Someone note related to "W"?
Bush did the right thing, and ignored the liars, on Iraq.
And finally Tim said:
"When the Reactionary Right screams socialism they are really saying "squeeze the poor and middle class so that our taxes can be lowered."
Actually, they are not doing anything of the sort. They are expressing a healthy skepticism of the policies of "government power for power's sake"
As for lowering taxes, it is really lower them on everyone, including the poor and middle class. No "squeeze", except maybe on overpaid "public servants", who are still quite well off after pay cuts.
And Bush was quite visionary for lowering taxes on everyone, mostly middle-class.
And for Dave: "Tim, it is like proving a negative...
Saddam, prove you don't have WMD's..."
For one, negativity, like positivity, is merely a state of something. One no different from the other.
On to the specifics, the Gulf War cease fire agreement called for complete unfettered inspections in Iraq. Complete. Saddam agreed to this. If he had complied, the inspections and exact status of WMD would have been done in the early 1990s.
As it was, he blocked inspections up to the moment of the major allied retaliation in 2003.
And, as it was, many WMD from the Gulf War were indeed found.
"The person doing the asking always gets to accept/determine the veracity of the proof..."
Which would have been no issue if Saddam had allowed inspections.
-----------------------
"Really Lista, what would prove Obama's birth in the US to a group of people predetermined to not believe him?"
Doesn't matter to me. I don't like the US-born requirement anyway. If Obama DID turn out to be foreign born, there's be a Constitutional crisis for a week and a half, and the Supreme Court and Congress would get us by it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Another one of the man things Bush was correct on:
click here
He did a lot of great things, especially when compared to what the political opposition wanted.
His main failings included failing to try harder to stop the "Community Reinvestment Act" and Fannie Mae... both of which eventually knocked the economy off track. He also ignored the wishes of most Republicans and sided with Senator Obama and Senator McCain and singed the massive corporate handout/bailout bill, giving Obama an early start in his ultra high deficit trend.
Thanks for Sticking Up for Bush, Dmarks. It is so Rare that Someone Says much Positive about him. He was so Hated by the End of his Last Term in Office, yet you Know that the Man couldn't Possibly have done Everything Wrong. He's just a Man for Goodness Sakes.
Lista, you sound like a battered wife sticking up for her husband ("it was really my fault that he hit me"). Dmarks thinks Bush was the greatest president since Lincoln. He really is disturbed.
George Bush has Never Hit Me and if he Did, I would not be Blaming myself. I'm not an Enabler. Not Even Close. I'm Far too Outspoken to ever Stick Up for Some One who is Mistreating me. I'd Turn him into the Authorities so Fast that he wouldn't Know what Hit him.
I heard that Hitler was a vegetarian,loved animals and had many other fine qualities...
8 years of Bush has screwed up this country so bad we may never get it back to where we were in 2000. Can you say Stockholm Syndrome?
Tim, you are a flat out liar:
"Dmarks thinks Bush was the greatest president since Lincoln."
Please quote me where I said this. I defy you to... Nope you never will. I never said or implied this
"He really is disturbed."
Yup, people who do not share Tim's exact political views are mentally ill, right? I think Tim stole this line of reasoning from Michael Savage.
------------
"8 years of Bush has screwed up this country so bad we may never get it back to where we were in 2000"
Now, that is an opinion. But highly questionable. In so many ways. Deficit and fiscal irresponsibility? Well, Obama is presiding over a deficit problem twice as bad as Bush had. Unemployment? Yeah lets see how this "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago" question plays in Nov. 2012".
So, where was the country in 2000? Let's see... the Clinton recession... Al Quada attacking us without any effective retaliation.... are you sure you want to to back to it all?
And elsewhere you claim to want to go to the future.
Oh, and next time, please don't make up lies.