Nothing quite like an inflammatory headline to grab attention, huh?
[A quick note on "respect" before I get started. I absolutely agree that the office of the President of the United States is deserving of, and should command respect. But I also, fundamentally, believe that no individual can command respect. No matter who you are and what your office or title, it is your actions and your character that determine the respect you can command. The person inhabiting the office of President may start at an elevated level of respect, perhaps, but then this only shows how far a person can fall when one looks at the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Anyone wishing to argue this point with me should ask themselves this question: Can you honestly and truthfully say that you afford the same respect to President Bill Clinton as you do President George W. Bush? I can think of no more polarizing Presidencies in recent history, so unless you can answer "yes" to my above question, I reject any such questions in regards to the George W. Bush. Now, back to my original point…]
I've recently heard the opinion, more than once, that "history will be kind to George W. Bush, and he'll be seen as a good President." (Not in so many words, I just don't want anyone to think that's anything that ever came out of my mouth.)
As I sit here on the last day of the Bush Administration and think about the past 8 years, I have to reject this notion, utterly and completely. Here are just a few simple reasons, in no particular order:
Suspension of Habeus Corpus
The term "Enemy Combatant" and its subsequent "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" usage (See Habeus Corpus, above)
The Bush Doctrine & Preventive War
The Invasion of Iraq, and subsequent mismanagement of the situation there
The lies told (or perhaps merely "accepted") to justify said invasion
Rendition
Guantanamo
Torture
Warrantless Wiretaps
The cultivation, or encouragement, of our own fears to justify all of the above acts
Repeated and flagrant contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America (a Constitution you swore to "protect and defend")
A chilling contempt for Freedom of Speech (White House Press Secretary regarding Bill Maher: "…reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.")
And one final note to the outgoing President…
As the sitting President on the day of the 9/11 attacks, your subsequent claims the past few months of "no new attacks" since 9/11 seem like cold comfort indeed, and hardly worthy of touting as part of the any legacy. But I guess you've got to grab onto whatever you can find.
Our new President gets sworn in tomorrow, and it's my sincere hope that, four years from now, we'll be able to look back and know that we are a better place, a better Country, then we are today.
Whatever the future holds, and however the Obama Presidency, and its successors, perform, I can only hope that this country will never see the likes of George W. Bush again.
Good-bye, Mr. Bush. I will not miss you.
[A quick note on "respect" before I get started. I absolutely agree that the office of the President of the United States is deserving of, and should command respect. But I also, fundamentally, believe that no individual can command respect. No matter who you are and what your office or title, it is your actions and your character that determine the respect you can command. The person inhabiting the office of President may start at an elevated level of respect, perhaps, but then this only shows how far a person can fall when one looks at the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Anyone wishing to argue this point with me should ask themselves this question: Can you honestly and truthfully say that you afford the same respect to President Bill Clinton as you do President George W. Bush? I can think of no more polarizing Presidencies in recent history, so unless you can answer "yes" to my above question, I reject any such questions in regards to the George W. Bush. Now, back to my original point…]
I've recently heard the opinion, more than once, that "history will be kind to George W. Bush, and he'll be seen as a good President." (Not in so many words, I just don't want anyone to think that's anything that ever came out of my mouth.)
As I sit here on the last day of the Bush Administration and think about the past 8 years, I have to reject this notion, utterly and completely. Here are just a few simple reasons, in no particular order:
And one final note to the outgoing President…
As the sitting President on the day of the 9/11 attacks, your subsequent claims the past few months of "no new attacks" since 9/11 seem like cold comfort indeed, and hardly worthy of touting as part of the any legacy. But I guess you've got to grab onto whatever you can find.
Our new President gets sworn in tomorrow, and it's my sincere hope that, four years from now, we'll be able to look back and know that we are a better place, a better Country, then we are today.
Whatever the future holds, and however the Obama Presidency, and its successors, perform, I can only hope that this country will never see the likes of George W. Bush again.
Good-bye, Mr. Bush. I will not miss you.
Comments
YES.
And, I should add...you're a fool. Do some research.
I would also add that Clinton and Bush have become close friends. I wonder how/why that is? Could it be mutual respect and understanding?
Suspension of Habeus Corpus - I'll give you that one.
The term "Enemy Combatant" and its subsequent "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" usage (See Habeus Corpus, above) - I won't give you this one. It remains to be seen how Obama will TRULY handle this. It will also very likely come out in time that many, if not all, enemy combatants were actually treated pretty well. Those that weren't - well, we'll see. But, they got a LOT of information out of those guys.
