Joe Klein pulls no punches in his latest Time column, writing that the Bush administration is in the midst of an “epic collapse,” as reflected in three big stories so far of 2007: The decision to “surge” in Iraq, the Walter Reed hospital scandal and the U.S. attorney controversy.
Quote: “I’ve tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration –arrogance, incompetence, cynicism — are congenital: they’re part of his personality. They’re not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
142 Comments
When it all goes down in history this administration will probably be looked at as the worst 2 term president EVER..
What does this all mean for Republicans and the election in 2008? Time will tell I guess
Be prepared for massive hyperventilation and nastiness from the right. As things hit rock bottom for their Dear Leader, they become more desperate and vicious, like a cornered, wounded animal. Their detachment from reality is nearly complete, and that’s pretty sad, but the meltdown is at least interesting to observe.
Klein is an opportunist and is piling on.The 2nd half of every 2 term President is rough.Klein was never a Bush fan.Klein was never an Iraq war supporter was he?The US Attorney firing was legal but done in a very sloppy manor.Not nice and neat like the travel office (under Clinton) or firing ALL US Attorneys (under Clinton.)YES CLINTON STILL MATTERS, BILLARY IS RUNNING AGAIN!!
So what has changed here?Klein, is lazy, like most journalists, Kline grabs three current events and then claims Bush is in middle of “collapse.”
Yah, things are rough. So what? President is not an easy job.
Bush will be just fine.
“Epic collapse?”
That seems a little bit strong. Especially since the surge in Iraq is working and our nation’s economy is looking decent.
Now, I could have agreed with the term when Clinton was being impeached. In that case “collapse,” seemed to be appropriate.
Interesting choice of terms, but a pretty boring article otherwise.
When the multitude of Bush flaws are discussed, always whine about Clinton. Yes, Clinton was a terrible president. We had peace, jobs, a booming economy, and a budget surplus. Thank God this republican administration changed all of that.
History’s footnote on the Bush presidency should read, “What were we thinking?”
Bush’s whole life has been a string of failures. It’s a good thing that he had his daddy and daddy’s friends to bail him out.
XXX – it’s interesting to note that the libbies here NEVER offer an explanation for not wanting to bring up Clinton’s term as a comparison.
Instead they stomp their feet like little girls and shriek, “Clinton, Clinton, Clinton…..don’t talk about Clinton.”
But it doesn’t hold water, because we can only gauge a Presidency by comparing it to past Presidency’s.
Admit it – an impeachment is much closer to an ‘epic collapse.’
Isn’t it?
The current administration is not seeing the problems the last one did.
Hence, the point not made.
I think the more important question is, for how long will most of the Republicans in Congress continue to stick with the President? If the Bush Admin. is indeed a sinking ship, won’t they flee soon enough to resurrect their 2008 re-election campaigns? Self-preservation I think is a stronger instinct than loyalty to a dysfunctional, lame duck, Republican Party leader.
The Republican neocons / elitists didn’t like Clinton because he was not of their ilk and from of all places – back woods Arkansas. They never thought he had the credentials / background to be president and never respected him as the president. He was caught lying about a sexual affair, and admitted it and paid the price of impeachment. This administration has at the very least twisted facts to support the neocon movement to install democracy in the middle east — using the “Tip of a Spear” to do it. They tried to prosecute a war on terror without international support of any significance. There go it alone foreign policy of my way or the highway has done much more damage to our credibility and reputation than any thing Billy Boy did. Facts are the country was in much better shape while he was in office than it is now …. so no one denies Clinton lied and was disciplined — but come to grips with reality — GWB certainly has a questionable record of success not only in his 8 yrs in office, but virtually every endeavor in life …. he’s lucky to have a loyal following that are willing to perpetuate his myth ….
“peace, jobs, a booming economy, and a budget surplus”
compared to:multiple wars, an early recession, corruption, bribes, runaway government growth, spending, and a huge deficit. And let’s not forget that the worst attack on the American homeland in history happened on the Bush watch.
So there’s your comparison.
Just because you aren’t sharp enough to get the point doesn’t mean it’s not made.
There can be no doubt that Bush will go down as one of the worst leaders in the history of the country. 100 years from now people will be reading US history and ask themselves “what the hell were those idiots thinking back then”?
I don’t blame Bush for 9-11-01 anymore than I would blame any President. If there was any real blame for that, it should go to the airlines and their lax security. The fact is that other countries, including Israel, warned the US airlines for years about lax security- things like have minimum wage screeners and leaving the cockpit door open while flying- and the airlines paid no attention.
How can anyone with a straight face compare firing the WH travel agents, to firing 8 US Attorneys for doing their job, and prosecuting cases irrespective of party?
Where is America going to find another president that can make those kind of faces!
“We had peace,….”
Peace? If you want to call doing nothing when attacked “peace” go ahead.
GS – the impeachment was simply an exercise in extreme partisanship by serial-divorcer Newt. Clinton withstood it; hardly a ‘collapse’.
Paul – you keep bringing up the TRADITIONAL house-cleaning at Justice that ALL presidents do as though that were relevant to the firings today. These are COMPLETELY different issues. As you are aware Bush also cleaned house in 2001 and nothing was said about it.
Although I have said that I don’t think Hillary will be the nominee at this point I think that is she is she will win in November. Now THAT will really trigger a meltdown among the rabid haters; even exceeding the meltdown after Raj Goyle thrashed Bonnie Huy. THAT I would thoroughly enjoy watching!
Y’all think Bush is a cowboy that listens to no one, wait for Hillary to take office. Thankfully, in MI anyway, Obama is leading Hillary. Juliani is leading for the republicans. Even as a staunch republican I would vote for Obama over Julliani.
Interesting Sol. Why down on Giuliana? While I definitely need to see more of both of these two I find Rudy to be at least somewhat appealing.
