Yeah, he could have been contained, but I'd not put it past him happily to take his own country's annihilation as repayment for annihilating another. And I'm not at all comfortable with the UN saying what people do or don't have. That said, I do think he wanted to do it because daddy didn't finish it, or something similar.

"What is needed, he wrote in The Terror Presidency, are leaders "with a commitment to the consent of the governed, who have checks and balances stitched into their breasts." So then, you'd agree that if those governed don't consent, something shouldn't happen? Like gay marriage? What if those governed DO consent, like to huge welfare increases, because so many voters are already ON welfare that they can vote in a raise? Should no one stand against the will of the people?

Peronally I belive that in order to recive any government benifits or wok any where you must do three things.

One register of the draft. Women too.

Two graduate high school. As pointless as it seems they do wind up teaching some stuff and it show the brest minimum of willingness to follow thru.

After graduation and durring regetering for the draft take a personailty test.
You score to high on narricism they take you out back and shoot you in the head.

I look at the last 8 years like I am Flounder, and I loaned my brother's expensive new car out to the fraternity. George Bush's final words as president should be "You fucked up, you trusted us."

The Big Lie is setting us up.

But for people whose clear purpose in life is to hate George W. Bush - generally because they do not know another name in government and do not want to learn one, being satisfied with hating one guy - The Big Lie is not that "government is here to help you", or "Iraq has WMDs", or some such thing: it's that George W. Bush is responsible for everything, and that Barack Obama is the cure. There are several ways to show this.

You can see this in the ducking done above:
"It's that even if he did, they would have been militarily worthless, because using them would have guaranteed his immediate annihilation--which explains why Hussein didn't use chemical weapons in the first Gulf War. WMD or not, he was a danger we could easily contain."
This is because Iraq actually had a nuclear weapons program and is an industrialized nation.

Do you really not recall that Israel bombed the Iraq weapons production reactor?

Now, if you have more memory than a sand flea, you can remember dozens of Democratic Congressmen and Senators lining up to support the idea that Hussein was a threat. Why do you not hold them responsible as well? I suggest that it's because you don't know who they are or what they said. Even though one of them is going to be your Secretary of State.

I consider Mr. Bush's primary mistake to be not challenging Congress. Yes, it's probably wrong to allow every piece of legislation through. But what did we see from the all-seeing eye of the media? Presidential bloopers. Ha, ha.

I am sure that you'd like to think that now that Mr. Bush will be out of office, President Obama will make the sun shine and everything will be wonderful.

But the mechanism that allowed this mess is still in place, largely because you, the public, fascinated with personality and not competence, have allowed it. And it is not done with us.

> he was a danger we could
> easily contain

That's just horseshit. Firstly, it crassly describes the reasons for the war fewer and shorter than they actually are. Second, if you supported the no-fly zones, then you weren't against war in Iraq. And on and on... We've discussed this here on many occasions.

> "We're simply in a world of
> limited resources, and those
> resources are in Iraq," a senior
> administration official attests

Why does he "attest" this anonymously? Afghanistan has no naturall blessings besides poppy flowers, and few human ones. What "war" does he want to win? Who are the people that we need to kill who we haven't killed? Our military presence is constabulary. Can any sane person believe that if we weren't spending that money in Iraq, we'd spend it building hospitals and schools and roads and irrigation systems and rail and plumbing and telecommunications and farms and industry in Afghanistan?

Horseshit with buzzing flies.

The budget argument is on better footing. Bush is an MBA, and the lesson he took from the Reagan Administration was "deficits don't matter." I've always presumed he wanted to drain the public coffers to prevent the growth of social spending.

As regards executive power, do you suppose Obama is likely to give it back? Having not read Raddy's comment yet, I'd bet heavily that he addresses this point.

The weird thing isn't that people think Bush is a bad president, because I agree.... The weird thing is that they therefore assume there are GOOD presidents, and I don't agree. I've lived through ten and remember eight, and none of them proved to be profoundly admirable men. They squander our resources, they kill people, they live like kings and they piss us off.