The Bush Doctrine & Preventive War - Many agree. I'm one of them. But, historically speaking this is a moot point. If Iraq is a success it will be a footnote at best and it will refer to it as something many Americans disagreed with but that Bush was ultimately courageous and right to do it. If Iraq is a failure, you win.
The Invasion of Iraq, and subsequent mismanagement of the situation there - the mismanagement will clearly be looked at by history. I hesitate to be an armchair QB. But, it looks pretty bad from where I'm at. Still, if Iraq is a success then it becomes merely a note on how the administration didn't get it right immediately.
The lies told (or perhaps merely "accepted") to justify said invasion - this is where you need to do some serious research. You are, simply put, completely wrong.
Rendition
Guantanamo
Torture - all 3 above are the same as your 1st. Clearly, you have an issue with how you THINK combatants were treated. I will repeat - history will judge this issue as a footnote if Iraq is successful. I will add - if Obama really does stop ALL of this (my money says he won't), and we get attacked - Bush will come out smelling like a rose.
Warrantless Wiretaps - You are dead wrong again. It is pretty much clear that Obama will continue this program and support the new FISA. This was always a media created hysteria.
The cultivation, or encouragement, of our own fears to justify all of the above acts - Typical liberal propaganda. Whatever. You mean like the propagation of fear to justify spending billions on global warming. Wake up. Terrorism is NOT a threat? You live in a dream world. Gladly, Obama does not. He understands terrorism is a real threat, and he seems to be taking it seriously.
Repeated and flagrant contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America (a Constitution you swore to "protect and defend") - again - give me examples?? FISA is not one. Habeus Corpus IS, and I've agreed with it. Rendition and 'torture' are not. If anything, they are problems with the Geneva Conventions. The ONLY Constitutional problem Bush had was with Habeus Corpus. Actually, I'm surprised that story never got bigger.
A chilling contempt for Freedom of Speech (White House Press Secretary regarding Bill Maher: "…reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.")
And one final note to the outgoing President… - AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!! A democrat complaining about Bush disregarding freedom of speech????!!!! You make me laugh. The party that wants to re-instill the fairness doctrine. The party that wants to remove the word "God" from our money and our pledge. Get out and shut up.
I will give you this - there were far too many people who were willing to question patriotism if you spoke out over the last 4 years. They're idiots. But, Bush was not one of them.
How will history judge George W. Bush?
First, I will say he is a genuine, sincere, and courageous dude. I think many people will miss this after a year of Obama who is a smart, slick, and crafty politician. Bush was not a good politician.
He was a goof. Plain and simple.
He did more to help Africa and AIDS than anyone, anywhere in the world, over the last 8 years.
He was always true to his beliefs and never blew with the popular wind. EVER.
He reacted immediately, and with conviction to the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.
He believed, in his heart, that Iraq was a threat and a terrorist enabler and he did what he believed had to be done.
Moammar Qaddaffi and Libya disarmed and kicked out all terrorists due to Bush's actions.
He spent a shitload of money - too much. Medicare was a waste, and it remains to be seen if 'no child left behind' will be a waste.
He presided over a safe America for 7 1/2 years. No more attacks after 9/11.
And, ultimately, he will be judged by history on the outcome of Iraq. That is an objective and plain truth. If Iraq turns out to be a democratic ally in the middle east and a beacon for new generations to admire freedom and democracy Bush will rightfully bear the credit. And, he will be considered a top 15 President for that.
If nothing comes from Iraq, or Iraq goes back to the old ways, he will be ridiculed by history and be a bottom 10 President.
They'd be right. Both are marks against the administration.
But, historically? Katrina will be a small story in history and the failure of the government to respond will be noted. But, will Bush be singularly blamed? Doubtful.
And, while the blame firmly rests on him for the economic crisis, I'm not yet sure how historical this meltdown will be.
Ultimately, his historical legacy all rests on Iraq.
I'll have to see what I can do about raising the level of discourse here. Fortunately, you've set the bar pretty low, I think.