Holy crap I spelled it with a J. someone must have slipped de-caff in on me !!! Personal opinion I think the guy is dirty. I think he is motivated mainly by money. I have read up quite a bit on Obama and I think he has a good viable plan for health care. I think he will be strong on terrorism and I think he can help heal the economy. I think Giuliani will be looking out for his own interests and those of his supporters more than the American people.
yeah peace,
clinton had an illegal war..Booming Economy, ever heard of the dot.com crash??? Clinton left office under a recession.. Enron scandals happening under his watch just wasn’t caught till Bush was in office..we have a booming economy even after the worst attack on home soil. now that takes one hell of an economy to survive something like that..
GSheridan,You are right. The left should not be afraid of comparing the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. This is what I can come up with for now.
Clinton lied about sex; Affected: Hillary Clinton
Clinton lied about pot; Affected: Nobody
Bush lied about campaign; Affected: Bush supporters
Bush lied about patriotism; Affected: Americans,his image
Bush lied about Iraq; Affected: World peace, 3292 US soldiers, $439 bil
Bush lied about terror; Affected: Americans’ peace of mind, orange alerts, etc.
Clinton 2000 budget surplus:$230 bil; Affected: Americans
Bush 2006 budget deficit:$250 bil; Affected: Americans
As Bruce Willis said in “Die Hard,” now CF2K says to Joe Klein:
“Welcome to the party, pal!”
When GWB has even lost Joe Klein, the media’s go-to turncoat “Democrat,” things must be bad.
And all of the Clinton comparisons in the world won’t help GSHeridan and her ilk to deflect attention away from the awful, fascinating, even sublime meltdown of the Bush “Presidency,” because:
a) Clinton enjoyed 69% approval ratings through the “impeachment” spectacle staged by House Republcians;
b) Clinton did not bog down 150,000 U.S. troops and personnel in an unwinnable quagmire in Asia;
c) Clinton dealt in REALITY. Plain and simple. Bush is an embattled and isolated figure who is increasingly out of touch with reality. From Katrina onward, he has fiddled while America burned, continuing to pursue petty political advantages and proving himself uninterested in solving real problems.
The hour is getting late. Impeachment needs to be on the table.
In at least one sense I would label LBJ’s collapse as possibly even worse. In 1964 LBJ was elected in a landslide; in 1968 it became evident he would not get his party’s nomination.
I think that Econ brought up some good points:
1. If you were already against the war, then writing against the surge is no surprise.
2. There was nothing illegal in firing those attornies.
3. How was Bush to blame for Walter Reed?
I will tell you what the problem is and it is not Bush.
The problem is that anything that happens in this country is immediately blamed on Bush by the Democrats.
The Democrats miss no opportunity to politicize anything they can to blame on Bush.
What have they done? What do they do? All they do is attack Bush.
If your entire parties platform is nothing more than figure out how to blame Bush it will be a very short lived reign.
What an absurd article.
Nathan,
Who is the President? Who has been the President since 2001?
The buck stops where? I forget.
CF2K,
Here we go again with the flawed logic game…
*Sarcasm*You are soooooo right CF2K, everything is indirectly Bush’s fault because he is President.
Did you have to wait in line too long at Starbucks for your tiple mocha latte? Blame Bush!
Did you have to drive through construction for over a year on East Kellogg? Blame Bush!
Is the dowtown arena not going quite according to plan? Blame Bush!
WSU is buying a piece of art from an artist who killed a dog? Blame Bush!*Sarcasm*
CF2K,
If the best you can do is say Blame Bush because he is president than you only prove my point that it is all the democrats can do is try to blame everything on Bush.
One minor correction about Clinton, he razed the military budget in order to balance the budget. There was no economic magic bullet in his plan.
I just do not understand in such a time when we desperately need better leadership, why we can’t take one of the MANY screwed up lies the administration has told and impeach them- all of them.
Political Mom,
That is because there were no lies.
Oh bull.
P_Mom,You question begs the fortitude of your chosen party. So much has been made about GW lying by your party. So much blame placed due to those ‘lies’. Clinton was impeached for lying about sex, why is your party too weak to impeach GW over all the atrocities they claim he committed?
Your question questions a LOT about your chosen party.
Is that the best you can do?
The democrats had access to the exact same information that Bush did when they voted to give him the authority to invade Iraq.
The only liars are the ones who sit here and pretend like Bush lied about the exact same info the Democrats used to make their decision to go to war too.
It used to be that Democrats got the US into wars, the Republicans got us out.
My, how times have changed.
I would like to know why my party hasn’t tried impeachment procedings as well. I know some have been pushing for it for a long time now.
Pmom,
A. If Bush is impeached, Cheney becomes president.
B. See “A” above.
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War ‘Czar’Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan
By Peter Baker and Thomas E. RicksWashington Post Staff WritersWednesday, April 11, 2007; Page A01
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html?hpid=topnews
**************************************************
So in the middle of what many on the Right (and some on the left: Koch, Lieberman) consider to be a necessary and just war on the greatest threat to US and the West, the export of Middle Eastern anger, Bush can’t find a general to be his traffic cop.
If you can’t see that as strong evidence of an administration in free fall, then believe me that says more about you than it does about Bush’s perceived strength.
P_Mom,And no advancement. Seems to be something amiss there would you say?
If the Democrats had any actual grounds to impeach – don’t you think they would have started the proceedings by now? There is nothing, and they hate that but it is true.
Some in G.O.P. Express Worry Over ‘08 Hopes
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JOHN M. BRODERPublished: April 11, 2007
…Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, said the party’s presidential candidates were being whipsawed as they tried to appeal to conservative voters who have a history of strong views on issues like abortion and gay rights. “These tests are destroying the Republican Party,” Mr. Simpson said.
Republican leaders said they saw little chance the party could retain the White House if conditions in Iraq did not improve noticeably over the next year.
“The war in Iraq and public opposition to it has put a pall on Republicans,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said, “As long as the war appears not to be doing well, it’s going to hurt Republicans.”
