Post #281,675
4/13/07 6:38:29 AM
|
Interesting /. comment
[link|http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230577&cid=18707877|http://politics.slas...0577&cid=18707877]
How do you folks react to this?
True? False?
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #281,686
4/13/07 9:23:44 AM
|
Democrats have not moved quickly enough
The Democrats have not moved quickly enough on some issues. The party seems to be divided between several power groups that don't have a unified goal and are fighting to set the agenda. Plus, many of the Democrats seem to think that if they give Bush enough rope he will hang himself.
I think many of the long time Washington types simply have not accepted the degree to which Bush and the cabal around him are actively trying to undermine the Constitution. The whole unitary executive thing is designed to move all of the real power to the office of the president.
In fact, a good case can be made that if not for Katrina, the cabal would be setting things up right now for Bush to retain power till the "war on terror" was over. It wasn't just the total incompetence of Bush's chosen agents, but the way it hammered home that Bush didn't care.
Jay
|
Post #281,710
4/13/07 12:20:57 PM
|
It isn't just the president
Impeaching just Bush does nothing.
If we were to pursue impeachment, then a sort of blitz would be required. Congress should simultaneously impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and every other mother fucker they have the power to impeach. IOW, the whole branch needs to be pruned.
Furthermore, all of them should be charged and tried for war crimes/profiteering/treason (Truman declared profiteering to be treason in WW II) ala Nuremburg. The profiteering net could snag a lot of people.
But if you impeach just Bush, you are just wasting time. He's just the figurehead.
We posture as apostles of fair play, as good sportsmen, as professional knights-errant-- and we throw beer bottles at the umpire when he refuses to cheat for our side...We save the black-and-tan republics from their native [statesmen]--and flood them with "deserving" democrats of our own. We deafen the world with our whoops for liberty--and submit to laws that destroy our most sacred rights...We play policeman and Sunday-school superintendent to half of Christendom--and lynch a darky every two days in our own backyard.
H.L. Mencken, 1914
|
Post #281,948
4/15/07 11:01:01 PM
|
NurembErg, not -bUrg. Thank you.
(Conversely: The HindenbUrg, not -bErg. :-)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #281,689
4/13/07 9:52:34 AM
|
I'll wave to him on his walk up the jetway.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #281,690
4/13/07 9:59:14 AM
|
Lots of people feel that way.
Lots of others think comments like that indicate he's a wingnut who has been brainwashed by X.
Personally, I turn off most comments like that because there's no substance behind, "... is the worst in history!!!!11!!!" I think too many people who make comments like that don't know enough about US history to make such a comparison. Or if they do know the history, the don't respect their readers enough to present the evidence for their views.
For instance, on the corruption side, I haven't seen a comparison of GWB's administration with [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan|Buchanan's], [link|http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h234.html|Grant's] or [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding|Harding's].
On the senseless war side, how about a comparison to the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War|Phillipine-American War] or the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War|Spanish-American War]?
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks that GWB has done great damage to the country but doesn't know how he would rank him on a particular scale because he thinks that such rankings are generally meaningless.)
|
Post #281,695
4/13/07 10:43:50 AM
4/13/07 11:24:11 AM
|
While it is hard to judge the best as well the worst
Presidents, there is something unique about GWB. Buchanan, Grant and Harding in many ways are not comparable to Bush because of their political naivete and their administrations actual believe in limited government. Bush is not political naive. I think Bush truly believes in a limited government when related to internal affairs, but he feels he is not able to accomplish that goal while he attempts to project America's natural role in world affairs. I think there is such an inconsistency between his attempt to act on his beliefs and his stated conservative beliefs that he is unable to see. For that reason and the stakes involved at this time for America will he go down as one of the worst presidents ever. His administration's track record with telling the truth will be viewed as an integral part of their vision of good governance and will result with his administration being viewed as ethically and morally more trouble than the Nixon administration; without the competence - which for Nixon was mainly confined to foreign affairs.
While I don't want to minimize the Spanish-American War or the Phillipine-American war, they came at a time of when American was increasing its influence and becoming a superpower and a result of arrogance when there was little to check that arrogance. The fact that the Iraqi war happened after the Viet Nam war will only add to the understanding of GWB's inability to think critically about the consequences of his vision of America and its role in the world.
edits: changed ethical to ethically and clarified I was talking about Nixon's competence.
Seamus
Edited by Seamus
April 13, 2007, 11:24:11 AM EDT
|
Post #281,697
4/13/07 11:10:14 AM
|
On ME policy, its even more troubling
As we (US regardless of party) tend to change our stance relative to MidEast every time a new administration takes office.
Since we are dealing with a collective with a much longer attention span, we have near zero credibility on our best days and with our best Presidents.
Certainly the thought of introducing a democratic government in the region as a "proving ground" has a certain intellectual appeal, hence all of the "think tank" activity.
This administration had a complete mental breakdown, though, by thinking they could do that with Iraq. They became the country of convenience.
On the flip side, turning isolationist and not paying attention at all only means we seal our fate to concentrate the wealth in those countries to the ruling families and leave the rest in incredible poverty...feeding the cycle of radical islam.
And, by pinning our largest real threat in the region (Iran) between two active fronts we simply offered them incentive to do everything in their power to disrupt the process on both sides.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #281,706
4/13/07 11:34:42 AM
|
considering the hyberbole,
worse than lincoln? hardly
lincoln's civil right records is much worse, where are the reporters in gitmo for questioning the president?
grant?
grant fucked up the country so bad and was the proud promoter of genocide
is shrub among the worse and worse than clinton? Hell yea
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #281,708
4/13/07 12:12:06 PM
|
Yes worse than Lincoln
Lincoln is also unique among presidents. Lincoln's civil rights record is bad, but he was in a civil war and made bad decisions under extreme pressure. He held the country together and you can ask at what price. But, Lincoln was in control of his administration facing situations not faced before by earlier presidents.
Bush is not in a civil war and has done material damage to America's standing in the world.
As to Grant, read this [link|http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/presid.html|http://faculty.css.e...grant/presid.html] and tell someone will be able to write something similar about Bush after his presidency.
Seamus
|
Post #281,717
4/13/07 1:16:46 PM
|
Thanks for the link.
|