My point here — my reason for posting — was to express my reactions to the past 8 years of the Bush Administration. Some of these items are simple factual statements. Habeas Corpus, as you acknowledge, is fact, and undeniable. Many of these items are more "reactionary"— events, actions, decisions to which I have reacted, and so they make the list. Some of these are admittedly colored by my opinions on what's occurred. But that changes nothing. I stand by every item on that list, and even started a (long and probably long-winded) response to your comments, explaining my reasons for including each of those items on my list. (In most cases, your assumptions as to why I listed an item are way off base, and rather simplistic in tone. I should be insulted that you think so little of my intelligence, but I assume, from the tone of your comments, that I hit a nerve here, so I'll forgive you the slight.)
But as I read further into your reply, I realized that the gap between our perceptions of the past 8 years has grown to a near-uncrossable chasm. It's as if we've been living in alternate time lines, one in which George W. Bush is "a genuine, sincere, and courageous dude," and one in which he is none of the above. I suddenly found myself unwilling, and unable, to proceed with explaining my reasons and justifications for my list, and simply threw up my hands in disgust.
I have expressed my opinions on the past administration, and its actions. I am no more a fool than you are delusional, despite the fact that this was my first reaction as I finished reading your comments. At best, we must agree to disagree on this topic. At worst, it would probably be best if we never discuss Bush again. (Sadly, not that that's likely.)
(BTW… "Slick Willy" is respectful? You should be careful where you go casting those stones, mister.)
Honestly, I forgot about Katrina. That was a hideous confluence of bad timing, local government's incompetence and corruption, the misguided notion of putting FEMA (an agency once touted as one of the most efficient government agencies working today) under Homeland Security, and Bush's appointment of his incompetent polo-pony buddy (or wherever he met the guy) as head of FEMA. It's that cronyism that Bush will (rightly, I believe) be blamed for when it comes to Katrina.
The financial meltdown was such a huge thing, I'm even hesitant to lay it at Bush's feet. Which is not to say the execution of the bailout at his Treasury Secretary's hands shouldn't be raising hackles across this country, but I think I've talked about that before.
My 'fool' insult was primarily something I threw at the old "Bush lied, people died" comment. Again, do some research! Heck, the 9/11 commission even debunked that.
But, I apologize for lowering the level of the 'conversation'.
The fact is, I'm not delusional. And, I'm not defending conservatism - though, I am ABSOLUTELY a conservative so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Unfortunately, Bush is NOT a conservative. He spent money like a Democrat.
I get that you were posting your reactions to the past 8 years. I get that you and I could and would never see eye to eye on the past 8 years. Heck, you still hate Reagan and he is pretty much considered by a vast majority of historians as a top 10 President despite Iran/Contra, despite not acknowledging AIDS sooner, despite other mistakes.
All I'm saying is that I believe (IMNSHO) that you allow your emotions and your liberalism (it's not a dirty word...it just is) to cloud your vision.
Yes, the habeus corpus issue was and is disturbing. I think the reason it didn't get more press is because the administration did not abuse it. But, that was never the point to dissenters like us. The dreaded slippery slope argument DOES apply here. Yet, Obama has been President for a day+ now and he has not changed it. Why? Like my posts here and elsewhere regarding the enemy combatants, I think the whole issue is bigger and scarier than you or I imagine.
Same thing with FISA. You feel it was a travesty and a violation of privacy. All I'm saying is that not even Obama agrees with you. Thus, it's a good bet Bush will not be judged on it.
Obama today postponed the Guantanamo closing. Why? Because it is a bigger issue than we know. It is delicate. Thus, it is unlikely Bush will be judged historically on it.
You want to hate Bush. I get it. I do not. Not because I like him or because I'm a conservative. It's because I'm being objective, fair, and I'm not letting emotions cloud my judgement. YES, he WAS a sincere and courageous President. Hate him for all the things you want, but he was NOT a liar or a cheat. He is NOT a typical politician. Why do you think the media had to pick so much on Cheney and Rove? Why the conspiracy theories revolved around them? Bush was simple and goofy. Not a 'slick Willy' at all (and I like that nickname...and, I do afford respect to Clinton despite what I thought about his final problematic acts). And, hate him all you want, but it took courage to stand by his decisions. They were not popular, but he believed in them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'd rather have a President who fucks up doing something he believes in than a President who gets into a mess trying to play politics or lie or cheat or all of the above.
My view of Bush (other than being a genuine and courageous dude) is neutral. I believe he will be primarily and possibly solely judged historically on the outcome of Iraq. I said this 4 years ago. There will be a line or two about Katrina and possibly the financial meltdown (more, if it gets worse). But, his Presidency will be framed by 9/11 and Iraq.