And now everyone's blissed out with autoerotic glee as Obama rides a "whistlestop" train to Washington... As if he were still running for office. What is this shit?

For the next 44 hours in the United States, two big feelings. Viper hatred for Bush + kitten lovin' for Obama.

What's going to happen on Wednesday morning? What's gonna happen when people still lose money on investments, still get cancer diagnoses, and still lose their goddamn car keys?

First thing that happens is--- a lot of young people are going to grow up. Understand, eleven years worth of new voters had never had the chance to vote against anyone but Dubya. I believe this awakening will be audible... If you live in a climate where you can leave your window open a crack while you work on Wednesday morning, you'll be able to hear all those hearts breaking, all those infantile beliefs deflating, and all that long-delayed (or recently-misplaced) maturity snapping into place. It will be a crisp and percussive sound, and for some of us, it will be tremendously gratifying.

That's a lot of young voters. When you see tattoo'd teenagers weeping tearlessly into their Ipods on Thursday, you'll know what happened.

But what about the rest of America? What about Amy's ol' favorite Olbermann, whose built a career out of pissing in public? Do you suppose he'll just turn into a nice guy? What we he do with all his bitterness?

What will you do with yours?

> And it is not
> done with us.

(I just knew Raddy was going to come through.)

Raddy, you're right, but let's remember that the election of a black guy to the White House --or a least a partially, typically American-colored "black" guy-- has a couple of built-in blessings. From now on, black parents will be able to tell their kids that they can become anything they want in this country and mean it.

If people have to look at it in negative terms, it works like this: A lot of brilliant and gifted people who might not have given their best effort because they could always say "I'll never get a completely fair chance anyway" have had their excuse removed. And that includes kids in junior college who were never destined for more than than retail management: They'll be trying harder nonetheless.

They're no longer going to pretend to let an Al Sharpton or a Spike Lee speak for their "community", because they'll be speaking for themselves as they carve out their own piece of the dream. It will shortly dawn on them that they were never in the same community with Sharpton or Lee, anyway.

I agree with you about the presidency. I think that the economics of mass media, and the human fondness for simplicity and personal assessment, has made the White House far too powerful in recent decades.

But see the earlier comment about teen voter disappointment. A lot of black people are going to be getting a richer, more serious understanding of the institutions, too.

No matter how competent he is (and I'm not hopeful), getting a black guy in there is part of the process of de-personalizing the office. These aren't kings, and they aren't magical men.

Soon enough they won't be magical women, either.

(I don't think there'll be a magical gay sent to the White House in my lifetime.)

As much as I yearn to think Radwaste and Crid are wrong, I just can't. I'll tell you why.

I can't imagine anyone with enough ego to carry him (or of course her) through an election campaign who could manage to mouth the words, much less think, "I need to give up this power usurped by my predecessor. I'm too likely to use it irresponsibly."

Darned kids. Never listen to their parents. Whippersnappers!
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible....We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles.... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Bush & Scowcroft, A World Transformed, 1998.

Brent Scowcroft wants to be Hnry K when he grows up. To hellwiddum

Gee, no mention of Oil for Food or the subornation of the UN? One would think Mr Chapman had a position to advance.

I wouldn't push that Supreme Court decision vs Gitmo too strongly either. Chapman doesn't seem too torn up about FDR having the captured German saboteurs summarily executed after capture. Again, that doesn't fit the narrative. The Court overreached, and should have been ignored.

Not to defend Bush, who I think was terrible domestically, but he got the war right. Sixty million people free, and he kept it from being us vs all Islam.

In a word, a sophomoric "analysis." Ah well, it'll all be better tomorrow, right?

You mean Tuesday?

Bush was in a mess because the arab world tried to mess things up.US should just avoid giving so much freebies to the nasty islamic world.

GWB was a big disappointment to me, and I voted for him twice.