The biggest problem, several Republicans said, is the disparity between the level of enthusiasm on display among Democrats and that on the Republican side.
“You’re seeing a carryover of the energy and the enthusiasm and the momentum from the 2006 Democratic takeover,” said Representative Adam H. Putnam, Republican of Florida. “Momentum is an important force in sports and politics, and the momentum is clearly on their side.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?hp
**************************************************
More evidence of an administration in collapse: what should be the shining star in the GOP, a Republican POTUS, is sapping the party of momentum.
Clear evidence of a collapsing administration.
“My level of concern and dismay is very, very high,” said Mickey Edwards, a Republican former congressman from Oklahoma who is now a lecturer in public policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. “It’s not that I have any particular problem with the people who are running for the Republican nomination. I just don’t know how they can run hard enough or fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Bush administration.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?hp
**************************************************
Whoah, now THAT’s a money shot: Republicans can’t run hard or fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Bush administration.
LOL
There you have it: Bush is a black hole. Surely that’s further strong evidence of collapse.
Where are the republicans? Why are you not coming in to defend the “Decider”? Something must ring true or you would be up to your discrediting of the source.
Bush is a black hole. He is a blundering idiot that has failed in every endevor that he has participated in.
The absence of reality
The absence of reality in the life of George W. Bush only reinforces the fantasy in which he lives. The Evangelical extremists on one side, Karl Rove’s Neocon manipulators on the other and the Zionists in the middle leave no room for intelligent reason, logic or compassion. And that brings a bitter price, which the Palestinians pay each day, as do the suffering Iraqis.Presidential advisors need to be sounding boards, which keep the realm of reality alive and well. No such sage voice is found anywhere near the White House on this day, on this week, on the months passed or present. Even the pleas from the Vatican to stop the slaughter fall on deaf ears.And when the Arab World offers peace and security to Israel, a curt response of; “it’s not good enough” echoes off the fantasy walls of Bush’s dream world.And when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visits Syria, the White House offers a harsh condemnation, as if how dare she signal a peaceful solution to counter the threat, and the death and destruction of an unending war.The second season a president hasn’t thrown out the first baseball, as Bush can’t stand the boos from the crowd {better presidential advice than he’s getting now}.
Ed Friedemann Texas USA
The thread topic is poisoned with bias by its very entry.
It’s a good thread for Libs to commiserate. Have at it.
Responding to it would be like responding to a “you suck” rant.
“Bush is a black hole. Surely that’s further strong evidence of collapse”
Do you think an article by the ol’ liberal NYTimes will have an effect on the true believers? Do you think the comments by a former GOP senator will do anything to change their mindset? Absolutely not. If these people still defend Bush after the last six years, THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING THE MAN COULD DO THAT WOULD ALIENATE HIS FANATIC BASE. Its really that simple. The people that venture onto blogs such as this to defend Bush and trash his critics (who happen to make up a vast majority of the populace) are extreme partisans, nothing more. The kind of people who put their political allegiance ahead of their nation. Pretty sad.
The thread topic is poisoned with bias by its very entry.
It’s a good thread for Libs to commiserate. Have at it.
Responding to it would be like responding to a “you suck” rant.Posted by: Republican | April 11, 2007 at 10:52 AM
LOL, sweet. I note you take this tack AFTER you have your *ss handed to you on a shingle.
Sniff sniff sniff, what’s that smell?
BLOOD IN THE WATER!
LOL, firesale on plaques!!
I agree, martymcfly. It’s a black hole wholly of the GOP’s making.
Or what passes for the GOP these days.
“If the Democrats had any actual grounds to impeach – don’t you think they would have started the proceedings by now?”
The republican dominated Congress spent 6 years surpressing evidence and blocking ANY kind of investigation. Democrats have only been in charge for a little over 3 months. Relax and give them a little time…there’s lots to look into. Heard about the latest Whitehouse email scandal?
An impeachment doesn’t happen overnight. But this embarassing abortion we call president will eventually get what he so richly deserves….besides the monicker
WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.
The Klein article page has a picture of Tom Lantosand Nancy Pelosi with a statement that they may go to Iran. (Pelosi of course just got back from Syria.)
If their efforts to communicate with Iraq’s neighbors lead to political solutions, with large ramifications for the entire Middle East, this will aid the Dems in 08 by showing America that they are getting much-needed things done.
Bush /Cheney will throw a temper tantrum, screaming that Congressional diplomatic forays are “interfering” with the administration’s own diplomacy. But B/C’s gameplan isn’t working. So Congressional Dems are doing what needs to be done.
Lantos is a Hungarian-American Jew who was active in the anti-Nazi resistance movement. He’s a staunch Zionist. He’s coauthored a bill calling for economic sanctions against nations that aid Iran’s energy (including nuclear) programs. (Wiki)
I’ve watched Lantos a few times on C-SPAN. He’s really smart. His questions in committee meetings are probing, and he doesn’t let witnesses get away with shoddy answers.
If he goes to Iran, he’s going to need a substantial security force to protect him. Maybe he can instead meet with Iranian leaders in Dubai. Pelosi and others may be able to moderate the dialogue.
XX, Sol – actually the Democrats are not truly in control of Congress. In the Senate the GOP still has the filibuster. So, at this point, impeachment would be just as pointless as was the extremely partisan attack on Clinton led by serial-affairs Newt. While an impeachment would be a lot of fun right now there are more important things for the House to attend to.
Ben,
A question: Since the impeachment happens in the House, and the trial in the Senate, can the Senate filibuster an impeachment trial?
Not talking one way or the other about the merits of an impeachment case, but I bet if we went back to the original practices on a fillibuster, ie talking and refusing to give up the floor for others, fillibusters wil pretty much disappear. The current system is just a cheesy way to enforce a 60 vote majority.
And the democrats are going to halt on the POSSIBILITY of a filibuster? Let them filibuster. It will only make the party look weaker for ‘08. Win win for dems.