If that makes us 'chasms apart' in our opinions. So be it. But, I'm not being delusional. I'm just laying out the truth.
Look, the reality is — whether you want to acknowledge it or not — our reactions toward Bush's Presidency are going to be colored by our baseline reactions to him. You see him as a "cool, generous dude." I saw a smug, arrogant man, prone to contemptuous reactions when questioned. You commend him for the "courage to stand by his decisions." I saw a man that's not about to be found wrong on anything, so his decisions must be right, whatever the cost. (Not second guessing him there, it's just my impression.) You can tell me I'm blinded by my emotions, by my liberalism, all you want. But we're just seeing things from opposite ends of the spectrum, and I'll maintain that your image of Bush is no less colored by your conservatism and fundamental beliefs than mine is. (How can it not be? We're only human, and this is a VERY human process.)
As for the whole "political" question, I doubt I've ever heard a more disingenuous argument in my life. You defend Bush for "not being a typical politician" and dismiss Obama as being too political. You then point out that the media picked on Cheney and Rove, presumably because they are political. Which they most definitely are… I doubt you'll find two more political animals in Washington, and they both had VERY well-defined and aggressive agendas. Setting aside discussions about who may have been pulling the strings here (since we'll never know the truth of that), those two men were his closest advisers, the ones that helped him shape his every policy, promise and action. Assuming that, because HE wasn't political he's somehow untouched by politics is absurd. How many recess appointments did he make, so his nominees wouldn't have to go through confirmation hearings? That's political. How many times did the White House issue press releases on Friday afternoons, knowing they would get less attention that way? That's political. One of his first actions on taking office in 2001 (much like Obama's this year) was to suspend all of Clinton's Presidential orders from his last months in office. That's political. You suggest that he "did more to help Africa and AIDS," to which I would say "Good job!"… except that he also issued the infamous "gag order" which prohibited US family planning assistance to foreign agencies that performed, counseled or lobbied for abortion rights. So you're going to have to balance the good his AIDS funding did against the harm his gag order did. That's not just political, that's holding the entire Third World hostage to his politics.
Defend Bush as being non-political all you want, but his administration was VERY political, and they made some very deliberate (and damaging, IMHO) political decisions. If it will make my comments more 'palatable', let's replace "Bush" with "The Bush Administration" and move on.
Back to Bush the man for a moment… "Bush was simple and goofy." Seriously? You smacked Obama around for his "justness of our cause" comments in his Inauguration speech, but you're willing to embrace the good-hearted goof who tries hard? We've got terrorists ready to kill themselves for the simple chance to hurt Americans, the Middle East (with more than a little help from us) a destabilized mess, India and Pakistan saber-rattling at the drop of a hat, the economy in shambles, a veritable civil-war brewing between godless liberals and holier-than-thou conservatives, and you're okay with Goofy for President?
Christ, is this some variant on that "I want a President I can sit down and have a beer with" bullshit? I can't understand this baffling obsession with 'politicians are bad' when it comes to running the f'ing government. I'm pretty sure the rest of the world isn't suffering from this delusion, and I, for one, am glad to have a President that I figure has a better than even chance of being the smartest guy in the room when it comes to foreign relations. Simple and goofy couldn't possibly be the best option. Until we miraculously figure out a way to all live together without the need for governments, then politics, and politicians, may be "evil", but unfortunately, they're a necessary evil. And I'm fine with that.
So, while I'm on a roll, a couple of things from your previous comments…
Taking, for the moment, WMDs and the 9/11 Commission out of the discussion, what about the "Hussein was part of 9/11" dogma we got handed for years as justification for our actions in Iraq? The problem with that is that the evidence was never there for that either (in fact, Bin Laden's post 9/11 statements point to our support for the sanctions against Iraq as "strengthening Hussein's regime" and are one of the reasons he gave for attacking us. Doesn't sound much like they were buddies.) If I'm not mistaken, in the past year or so, the Bush administration has backed away from that stance. So, is that NOT a lie, then? Just a, what, misunderstanding? Poor intelligence — again?
"Terrorism is NOT a threat?" I never said it wasn't. What I was saying is that using our fear of terrorism to justify incursions on civil liberties, spying on US citizens, torture, etc. should be considered an abuse of the President's power.
He doesn't get to tout "terrorist free since 2002" without owning 9/11. It's like the two exist in a vacuum. 9/11 happened, but we're not going to talk about it. But there haven't been any attacks since then! Own up to the failure, and I might grant some credit for the aftermath.