Here are my two biggest beefs:

1) OBLIVIOUS TO THE THREAT OF ISLAM … no, the threat is not “just” the terrorists, I am talking about the whole “western civilization threatening ideology masquerading as a religion” known as Islam. Anybody who thinks our only danger is the bomb throwers needs to read “America Alone” by Mark Steyn. That a modern day president could be so clueless as to term Islam the “Religion of Peace” is truly mind numbing. That he was ready to turn over the security of our nation’s ports to a muslim run company (see Dubai Ports) goes beyond clueless, and borders on treason.

This country has paid far too high a price in blood and treasure just so Iraq could form a sharia compliant government. We made a horrible mistake allowing sharia into the Iraq government, and should have insisted on a completely secular framework. The chance of a sharia compliant government resulting in a prosperous, free Muslim republic is unlikely, and a very bad bet made with our soldiers lives and our taxpayer money. This is another result of Bush not having a good understanding of what Islam is all about.

Calling this a War On Terror is stupid. We are at war with jihadists. Terror is a battle tactic. By this flawed logic, after Pearl Harbor we should have declared a “War Against Sneak Attacks”. This is a violation of RULE #1 in any war, which is DEFINE THE ENEMY.

2) BORDER SECURITY … Border security is still a COLOSSAL problem, ask anybody who lives near the Mexican border. The Canadian border isn’t getting the required scrutiny either. Hey George, whatever happened to that fence that actually got mandated by law?

Unfortunately, I have absolutely NO confidence that Barry Hussein is going to perform any better dealing with the global jihad or securing our nation's borders.

Ken, the entire point of dealing with Iraq in the way it started out was to produce an Arab state which is as secular as possible. This could not be said out loud, because it would be self-defeating. Any "moderate" Muslim, who could be persuaded that the key to prosperity in Iraq was freedom of religion, would then be alienated, convinced that Islam would actually not be permitted.

This democracy would moderate other Islamic entities. Even if they were interested only in murder and mayhem, they could not point to a reason for it with an Iraq prosperous under democracy.

The imposition of policy in Iraq, though, is not the sole responsibility of Mr. Bush, just as it won't be for Mr. Obama. Public opinion and the goals of Congress have been at odds with the WH, starting with these: the responsibility for declaring war lies with Congress; all funding for Iraq comes from Congress; all Presidential activity under the War Powers Act has to be approved by Congress.

But as the President, the first thing you have to do to deal with Islam is not to give them any ammunition until your plans are done. I don't buy the "oblivious" at all.

And all of this depended on media of various types conveying the benefits of democracy to the Iraqi people. Thanks, CNN, for showing them all it's better to just keep killing infidels and enslaving women.

These things will continue with Mr. Obama - as will the borders issues, about which Congress is apparently deaf to the wishes of people who are legally here and want laws to count for something.

Rad,

Thanks for the input. I have a few comments:

Rad: "the entire point of dealing with Iraq in the way it started out was to produce an Arab state which is as secular as possible."

As secular as possible just doesn't cut it when it comes to sharia. We put our foot on the throats of the post WWII Japanese to make sure they didn't come up with another empire salivating government. We needed to do the same with Iraq regarding "no sharia" in the government. We had the muscle to make this happen, but lacked the knowledge of Islam (by the key policy makers) and the necessary will to make it happen. So we alienate “moderate” muslims ... you know what? ... Instead, we ended up shedding a lot of American blood, and pitching in tons of money so we can have a piece of crap Iraq government that allows this ...

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28551

Maybe this all points to the fallacy of “nation building” when Islam is the dominant religion in the country in question. Sharia and democracy is not a workable mix.

Rad: “the first thing you have to do to deal with Islam is not to give them any ammunition until your plans are done. I don't buy the "oblivious" at all..”

Ok, Rad, with that opinion in mind, please explain Dubai Ports.

> all Presidential activity under the
> War Powers Act has to be approved
> by Congress

Raddy, Raddy, Raddy...

Nobody's saying you're wrong about this.

You understand that, right?

Dammit, this is the problem with trying to write papers on the same computer I use for the internets. Too easy to get distracted. Though I can safely admit that I am well ahead of the homework game.

The imposition of policy in Iraq, though, is not the sole responsibility of Mr. Bush, just as it won't be for Mr. Obama.