What exactly are you thinking he should be impeached on?
I have seen nothing in the way of evidence presented by any of you.
I will have to agree with Republican that this thread is little more than a typical Bush Sucks thread.
Not sure Tom – I think the ‘rest of the story’ is the fact that it takes 2/3 to convict. Until about 1/3 of the GOP Senators come over it would be a wasted exercise.
Sol – I think the strategy is more to push legislation that the GOP will filibuster or even Bush will veto.
Nathan – as a Republican House member once said “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House says is one”. In this case I would look at the misrepresentations about WMDs, alQuada links, etc. Now add the lies about the reasons for the firings of US Attorneys and there could be grounds.
Nixon resigned when it became clear that enough Republicans would vote to convict. It would take much the same thing today.
Ben,
It is a sad joke that the only thing you have to do is go after the President for firing attornies.
What law was broken?
The same evidence that Bush had before the invasion of Iraq was the same evidence the Democrats had.
There was no misrepresentation.
It is sad that a man of your intelligence has reduced himself to being a dupe of the DNC talking points.
The democrats had the same exact intelligence.
Have you read the statements made by David Kay?
Lets read:
“Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war — certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq’s possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly — the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.
We’re also in a period in which we’ve had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn’t discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.
The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.
There’s a long record here of being wrong. There’s a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don’t have free and open societies.”
There is more, much more.
Yet all you can do is twist the facts that somehow Bush lied.
I personally think an impeachment charge and resulting trial would be a massive waste of time, energy and attention. It would do nothing but distract from the current Iraq disaster, the ongoing North Korea and Iran nuke issues, and a whole host of other important public policy matters.
Hopefully the grownups will stay in control of both chambers of Congress, and stay focused on winning in ‘08.
Democrats and disaffected Republicans, take note: If you don’t like the President we have (and I don’t), don’t bother wasting any time or breath whining about him. Start working on replacing him, and on replacing the Senators and members of Congress who are nothing more than rubberstamps for a failed policy.
Given what we know today, there are more reasons not to than reasons to impeach Bush.
Given that 42 was impeached in a wholly partisan way, I seriously doubt most Americans would give any credence to a wholly partisan impeaching of 43. It might represent a serious weakening of the Executive.
As Tom notes upthread, impeaching Bush leaves Cheney as president. A simple cost/benefit analysis shows that impeachment means a helluva lot of cost to Democrats for not much benefit. Add to that the abundant evidence that Bush is a reliable albatross to the GOP and it’s not difficult to see why a Democrat like Pelosi could promise that, given the facts on the ground ca2006, impeachment is off the table.
That’s the political calculus, I think.
Any impeachment would have to be a bi-partisan affair. You’d have to have Republicans joining Democrats in calling for impeachment, and that just isn’t happening – yet.
I’m not saying impeachment is out of the question because facts on the ground can change (RNC emails could really blow up on Bush, for example). I’m just saying that impeachment now makes little sense – to the country and to the Democrats.
New poll from CNN: 87% of Americans want “out of Iraq.”
It’s hard to believe that 87% of us could agree on anything.
ED,
I want out of Iraq too.
What the hell does that mean though?
Does that mean I want out after we help the IRaqi’s?
Does that mean I want out knowing the consequences of what will happen?
Does that mean I want out today no matter what?
I hate polls…
It’s real simple: impeach Cheney.
His underling, David Addington, has asserted a novel interpretation of the Constitutional position of the Vice-Presidency, in which the office is subject neither to the Chief Executive nor to Congressional oversight. This flatly contradicts the express and assumed meanings of the Constitution, as well as 231 years of precedent. Cheney should either accept the Constitution or be removed from office.
With Cheney gone, Bush will leave within one month. And Speaker Pelosi, or, some have suggested, a respected ‘caretaker’ like Senator Richard Lugar from Indiana, could keep the chair warm for the winning Democrat in 2008.
Nathan, There is such a thing as changing your mind when facts warrant the need. The Iraqis can work out their own problems, but not as long as we are there. Our own civil war proved that.
Even Ariel Sharon said: ” I can make peace with Syria anytime.”
I want out of Iraq too.
What the hell does that mean though?Posted by: Nathan | April 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM
It means that most Americans want to be shown how we can win in Iraq and what a victory means to us. Because Bush hasn’t show them what a solution looks like or what it would take to achieve it, Americans have no way of knowing if the cost is worth the considerable American effort there.
In that case 87% of Americans want out of Iraq instead.
This is interesting: apparently, a proposed commencement speech by Dick Cheney at Brigham Young University is being met with protests–by largely REPUBLICAN students and faculty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/11byu.html?ex=1333944000&en=7457df67acda1dbb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Takeaway line: one of the students refers to Dick Cheney as “this morally dubious man.” CF2K thinks the folks of Utah are blessed with the gift of understatement.
“Stay the course” is a really, really, really bad way to convince Americans of the need to stay in Iraq.
Not exactly descriptive.
No matter how many times Kissinger says it to Bush.
Let’s please remember that Clinton had a budget surplus, but not one penny was saved of it his administration. Remember the lockbox? A surplus is only noteworthy if you do something with it. Don’t tell me Bush spent it. He wasn’t there yet. So where did it go? When you answer this question, you will realize there any surplus is a figment of your imagination. Anyone can have surplus just raise TAXES 25%!!!Or raise the payroll tax on social security but count it toward your surplus and spend every penny. Does that make you a hero?
The surplus went to beginning to pay down a small portion of the outstanding debt he inherited.
Good grief, earnest young Mormons wearing headbands protesting … Cheney.
Surely this is a sign of the apocalypse? ;>)
I support a winning strategy in Iraq. I do not however, know what that means. President Bush has done a very poor job of defining what a victory is, and how we know it when it comes. he has also done a very poor job of communicating and showing the progress that has been made. You are right “Stay the course” is not much of a plan, or at least a definition. I do not support the timetable idea, but I would like a definition of success and when we can feasibly leave the Iraquis to their own devices
Anyone can have surplus just raise TAXES 25%!!! Posted by: Bgritty | April 11, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Now THAT will cost you yer elephant pin, B.