And seriously… I've said it before, but you need to get over this whole "fairness doctrine" thing. I've read it and, unless you can show me some evidence of the evils you seem to ascribe to it, you're starting to sound a little Fringe Media paranoid about the whole thing. Democrats aren't the ones that started kowtowing to the Parent's Television Council every time they got their knickers in a twist over the latest f-bomb on late night TV. There's more than enough room for blame in the culture wars to share between liberal Political Correctness and "we get to decide what's morally acceptable" conservatives. So how about we drop the whole "holier than thou" crap when it comes to this one.
As for the "God" stuff, I'm reasonably certain that any movement to remove the word "God" from our currency comes from the fringes of the Democratic party (assuming it's a party thing at all) and really should be treated as such. Questions about the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are really a "Freedom of Religion" question and not a Free Speech question, I think. But, in a country founded on the concept of Freedom of Religion, shouldn't we have the right to question whether it's acceptable to require citizens who don't worship "God" as such to invoke His name when swearing allegiance to their country? He wasn't in the original Pledge… He got added in there in the 50's when we were fighting off those godless Commies. Maybe it's time to give up on that fight and go back to our original Pledge.
OK, that's enough… apparently I could keep going all night. I guess sometimes you've gotta get this stuff off your chest.
I'm fascinated by your "top fifteen presidents" remark. Not that the notion that George W. Bush could be considered a GOOD President is mind-boggling (though that IS what prompted my "delusional" remark). But it's that number "15".
I don't think I could NAME fifteen Presidents without resorting to a Google search. But you've not only got a top fifteen… you've got a top 10 that's so solid you can't shoehorn Dubya into that top 10. Fascinating.
I utterly agree - his administration WAS political, and that should very much taint his Presidency. I do not debate that. What I do debate is how historians will look at it. Yes, Cheney and Rove will get their blurbs and they will likely be viewed as political and even Machiavellian. But, Bush the man is a goof. You can't be a goof AND a political mastermind. He wasn't.
But, I want to reiterate - I don't embrace Bush for this. I'm not saying I'm ok with it. I'm simply pointing it out as a matter of fact. I don't WANT a President I can have a beer with. But, he WAS that President and it is likely that history will note it.
As for your additions...
Again - I'm not really talking about what YOU are going to give him credit for. I think we can both agree you won't be giving him credit for ANYTHING. What I'm trying to point out is that if Iraq is a success historians will credit him with it. And, they will give him the credit for 'terrorist attack free for 7 1/2 years' whether they pin 9/11 on him or not.
I'm also not offering my opinion on how much he may or may not have abused our liberties. What I am saying is that historians will give him a semi-pass on it if Iraq proves to be an historic success. This is how the history books are written. Victors get more credit than they typically deserve and less criticism. Will it be noted that he abused our liberties? Sure. But, it won't be a big note.
As for the fairness doctrine - don't point to the PTC and say 'get over it'. They are one and the same! They are both examples of government sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. I have been as critical of the PTC as you have. You should be as critical of the fairness doctrine. FACT - the doctrine is an example of government trying to dictate speech. It is wrong. That is all. If the Democrats support it, I'll be screaming. If the Republicans supported it, I'd still be screaming. This shouldn't be a partisan issue for you because I know you agree with me on this.
I CAN name 15 Presidents. There have been 44. It's not hard. I chose that number because I believe even if Iraq is a success GW Bush does not belong in and will not crack the top 10. That's the only reason. Reagan is in the top 10 and will likely remain there.
My top 10:
Lincoln
Washington
Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
Andrew Jackson
James Polk
Reagan
Truman
Eisenhower
The next 5 in no particular order:
Woodrow Wilson
James Madison
Monroe
JFK
John Adams
Pretty convenient to remove the commission from the argument. But, I would counter this with "what dogma"? The dogma created by the media? Bush never said Hussein/Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This has ALWAYS been a propagandistic creation by the media.
Arguments for attacking Iraq included WMD, nuclear threat, terrorist enabler, terrorist supporter.
Someone, somewhere equated terrorist supporter/enabler with 'involved with 9/11'. But, it wasn't Bush.
As for your 'poor intelligence' swipe - don't forget that the US was not the only one with poor intelligence regarding WMD and nuclear attempts by Hussein. British, French, German, Russian, and Israeli intelligence ALL agreed.
No, Bush never lied. You may not like his decision. But, there is no conspiracy here.