I don't think that a lot of folks around here are trying to claim otherwise. But is it really necessary when making a list of things that a branch of government fucked up, to list everyone involved in fucking it up?

This is exactly the same sort of bullshit that I've run into in another discussion I've gotten involved with, the state of addiction treatment in our society. On no less than three threads I have been involved in, someone has come along and bemoaned the fact that mental health treatment as a whole is pretty good and fucked - so why aren't we talking about that too? I would be the last to argue that mental health treatment overall is pretty screwed up, but there is no reason to mention that fact every time one wants to discuss improving a subset of mental health treatment.

There is simply nothing wrong with occasionally focusing on a subset of a given issue, without having to constantly make it a broader discussion. It's not only reasonable to make forays into the details, it's essential to actually trying to address the larger picture.

As long as there is a Jimmy Carter, GWB will not be the worst president of the modern age. Carter was so incompetent that his own party contemplated running someone else for Carter's second term.

Most detractors of Bush ignore the role Congress (Republican and Democratic) played in the various fiascos.

It's that even if [Saddam used WMD], they would have been militarily worthless, because using them would have guaranteed his immediate annihilation....

So when he used his WMD against the Iranians, he was immediately annihilated? How about when he used them against the Kurds?

Saddam had gotten away with violating world-wide standards of conduct, he was acting like he thought he was invincible.

Besides, the issue was not Saddam actually using WMD against the West. It was him giving the weapon or the technology to a terrorist group - of which he supported many.

Saddam was promising $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who killed Westerners and Israelis - encouraging further attacks. The payments were usually late (or nonexistent), but the incentive to mayhem was still there.

"What's going to happen on Wednesday morning? What's gonna happen when people still lose money on investments, still get cancer diagnoses, and still lose their goddamn car keys?" Crid

heh, what makes you think they wont still blame W forever for that stuff? deNIAL ain't just a river in Egypt. Clinton did some stupid stuff as well, but few blame him...

Clinton did some stupid stuff as well, but few blame him...

I do!! But then, I like to blame shit on presidents from back before I was even born. I don't think we've had a single one nearly a hundred years that hasn't done more harm than good. And that's probably because I'm just not all that familiar with what many presidents previous to that managed to fuck up.

So when he used his WMD against the Iranians, he was immediately annihilated?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00791/rumsfeld-hussein-19_791932c.jpg

Ofcourse not he was an ally attacking an enemy, why would we punish him for that?

Of course not he was an ally attacking an enemy....

Saddam was never an ally. He was the lesser of two evils in a fetid pond.

We met with him. We supplied him enough arms to stay alive against the Iranians (in a war he started). We even said nice things about him on occassion.

Kissinger called it "realpolitik." We were engaged in a duel with the Soviet Union and made some deals with the devil to ensure they didn't get complete control over the world's oil supply.

Our hope (and that of many Middle Eastern governments) was that the Iraqi madman and the Iranian madman would spend their time fighting each other, reducing the amount of mayhem they could stir up in the rest of the Middle East. Like these governments, we kept Saddam just strong enough to do that.

Democrats and Republicans alike shook Saddam's hand and called him "friend." One presumes they felt the need to shower afterward. One wonders if those "useful idiots" who meet with and praise Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez feel the need to shower afterward.

"But is it really necessary when making a list of things that a branch of government fucked up, to list everyone involved in fucking it up?"

How can you list what went wrong and leave anyone out?

You can't.

And it was clearly more than one branch!

Hey Rad,

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, which I will repeat:

Rad: “the first thing you have to do to deal with Islam is not to give them any ammunition until your plans are done. I don't buy the "oblivious" at all..”

Ok, Rad, with that opinion in mind, (that GWB was not oblivious to the threat of Islam) please explain Dubai Ports.

Rad,

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, which I will repeat:

Rad: “the first thing you have to do to deal with Islam is not to give them any ammunition until your plans are done. I don't buy the "oblivious" at all..”

Ok, Rad, with that opinion in mind, (that GWB was not oblivious to the threat of Islam) please explain Dubai Ports.