The current party line is that tax revenues can only be increased by LOWERING taxes.
Corollary: by any amount.
Corollary II: probably cost you Congress.
Corollary III: maybe the Executive, too.
Lets just look at what Constitutional rights the prez has trampled…1. 4th Amendment Illegal search and seizures….See wiretapping scandal.2. 5th Amendment See Guantanamo Bay Cuba3. 6th Amendment See Guantanamo Bay Cuba4. 8th Amendment See Guantanamo Bay Cuba and all other torture chambers around the world.
If dem’s wanted to impeach they could pick any of the previously stated Constitutional Amendments.
Looks like we are down to about 6 Amendments that this prez actually respects…..I know, I know right wingers.
9/11 changed everything!
Just going by memory, but hasn’t SCOTUS ruled otherwise?
Social security reform–failed.
Education reform–failed.
Restricting abortion–failed.
Stopping RU486–failed.
Reduced national debt–failed.
Increased wages and standard of living–failed.
Mission accomplished–failed.
Decreased number of people without health insurance–failed.
Reduced dependence on fossil fuel–failed.
This president is a miserable failure. Stick a fork in him–he’s done.
I would like the GOP supporters to name 5 things that have made all americans better off with this prez. Any 5 from the last 6 yrs.
I posted earlier about Pelosi’s trip to Syria. Actually, she, Lantos, an Arab-American congressman and a Muslim congressman went to Israel, Palestine , Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Lantos is using a stick and carrot vis a vis Iran. The Dodd-Lantos bill would deter Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by economically punishing other countries that supply materials. Lantos has introduced another bill to establish an international stockpile of fuel-grade uranimum, that Iran can purchase from, so that it doesn’t have to enrich uranium itself to run nuclear power plants that meet the country’s electricity-generating needs. As I said earlier, Lantos is a very smart man.
The Dems are working productively, and taking the wind out of the administration’s sails. They’re collaborating with moderate Repubs who wouldn’t go so far as supporting impeachment proceedings, but who realize that the their own interests require separation from the administration.
It will be interesting to see if Congress or Bush blinks on the military appropriations bill with troop drawdown benchmarks and deadlines. I think that Congress has a decent chance of winning this one.
I would like the GOP supporters to name 5 things that have made all americans better off with this prez. Any 5 from the last 6 yrs.
Posted by: Mike | April 11, 2007 at 01:54 PM
I’m afraid their answers will just piss you off Mike. They will answer that the economy is booming (I seriously don’t understand where they get their info), Bush got Saddam, my personal favorite Bush won the war in Iraq (talk about serious delusions), and I’m sure they will come up with some other far fetched fictitious stories.
If you feel that strongly about Sen. Clinton, Econ, why don’t you persuade your friend Melvin Neufeld to support a Kansas primary?With the way the order of events are shaping up, a February Kansas primary could be the final nail in her presidential coffin.
Speculating on 5 things that Bush supporters might think have made all Americans better off since Jan 2001:
1) No 9/11’s since 9/11: at the top of their list, surely.2) Strong economy as measured by GDP growth and employment numbers.3) No more Saddam or his sons in Iraq.4) War in Iraq has reordered the Middle East in favor of the US and her allies. (a really interesting one; some may go so far as to argue that Palestine is seriously fractured while Israel and her economy are booming, and Bush has succeeded in kicking off a Sunni-Shi’ia sectarian war, a war that keeps radical Arabs occupied with fighting other radical Arabs instead of Jews, Europeans, or Americans)5) Americans have been shown that government is never a best solution to any disaster, man-made or natural: a core value of the Right has been borne out.
There may be more.
Slightly off-topic is this. One of the biggest problems confronting Americans is that we have completely different narratives of the same events in time. This predates Bush but responsibility for its birth is owned by the GOP and its numerous and sundry thinktanks, I think.
The GOP has gone to enormous lengths to establish an counter-narrative to every civic event in the US since 1992. One of the biggest problems we Americans face today is that we no longer have the ability to agree on our political narratives. The right has a story that is most often completely add odds with the story told by the left. This is devastating to American civic life, imo.
a counter-narrativeat odds
The existence of mutually exlusive narratives to describe the same event in time is certainly devastating to American discourse, if not civic life here.
You’ve got to be kidding.
The destruction of constitutional guarantees
The world hates our guts.
Crude oil prices causing the average American his job, credit, and home { Foreclosures }.
Teetering on the edge of atomic war { Pakistan has probably shared its nukes with Iran to counter Israeli threats }.
The dollar in a free fall against the Euro.
And on and on….
Not kidding, just guessing. It’s just an exercise in “putting myself in the GOP’s shoes.”
I would like to thank all that have attempted to enlighten me on the positives of this president. I would disagree that I would be pissed if they could somehow put together a valid list. Those of you that gave me some examples of how the GOP would spin this presidents successes will surely agree that even you are reaching for straws. I understand that just because you provided a list does not make you a Republican, and that these were your best guesses. I do find your list Pendant intriguing….numbers 4 and 5 are the best ones…..lol. Number 2 is my favorite considering the rate of inflation and gas prices. Thanks again all who participated.
“The world hates our guts.”—–
Jeezus Friggin Christ, Ed, if they DO, it’s only because we have libbies within our borders TRYING to make them hate us. Self-flagellating, hippie-wannabes, that find it romantic to emulate the dirtiest generation to ever grace our fair country.
Get a clue, here. What was once valued as strong and powerful, is now looked upon by the libbies with disdain.
Our nation, and the motivations of our heroic soldiers and strong leaders haven’t changed – but the libbies, bent in instilling a Socialistic regime – have subverted our very foundations to such an extent – that now we (and when I say ‘we,’ I mean – YOU) advocate MORE value in the weak and wimpy of the world, than in that which can protect you – the strong.