I take real offense at this. Do you REALLY think that the USA should be spending $500 million a year in Africa for family planning? Leaving alone the argument that it does no good...why the fuck should we be spending that money? Leaving alone the FACT that 50% of Americans do not believe in 'family planning' (read: abortions)...can we afford to waste money like this?
Obama just added it to his specatcular waste of a stimulus bill. Stimulus that is unlikely to stimulate anything but conversation. Why? We're not broke enough??
Bush didn't pass a 'gag order'. He stopped spending money on something he found offensive and I find a waste. Bravo! If withholding our money from third world nations is 'holding them hostage' I say, "hold 'em!"
However, his attempts to involve corporations and government in assisting AIDS in Africa IS a good thing. But, that doesn't mean WE are responsible for fixing all of Africa's problems. It's just a good thing in and of itself.
I'll agree that there is probably a very valid conversation to be had over whether we SHOULD be spending money on family planning in Africa. "What are we trying to achieve?" "Have we achieved anything?" "Are we doing ANY good there?" (You're basic 'does the ROI justify the expense' conversation, to put in the most callous of corporate terms.)
But that's not what this is about. It's not about whether we're going to spend the money or not… we're spending it, we've spent it, and we'll continue to spend it. Bush didn't say "we're not spending any money for family planning in Africa." He said, "If you want our money, you have to take abortion off the table. Do that, and you can back the money truck up!" If we spent less because fewer agencies were funded, I'd consider that a side-effect of that policy. What Obama did last week was remove that requirement from agencies looking for funding to continue their work.
You state that 50% of Americans don't believe in family planning. The polls I've seen suggest a little less balanced number, but you know what Twain said about statistics. So, for the sake of argument, let's use your 50% oppose abortion. That means 50% of people in this country support abortion rights (and no, if we're going with your 50% number, you don't get to throw in any undecideds).
So if we take 'spending reduction' off the table, then what we've got is an order that effectively imposes our morality on agencies working in other countries, in different cultures and, quite often, different belief systems. A morality upon which WE, as a nation, cannot possibly agree.
So yeah, I objected to the gag order and I applaud Obama for removing it from the funding requirements.
And, as an aside — since you brought it up — the equating of "family planning" with "abortion" and subsequent opposition to every aspect of family planning is one of the fundamental problems I have with the anti-abortion movement. Family planning is, among other things, about education, counseling, birth CONTROL (i.e. contraception) and, finally, abortion. That 'birth control' item is critical. Since most abortion activists seem to also oppose birth control, it calls their whole argument into question. You say (speaking in the editorial here) you oppose abortion as a right to life issue, then you need to give on the question of birth control. Allow for contraception, I'll discuss abortion with you. But when you oppose both, you're trying to inject your morality into the discussion, and I have neither time nor interest in your opinion. So (stepping back out of the editorial now), I object to your labeling 'family planning' as 'abortion' and am surprised to find you jumping on that particular bandwagon.
More on your other comments later…
Unfortunately, in Africa, family planning organizations means abortion. The masses there can't read for the most part so education is out. Why do you think AIDS is such a problem? And, distributing birth control is about as inefficient as it gets both because of distribution difficulties and the inability of the masses to even understand how to use it. So, yeah, family planning in Africa as offered by US sponsored organizations = US sponsored abortion. I certainly do NOT applaud Obama for his support of such a thing.
But, this is my favorite quote of yours:
"So if we take 'spending reduction' off the table, then what we've got is an order that effectively imposes our morality on agencies working in other countries, in different cultures and, quite often, different belief systems. A morality upon which WE, as a nation, cannot possibly agree."
It does not impose our morality or even our conflicted argument upon ANYONE. We're talking about GIVING them money!!! Gratis. No payee backee. We GIVE them hundreds of millions of dollars! Why the frack should we? And, how does NOT giving them money IMPOSE anything on them?? Frankly, I think America should quit giving shit away all over the place. But, certainly if its something that the country cannot agree upon? It IS our money you know. If we can't all support it, it shouldn't be going out. PARTICULARLY if there is a core moral issue at hand. But, not giving it out is no imposition of our morality. However, GIVING it out IS an insult and an affront to around 50% of the people who put that money up.
And, yes...in a democracy where the masses are putting up their dollars as taxes in support of the nation, the government has to be mindful of where that money goes.