And that’s a cryin’ shame, my friend. A sign of the beginning of the end of the greatest nation in recent history.
Subverted from within.
Jesus, Sheridan, can you translate please for those of us who don’t read…what was that, Vulcan?
“self-flagellating?’ wtf? Those with whom you disagree are…tadpoles?!? “Subverted from within,” is that code for some kind of amphibian metamorphosis?
Can your 03:14PM be summed up as more commie pinko fag baiting, or … what?
So, it’s only the ‘liberals’ adn the ’socialists’ who detest Bush, eh, GSheridan?
Well, here’s Lee Iacocca ripping Bush into well-deserved itty, bitty, bite-size pieces.
http://www.bordersstores.com/features/feature.jsp?file=wherehavealltheleadersgone
A prediction, GSheridan: you will never outgrow the need for some “stabbed-in-the-back-by-liberals” narrative by which to absolve the Right for its lies, incompetence, and would-be tyranny.
(Now comes the deluge of Right-Wing character assassination directed at Lee Iacocca.)
Sheridan, if I didn’t know any better, I’d SWEAR you worked in the City Manager’s office.Same damn mentality–if you don’t agree with our same selfish interests, you’re out to destroy everything.
Pedant – buy a dictionary – you need one if you don’t know what those everyday words mean.
CF2K – Sorry to disappoint you – I’m not going after Iacocca. He’s entitled to his opinion.
However, you responded to a post of mine that said NOTHING about GWB – and everything about our libbies current value system push.
What’s up with that?
Can you not defend what they are doing? Do you only have ONE channel? Bush, Bush, Bush?
At least Pedant TRIED to address what I said, even though the terminology was over his head.
GSheridan, You are mistaken { I started to say full of shit } but for the sake of civility, I’ll stick with “mistaken.”
By the “dirtiest generation,” were you referring to the Americans who lived through the dust bowl era?
Because I’m thinkin’ they were SURELY the dirtiest generation. Right?
And what is a libby? If I look that up in my http://www.m-w.com, will I see the Scooter pictured?
Why does Cheney always look like he slept in his suit?
Phooey, Ed.
I’m right. YOU hate us. All I read from you is vitriol towards the nation that houses and feeds you; the nation that gives you opportunities many country’s in the world don’t have.
You’re always beating a drum against our allies, Israel specifically, and you subscribe to numerous conspiracy theories about how the strong in our nation are causing the sky to fall.
You keep valuing the weak, Ed – and that’s what you’re going to end up with – a nation full of weaklings.
A nation that can’t stand up for itself.
Some of Iacocca’s comments I agree with, some I don’t. One thing I did notice, he laid it all around, not just at the door of President Bush. One reason I have not supported others in the past is their shallow reasoning “I’m not BUsh” Not all have done that, but many have. In fact, some Democratic leaders said in the last election, it;s not up to us to have a plan, we are not in charge. Sorry,doesn;t giv me the warm fuzzies or reason to change horses midstream. However, tell me your plan. Believe me, I am willing to listen.
Please tell us Sheridan how great our country would be if the GOP was left unchecked? I have a guess…..we would have another civil war between the social classes. Chaos would rule the day. At least now the poor have some idea that someone cares. And thats not the GOP. Would you guys run the country as you run lets say….Walter Reed? Would you care more than you did say after…..Katrina? Would life be great like the 1950’s? Great except for women and minorities. Maybe the dem’s are more socialistic that rep’s. What is wrong with some socialistic ideas within our democracy? Socialized medicine cannot be that bad. Bad for the insurance industry and the hospitals. But good for those that cant afford $500.00 per month to cover their family.
Pedant – I meant the hippies of the sixties.
Although the Flappers of the twenties come in a close second.
Mike, I don’t advocate letting anyone go totally ‘unchecked.’
But there is a vast difference between pointing out when someone is not adhering to accepted policy, and the libbies current attack on anything that is not appeasement-politics.
And WHAT have the Dems done, anyway?
Voted FOR the war before they voted AGAINST it?
Oh, that’s just great!
The hippies were dirtier than the generation who lived through the dust bowl?
Oh, did you mean “dirty” as in “you dirty girl?”
Why didn’t you just write “yes, just more commie pinko fag baiting” instead? Christ, do you waste this much time on the job?!?
LOL
You wonder how sober, hard-working Germans could have ever supported Hitler?
GSheridan is a walking vestige of the fascist creed that says “might makes right.”
Why did the United States thrive while the USSR floundered? Because the Soviet Union wasn’t “stong” enough? Because with their gulags and kangeroo courts, they were too tolerant of “subversion”? Because their strict adherence to civil liberties hamstrung them from rooting out dissidents?
No. Their brittle reliance on “strength” and “obedience” destroyed them.
Diversity really IS strength, but the reich-wing will never believe it.
Too paradoxical for them . . .
Puritanical AND reich-wing . . . man, remind me not to go to any parties at HER place.
I love America and its constitution, and yes there’s a time to fight, but not against helpless women and children in refugee camps, as the Israelis do…or the Iraqi people by calling them “terrorists”…
And WHAT have the Dems done, anyway?Posted by: GSheridan | April 11, 2007 at 03:46 PM
One, they’ve taken action to hamstring Bush. Which is GREAT news for all Americans, even you squeaky clean ones.
Two, they’ve launched a handful investigations of the Bush administration, which again is GREAT news for all Americans. If we don’t have the truth, how can we judge where we are now?
Give ‘em some time, it’s only been about 13 weeks or so that they took over Congress.
More help’s comin’! ;)
Here’s a service woman whose Marine husband died after they extended his tour.
She’s not a happy camper:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/309485032.html
She has every right to feel that way. She is not alone. Others have every right to feel differently.I am saddened by her loss. Am I sure it was worth it? Some days yes, some days no. I will say that if you wear the uniform, then that is part of the life you have to accept. Sadly.
Littlejohn,
I would normally agree with your statement that the military life is a dangerous and deadly one, and that our troops knew what they were getting into when they signed up.
However.
Our men and women in uniform expect and deserve competent leadership from civilian officials. That includes political appointees at the DoD to the President and Vice President. They’re not getting that competent leadership, and their lives and futures are being misspent on a fruitless and endless civil war between religious fanatics.
Bring our kids home.
Just a reminder that the Congress’s approval rating is right there with the president’s. (Actually Congress is 5% lower)
Those numbers tell me that this so called mandate that Congress has to change things is fiction. Voters just don’t think any politician is doing well.
Littlejohn your opinion is the very problem with the “right”. Not my husband…not my son….not my problem. They signed up for it so they get what they have coming.
I will say that if you wear the uniform, then that is part of the life you have to accept.
Posted by: littlejohn | April 11, 2007 at 04:09 PM
Are you crazy? You wear that uniform because you want to serve and protect our country. The prez and the other “bushbots” should be ashamed of the situation they created and the exploitation of the military. They pose and spew the bs rhetoric “Support the troops”.
F*ck being sad for her loss. You should be outraged that your president has failed her and you! Instead you spend your time defending and pointing the finger at dem’s.
“”Subverted from within,” – what has destroyed the Bush administration. All those BushBots have subverted our country.
Outlander – last numbers I saw had Congress above the President and 10% higher than it was last election.
Tom-Some days I would have to agree. Other days, I still think what they are doing will make a difference here. I do think we have to have a plan, and a definition of “success”. A goal to complete, and then get out. Maybe it is not to our complete satisfaction, but what ever is? Nobody gets the whole hog. never
AIPAC owns them all and brags about it and the American public won’t come out and say it, but they’re thinking that that needs to change.
“WASHINGTON – Public approval for Congress is at its highest level in a year as Democrats mark 100 days in power and step up their confrontation with President Bush over his handling of the Iraq War, the issue that overshadows all others.
Overall approval for Congress is 40 percent. The survey shows Bush’s approval ratings remain in the mid-30 percent range, ”
Last time I took arithmetic (admittedly a long time ago) 40 was more than mid-30 range.
http://www.kansas.com/519/story/40283.html
Note how Sheridan wants us to be “tough”. War is the way! Somebody doesn’t agree with us? KILL THEM!!!
That just supports what I’ve always said. most republicans aren’t satisfied unless they’re killing somebody.
I’d like to see every republican that supports this illegal war be sent to Iraq to serve on the front line. (I said Front Line)
Interesting comment she makes here:
“We’re not fighting for our country, we’re not fighting for the good of Iraq’s people, we’re fighting for Bush’s personal agenda. Patriotism my ass.”
It’s well known that Bush demands absolute and unwavering personal loyalty from every member of his staff. Equally famous is that Bush is incurious and (apparently) proud of it. Perhaps most famous of all is that he never, ever speaks publicly at events where he might hear alternate viewpoints; hell, he’s even chickened out of tossing the “first pitch” of the Nationals’ MLB season each of the past 2 years out of fear of being booed.
You take a president who demands loyalty, who eschews criticism yet can’t compensate for it because he’s incurious by nature: how is it such a stretch to conclude that continuted US involvement in Iraq today REALLY IS due in some part to “fighting for Bush’s personal agenda?”
Seems to me that, far far FAR from being seditious/traitorous or even “choosing the weak over the strong,” it’s completely reasonable to conclude that’s a significant part of WHY we’re still in Iraq.
Saying so doesn’t make one a traitor, or weak. It may make the speaker the one who points out that the emperor wears no clothes. Which is a good thing.
Thanks Ben. I forgot to include the link. Here is the latest.
http://www.pollingreport.com/
It also shows that most Americans are against a timetable to pull troops from Iraq.
MIke-
Plain and simple–F*ck You.
I do support the troops. It’s personal with me asshole, I have a brother that’s already spent one tour in Iraq and scheduled todo another. I have a son who will soon be going over there. I have friends, and family over there now. I have children of friends that I have known since they were born over there. I have made phone calls, helped to take of their wives and children while they were gone, packaged boxes to send them. Don;t fking tell me I don;t support the troops, you piece of shit.
What the fk haave you done besides bitch?”
I have not attacked the dems for this bs, show me where I did.
Mike,
That was a pretty unfair attack on Littlejohn. I’ve found his posts to be well reasoned and fair. Let your disagreement with him be what it is.
I apoligize for the outburst, but it IS personal with me. i don;t take my positions lightly, it affects me personally EVERY SINGLE DAY. LAST week I attended the funeral of a friend killed by an IED. It is personal. I do support the troops. I am saddened by her lost.
Finally, some emotion. Now we are talking! Republicans do have a pulse. That is good to know. If it is so personal why do you support this administration and their policies. If you got as upset about what they have done to your friends and family as you are with me you might start looking at things more objectively.
Oh and by the way, I am right here in town buddy.
xxx, there is no front line in Iraq. That’s why they call it an asymmetrical war.
It’s also why the uninformed can’t put their finger on describing the success or failure of the war.
It’s also why it will take longer than your average fire-the-cannon over the ridge war.
I personally think that some of the greatest minds in the world will come out of Iraq in the future. There’s nothing like innovation under democracy that will stimulate the mind.
It also shows that most Americans are against a timetable to pull troops from Iraq.Posted by: outlander | April 11, 2007 at 04:24 PM
Only if by “most” you mean “a plurality.”
50% of those polled say a timeline “would hurt.”
Note also that the Congress is narrowly Democratic while the President is 100% Republican.
In other words, it’s quite likely the Republicans are in Congress are dragging down Americans’ polled approval rating of Congress overall.
Yeah Mike, you’re right. Always was. My apologies for being an ignorant asshole. I bow before your knowledge of whom I should be outraged against and why.
now the comment about being right here in town. What’s that? An invitation? To what?