Regarding our "foreign funding for family planning" discussion:
Frankly, as I thought I'd made clear in my first reply, I can't see any reason to debate (at least in the context of this discussion) the question of whether or not we should be funding these programs. We've been doing it for decades, through administrations both Republican and Democrat, and it seems like the only difference between the two is whether we'll be funding abortion services and counseling. If George W. didn't put an end to it, it seems unlikely it's going to 'go away' any time in the immediate future. So you can complain all you want about it, but it's not germane to this discussion.
Along the same lines, if we ARE going to fund family planning services, and we arbitrarily tell those services that, if they want our money, they can't provide abortion counseling, then yes, it does seem to me that we're 'imposing our conflicted morality' on those services taking our money. "Need money to keep functioning? Well, you can have it, but you can't say the "A" word." And if you're a woman living in one of these countries and your only birth control options are provided by one of these services, then that certainly sounds like we're inflicting our will on her.
What I find really interesting here is your argument about core morality. You argue that, since we can't agree on the morality behind this, then we shouldn't be funding it, going so far as to argue that "GIVING it out IS an insult and an affront to around 50% of the people who put that money up." Then you conclude with "in a democracy where the masses are putting up their dollars as taxes in support of the nation, the government has to be mindful of where that money goes."
I couldn't agree more. But who's the government going to listen to? Are you claiming some mythical moral high ground here? As with anything abortion-rights related, there isn't any middle ground, let alone a moral high ground. A decision NOT to fund is just as much a decision as one TO fund, and I guarantee those arguing on the left for abortion rights are as firmly convinced of the moral certainty of their argument as you seem to be about yours. So the government CAN'T just listen to what the people say, because the people are saying conflicting things.
Regarding the question of the Fairness Doctrine:
I DON'T support it, and I hope it dies before it ever gets to a vote. I'll oppose it as much as I do the BS coming from the PTC. The difference is, I don't have your "the sky is falling" reaction to it. I want Congress to keep its nose out of entertainment (whether TV, movies, videogames or music) as much as you do. Sadly, when it comes to TV, we're kinda screwed… since broadcast signals are licensed, Congress gets to butt their nose in where it doesn't belong, and there's always a tension between First Amendment rights and broadcast standards. Sometimes we win a little, sometimes we lose a little. I'm hoping we'll swing away from the Bush era FCC with its obsession with nipple-slips and crap, but it's never going to be as clear-cut as I'd like it to be.
Now, back to the original discussion (*sigh*):
A couple of side notes before I get to my main point here. First off… I titled the damn thing "Good Riddance Mr. President" and you're giving me grief about going over the top? Did you forget whose blog you're reading? That said, I don't believe I'm as over the top on this as you think. I'll explain why in a few.
As for your fear that you'll end up sounding like you LIKE Bush, I can understand your fear. I'd hate to have that hanging over my head, but I'm fairly certain I've got nothing to worry about there. After all, I'm certainly not making any "top 15 Presidents" assertions.
Which brings me to my main point here. Once again, we've gotten far afield from my original intent when posting. This time I think it's my fault… I wasn't clear, from the start, in what I was trying to say, but this discussion has helped to clarify that for me. So I should probably thank you for helping me towards that clarity.
As I previously indicated, I never intended this as a discussion of Bush's legacy and how history is going to treat him. This was my personal list… the things that, over the past 8 years, have stood out as the most egregious failures or the things I found most troubling about his administration. There's also a "unifying theme" to a lot of it, as many of these are issues that I believe hold the most potential to be damaging to this country in the long run.
Katrina didn't make my list because it really doesn't fit the theme. It was a colossal blunder, and the cost in terms of human lives and suffering, its impact on Louisiana and the nation (both in human and economic terms) is staggering. But it's a failure of execution… a lot of people made a lot of bad decisions that led to this disaster. It's a blunder of epic proportions, but we can, hopefully, learn from it and move forward.
Our financial meltdown didn't make it because it was still relatively new, and the implications of it I was still processing. But it absolutely, from an historical perspective, should be laid at Bush's feet. And as we learn more and more about the incredible mismanagement of the funds allocated to the banking bailout, I think it's going to end up being an even bigger drag on his 'legacy' then even we realized at first.
But what I found troubling, the reason I posted in the first place, isn't just about "what Bush did". It's about the ramifications of what he did. Many of the things I listed COULD be nothing more than aberrations that will be attributed to the crisis we were facing. Our history is littered with these events. In your estimation of the Bush legacy, this is the case. Honestly, I hope you're right.
But what's going to determine this isn't what Bush did… it's where we go from here — what we do with about it moving forward. You point to Obama keeping FISA intact as if it's some justification of Bush's policies. I don't know if that's a policy decision, or if it's just so early in his administration that he hasn't dealt with the question, but if he DOES allow FISA to stand as is, then this should serve as an indictment of Bush's policies, not a justification. Governments do not easily relinquish power once it's granted them. And our government is no less prone to this failing than any other. The longer FISA remains in effect, the more codified into government policy and power it becomes and the less likely we'll ever see its end. The NSA has already abused the powers granted by FISA, and any assumption they're going to willingly back away from that is naïve. We are less free today because of acts like this, and defending it by pointing to the new administration's support for it does nothing to change that.
Same problem with the Enemy Combatant question. It was recently announced that the last enemy combatant held in US custody will go to trial. But at the same time this was announced, the Justice Department said it would ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the challenge to this man's detention. If this occurs, that means that the Enemy Combatant rule will remain in effect… that Obama, or any President that follows him can invoke this rule to imprison anybody, at any time, simply by declaring them an "Enemy Combatant".
You can argue that Bush didn't abuse this rule. (I'd argue that even one use against an American citizen is abuse.) You can argue that, judging from his rhetoric and his public/political persona, Obama's unlikely to abuse it… but 'unlikely' is as far as I'm willing to go with that notion, and I LIKE the guy. But are you willing to bet that 15, 20, 50 years from now we won't have a President that sees the potential in the Enemy Combatant rule and decides that what this country truly needs is a little tyranny to set it on the right path? Imagine a President Karl Rove and I can point to someone I'm SURE would have no trouble using Enemy Combatant as the blunt instrument it so obviously could become. That's why I closed my original post with a fervent wish that we'll never "see the like" again.
You argue that "this is what what history will say" about Bush. But it seems to me you're taking the High School history path here. You may be right about the major bullet points, and the stuff that's going to go into those high school texts. But history is far more complex than that. Saying that "Bush's legacy is all about whether we win or lose in Iraq" reduces EVERYTHING to its lowest common denominator, and ignores all the questions about that victory or loss; ignores 9/11, our response to it and the ramifications of that response; ignores the fallout from 8 years of 'fer us or agin us' foreign policy and ignores all the nuances of history.
I'm also fascinated by the arrogance of your argument, though it's an arrogance I've come to expect in conservative rhetoric. It's not enough that you disagree with my opinion, that you think I'm wrong or misguided, but 'my passion has apparently overcome my logic' and I'm not capable of thinking clearly. I'd be insulted, if you hadn't set the bar so low by starting off calling me a fool.
Regarding the man himself… at different points in this discussion you refer to him as "simple" and "a goof" and yet maintain he'll be remembered as one of our best Presidents. Frankly, you REALLY need to raise your standards for quality. (Either that or we've been incredibly lucky to have survived this long as a country if we've had 29 Presidents worse than George W. Bush.) You see a goof. I see a short-sighted, arrogant, not-terribly-intelligent man trying to cope with some of the worst crises this country has faced. And he comes up wanting.
I don't think that 'it's all about Iraq, man!" sums up Bush's place in history, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell he's going to be seen as a GOOD president, let alone 'top 15'.
Finally (god, I hope)… to be honest, I don't think I've been over the top here (not entirely, at least — I'm sure you'll be able to point to moments of hyperbole). You know, I'm not the only one talking about and questioning this stuff. And while you can speak dismissively about "the MSM" and liberals in general, I'm thinking I'm actually in pretty good company here.
So call me a fool, dismiss my arguments as 'overcome by my own emotions" but at this point, I'm willing to sit back and see what history does, indeed, say about George W. Bush. And all the while, I'll continue to hope that we find a way to move forward that doesn't follow in any of his footsteps.
When George W. Bush took office, he did a lot of things, his first months in office, I disagreed with (much as Obama has done a lot of things I've agreed with). At the time, I wanted some way to 'keep track' of these things, and express my views on them. I wasn't blogging at the time (was blogging even an option then?), didn't have a website, and wasn't keeping a journal, so I never followed through on the thought.
Consider this, then, the driving impulse behind my original post… to 'remember' those things that, over the past eight years, I've found most troubling. It's also the reason your "what history's going to say" argument doesn't carry any weight with me. Like I've said, it's never been about the historical record.