Littlejohn,
You don’t owe Mike or anyone else an apology. If anyone owes apologies, it’s Mike for insulting the integrity of anyone who has loved ones deployed in Iraq.
Mike,
Shame on you for attacking someone for being concerned about their family members serving in the military. It’s obvious that Littlejohn and others are torn about their thoughts and feelings about this war. Attacking them like that does nothing to help your position, and only shows how small-minded you are.
there is no front line in Iraq.Posted by: Republican | April 11, 2007 at 04:36 PM
Tell that to the American soldiers patrolling Baghdad in mixed force with Iraqi soldiers.
I’m sure everybody who’s fair-minded knows exactly what XXX meant by the front lines in Iraq.
Your sarcasm falls on deaf ears. It is refreshing though to see a “right winger” develop something of a conscience. I would not say that you are ignorant and don’t know you well enough to call you an a**hole. I do read your posts everyday and from what I read you seem to back this admin. at every turn. I do not understand how you continue to back them with the sacrifices you have made and will continue to make. And my invitation was for us to sit as men and speak on these issues face to face. Maybe gather some respect for the other side. But I forget…Republicans do not wish to engage those opposed to them. They only wish to crush them.
No, I do owe everyone an apology. Name calling does nothing to solve the problem. I believe that, yet I violated it myself. No excuse for it
“And my invitation was for us to sit as men and speak on these issues face to face. Maybe gather some respect for the other side.”
Okay so far”But I forget…Republicans do not wish to engage those opposed to them. They only wish to crush them.”
makes a lie out the previous statement. Whatever
Who is to say my loved ones are not serving? Let me clear this up right now….3 brothers, 2 sisters and an uncle to be exact….2 brothers dead….any more questions?I did not attack Littlejohn. I simply questioned his philosphy of they get what they signed up for.
I have relatives over in Iraq, three marines, 1 Army. I get some very insightful views from them about what is going on.
Like I said before, the way the editorial piece was penned, makes it poisoned for discussion. Some people actually know the truth, so people want to know the truth, while others who agree with this blog topic, like to make up their own so-called “truths.”
And please save your sorry for your loss crap. Tell my mother….she is the one that cries everyday. I get to go kiss their kids and tell them how great their dads were.
oops 1 of my relative Marines is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
It’s also why the uninformed can’t put their finger on describing the success or failure of the war.Posted by: Republican | April 11, 2007 at 04:36 PM
LOL, so what’s Bush’s excuse?
Uninformed, or just poor communications skills? :)
Gates announces longer tours in Iraq
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours — three months longer than the usual standard, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.
It was the latest move by the Pentagon to cope with the strains of fighting two wars simultaneously and maintaining a higher troop level in Iraq as part of President Bush’s revised strategy for stabilizing Baghdad.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_troops;_ylt=Ar1KcKxbY7ZeTPHpHq4QA8ms0NUE
**************************************************
Why can’t Bush find additional coalition partners to share the burden?
ANS: It’s the communications skills, his really suck. He’s FULLY informed.
Pedant’s response is exactly the reason not to participate in this thread.
It is a thread for Liberal Democrats to lampoon and generally mock anything counter to their ideology.
LOL, and we all know you’re so above lampooning and mocking, right Republican?
Plaques all around!
LOL
Mike-Regardless of whether you accept it, i am sincerely sorry for your loss, as sorry as only those who have been in the miitary, and those who have loved ones in the military, can be.
Pedant’s response is exactly the reason not to participate in this thread. It is a thread for Liberal Democrats to lampoon and generally mock anything counter to their ideology.Posted by: Republican | April 11, 2007 at 05:13 PM
Loud, screechy whines at that volume are exactly what make my ears bleed.
Ouch.
Really the only appealing candidate out there right now is Obama. The others are all boring senior citizens next to him. The candidate with the best resume is Richardson but he doesn’t stand a chance in hell.
Obama? Appealing?
Not even close.
Disgusting, maybe.
Watch for a collapse of Epic proportions. The Administration and Republican party are self imploding.
Since we’re bashing Bush, I’d like to bash him for there not being an attack on us since 9-11; for attempting to allow the Iraqi people to enjoy the same freedoms we enjoy here in this country; for his efforts to stop the irresponsible leadership in Iran from becoming nuclear power and for his efforts to replace the leader of North Korea who’s seams bent on starving his people in order to maintain a strong military and police presence so he can remain in power; and I’d like to bash him for standing up for those who are within weeks of being born and have their craniums pierced and brain sucked out, not because there’s anything wrong with them, but because their birth would be an incovenience or cause financial hardship. Yes, this George W. is a terrible man. How could anyone with such principles ever be elected.
“…for attempting to allow the Iraqi people to enjoy the same freedoms we enjoy here in this country;”
Other than the opportunity to vote in elections where they didn’t even recognize the hundreds of names on the list of those being voted on, would you please list the freedoms that Iraqi people are currently enjoying?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless aid jumped to the highest level in two months last week, while retailers warned of softer sales in April after a stronger-than-expected March, suggesting some weakness in the economy.
^|||There’s your booming economy.
President Bush has a problem with tooting his own horn. The Republican’s don’t organize well either .I will state some “facts” and you can decide for yourself what importance they have.Rumor— Bush skipped out of the Viet Nam war by joining the National Guard. Fact—He did join and flew F102 fighter jets over the Gulf of Mexico at a time when the Russians were flying bombers to Cuba. Peace-time operation of an F102 is very dangerous, many pilots died.Iraq is George Bush’s war—Fact, it is Americas’s war and the President has been doing as much as public opinion created by the media and the Congreesional Democrats will allow to win it and keep America safe.My opinion, if Congress had kept their promise to support the war made back in 2001, the Iraq “insurgents” and Iran would have quit by now. But everyday, Congressmne and Senate leaders tell them that they have won and America lost.We should have surrendered to Japan in January 1942, would have saved a lot of lives.