 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: olddude Date: 20 Jan 10 - 08:03 PM The accomplishments for history purposes in full between the quotes right here on mudcat for history to cherish " ". The end |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM "Uncognizant"? What dictionary did you find that word in, Amos? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Mr Happy Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:17 AM ..........at least O'Bama never behaves like this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rToKEnySb7s |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:15 AM Until Bush is tried for his crimes, no amount of "beating up" is sufficient. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:35 AM Amos has run out material to pimp for Obama with so he has to go back and beat up on Bush some more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:15 AM I'm disappointed with Obama. He could have done more, including dismantling the Patriot Act. On the other hand, the Repuglicans have stopped at nothing to oppose him at any point they possibly could. So while I am disappoined with Obama, I am disgusted with the Repuglicans who clearly care more for their party than they do for their nation. As for Bush Jr, he was a disaster, the absolute worst president in the history of the Union. He had the whole world's attention and good will in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and he pissed it away like so much cheap beer. Plus lying to get us into a war we had no business being in. Starting with a balanced budget and nearly doubling our debt. Further driving the wedge between the richest of us and the rest of us, moving more wealth from those who make it to those who have obscene amounts of it that they can never use. Money definitely trickles up, and anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or an idiot. It's like he wanted to really prove Reagan's adage that the government is not the solution, it's the problem. We got 8 solid years of how very, very true that can be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Jan 10 - 06:28 PM When it comes to Bush, there is no case for positive reporting of an objective nature. His administration was a disaster and we're still recovering from it. I don't believe Obama has done more good than harm, however. He seems to be carrying out Bush's foreign policy by invading Mid-East countries. The more troops on the ground, the stronger will be insurgent resolve. That means more suicide bombings, terrorist organizations (not just Al Qaeda) and the criticism of the world. The idea that the US can create peace through military buildup is ludicrous. BTW, he blew the efforts in Copenhagen to curb global warming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Greg F. Date: 19 Jan 10 - 06:09 PM Doug, are you completely uncognizant of the state in which the country stood last January? That's only the beginning- he's uncognizant (or blissfully or willfilly ignorant) of a hell of a lot more than that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 05:16 PM Only time will tell, Amos. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 10 - 04:48 PM Sure. We should revitalize the economy the way Bush did, by invading someone and killing a whole mess of folks. Doug, are you completely uncognizant of the state in which the country stood last January? WHile I have a couple of strong disagreements with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, I have to say that Obama has dome more good than he has harm, which could not be said about the Big W. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 04:40 PM Right now the Bush years look awfully good! Obama has been in office a year and he's a disaster! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 10 - 04:14 PM The FBI violated the law in collecting about 2,000 U.S. telephone records during the Bush administration, though the violations weren't intentional, officials said Tuesday. Citing internal memos and interviews, the Washington Post said the FBI invoked nonexistent terrorism emergencies or persuaded phone companies to provide information as it illegally gathered records between 2002 and 2006. The bureau said in 2007 that it had improperly obtained some phone records, and the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release a report later this month detailing the extent of the problem. FBI spokesman Michael Kortan said Tuesday the pending report "is not expected to find — nor were there — any intentional attempts to obtain records that counterterrorism personnel knew they were not legally entitled to obtain." The problem centered around requests to phone companies for records of incoming and outgoing calls to a particular number — not the actual content of the conversations. In seeking the information, the FBI sometimes cited nonexistent emergencies to justify seeking the records, in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The fact that the violations had occurred was previously known; what had not been understood was the extent and scope of the problem. Since the issue arose in 2007, the bureau says it has reformed its practices to make sure such violations don't re-occur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:18 AM WASHINGTON - Computer technicians have found 22 million missing White House e-mail messages from the administration of President George W. Bush, and the Obama administration is searching for dozens more days' worth of potentially lost e-mail from the Bush years, according to two private groups that sued over the Bush White House's failure to install an electronic recordkeeping system. The groups - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and the National Security Archive - said yesterday that they were settling the lawsuits they filed against the Executive Office of the President in 2007. It will be years before the public sees any of the e-mail, because it will now go through the National Archives' process for releasing presidential and agency records. Former Bush White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that the 22 million e-mail messages had already been recovered while Bush was still in office and that misleading statements about the former administration's work demonstrate "a continued anti-Bush agenda, nearly a year after a new president was sworn in." "The liberal groups CREW and National Security Archive litigate for sport, distort the facts and have consistently tried to create a spooky conspiracy out of standard IT issues," he said in a statement. Anne Weismann, chief counsel for CREW, said the 22 million e-mail messages "would never have been found but for our lawsuits and pressure from Capitol Hill." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D., Vt.) said the Bush administration had been dismissive of congressional requests that it recover the e-mail. The tally of missing e-mail, the additional searches, and the settlement are the latest development in a political controversy that stemmed from the Bush White House's failure to install a properly working electronic recordkeeping system. Two federal laws require the White House to preserve its records. The two groups say there is not yet a final count on the extent of missing White House e-mail and may never be a complete tally. "Many poor choices were made during the Bush administration," Meredith Fuchs, general counsel to the National Security Archive, said, "and there was little concern about the availability of e-mail records, despite the fact that they were contending with regular subpoenas for records and had a legal obligation to preserve their records." The two groups say the 22 million White House e-mail messages were previously mislabeled and effectively lost. The government now can find and search 22 million more e-mail messages than it could in late 2005, and the settlement means the Obama administration will restore 94 calendar days of e-mail from backup tape, said Kristen Lejnieks, an attorney for the National Security Archive. Sheila Shadmand, another lawyer for the National Security Archive, said the Obama administration was making a strong effort to clean up "the electronic data mess left behind by the prior administration." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:05 PM Osama is nuthin' more than a red herring... So what if Osama had been killed??? Bush was going to invade Iraq anyway... Iraq is the cornerstone of the Bush administration... Not Afganistan or Osama... We need to keep that in perspective... Just about all of Bush's failures can be traced either directly or indirectly to his insane decision... It crippled our international reputation... It drained our treasury and it was the most immoral decision made by any president on our nation's history... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Greg F. Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:52 PM Three words, Douggie-boy: Commander In Chief. As Truman (a REAL president) reminded us: the buck stops with Dubya. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:01 PM WHy, sure it would, Dougie, yer right. But the report omits that detail... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: DougR Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:09 PM And the source for the report Amos quotes: the staff of the Democratic Foreign Relations Committee. (A truly non-partisan group), eh Amos? Hindsight certainly is a marvelous tool. Does the complete report state that General Frank called GWB on his cellphone to ask what should be done? If he did, and Bush stopped the troops from capturing bin Laden, that would be another thing he could personally be blamed for, right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 29 Nov 09 - 11:56 PM A report released by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee blamed the Bush administration for failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden when the al Qaeda leader was cornered in Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountain region in December 2001. The report, released Sunday, said the situation in Afghanistan presented greater problems today because of the failure to nab bin Laden eight years ago. Bin Laden had written his will, apparently sensing he was trapped, but the lack of sufficient forces to close in for the kill allowed him to escape to tribal areas in Pakistan, according to the report. It said former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top U.S. commander Gen. Tommy Franks held back the necessary forces for a "classic sweep-and-block maneuver" that could have prevented bin Laden's escape. "It would have been a dangerous fight across treacherous terrain, and the injection of more U.S. troops and the resulting casualties would have contradicted the risk-averse, 'light footprint' model formulated by Rumsfeld and Franks," the report said. When criticized later for not zeroing in on bin Laden, administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, responded that the al Qaeda leader's location was uncertain. "But the review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora," the report said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 02 Nov 09 - 06:40 PM YEah, you know man, we couldn't hang hin so we starved him to death. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Teribus Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:06 PM Might just do that Amos. PS: How's the impeachment thing progressing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 02 Nov 09 - 01:01 PM Teribus: Your corrections should be sent to the New York TImes, from whose editorial pages the quotes from General Eaton were taken. Or, perhaps, to General Eaton himself. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 02 Nov 09 - 11:55 AM Amos, I think that you find that at no time did the Intelligence Agencies EVER call Afghanistan "the greatest threat to America" - If they did please provide a reference for that assessment. On two occasions however they did carry out threat evaluations as to who posed "the greatest threat to America", once for President Bill Clinton in 1998 and once for George W. Bush in 2002. In both cases their reasoning and their conclusions were the same - IRAQ. Besides which the "US" contribution to Afghanistan has never been subject to accusations of being under resourced or underfunded. I take it that you do realise that the US contribution is the United States of America's - Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan. The area in which accusations of under resourcing and underfunding abound is the NATO-ISAF mission to Afghanistan. US-OEF was tasked with denying Afghanistan to Al-Qaeda and fighting their Taliban hosts whenever and wherever they are encountered. In that they have been pretty successful, since 2001 Al-Qaeda has been in hiding over the border in Pakistan, playing no significant role in anything. NATO-ISAF, of which US General Stanley McChrystal is the commander was tasked with providing security for the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) and with training the Afghan Security forces. In 2006 when this force was given responsibility for Helmand and Kandahar Provinces the Taliban went onto the offensive and attacked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 02 Nov 09 - 10:26 AM ..."Gibbs had some back up from retired Army Gen. Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of the Iraqi military in 2003-2004: The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:54 AM To the Editor: Re "The Self-Correcting Presidency," by Ross Douthat (The New York Times on the Web, Sept. 21), assessing the administration of George W. Bush: Mr. Douthat is correct that many prominent Democrats supported the Iraq war resolution, but more politicians might have expressed their reservations if the Bush administration and its cheering section hadn't made an honest discussion of the merits of invading Iraq impossible. It's very hard to have a reasoned discussion when you're being called an "America hater" and an "appeaser." While I personally opposed the Iraq misadventure from the start and would never vote for anyone who voted in favor of the resolution, it's unrealistic to expect politicians to commit political suicide by opposing a war against a government that was alleged to be linked to the Sept. 11 attacks and was alleged to be building nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that would be used in further attacks on America. Not only is truth the first casualty of war, but in this case it was the first casualty of the run-up to war. Larry Lubin New York, Sept. 21, 2009 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 22 Sep 09 - 11:10 AM Members of Congress who voted for the Southwest border fence as the fix for illegal immigration professed shock — shock at the news that the project is running years behind, and billions of dollars ahead, of the Bush administration's early, rosy projections. Auditors reported last week that the high-tech, 28-mile "virtual" section of the fence was running a mere seven years behind this month's planned opening. Initially, designers talked of using off-the-shelf technology for the radar, cameras and other sensors, but problems cropped up. (Imagine, discovering that cameras tremble in rough weather.) "I'm trying to figure out why this is so difficult," said Representative Michael McCaul of Texas. "These are basically cameras on a pole." The current cost estimate for the Buck Rogers barrier? $1.1 billion. Investigators from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office report that the larger, actual fence — covering a 600 mile-plus stretch between San Diego and Brownsville, Tex. — cost $2.4 billion to build and will cost an extra $6.5 billion in upkeep across two decades. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 09 - 10:40 AM SOrry--it kept not posting. So I must have persisted too hard! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Sep 09 - 06:05 AM Amos, I think you are being repetative and redundent. Perhaps you only need to post this long message once, and then use clickies to refer to it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 09 - 06:51 PM From The Atlajntic, an excerpt: Sep 11 2009, 10:41 am by Ronald Brownstein Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush. It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride. On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially. The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet. Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune. But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy's performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it. If that's the test, today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year. Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent. That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says. Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008. The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent. The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent. The trends look the same when examining shares of the population that are poor or uninsured, rather than the absolute numbers in those groups. When Clinton left office in 2000 13.7 per cent of Americans were uninsured; when Bush left that number stood at 15.4 per cent. (Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.) When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down. Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6 million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined as much over two presidential terms. The number of children in poverty plummeted from 15.3 million when H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to 11.6 million when Clinton stepped down in 2000-a stunning decline of 24 per cent. (That was partly because welfare reform forced single mothers into the workforce at the precise moment they could take advantage of a growing economy. The percentage of female-headed households in poverty stunningly dropped from 39 per cent in 1992 to 28.5 per cent in 2000, still the lowest level for that group the Census has ever recorded. That number has now drifted back up to over 31 per cent.) The number of Americans without health insurance remained essentially stable during Clinton's tenure, declining from 38.6 million when the elder Bush stepped down in 1992 to 38.4 million in 2000. Looking at the trends by shares of the population, rather than absolute numbers, reinforces the story: The overall poverty rate and the poverty rate among children both declined sharply under Clinton, and the share of Americans without health insurance fell more modestly. So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this: Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent. Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent. Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent. Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent. Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle. Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980. But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 09 - 12:17 AM From The Atlajntic, an excerpt: Sep 11 2009, 10:41 am by Ronald Brownstein Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush. It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride. On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially. The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet. Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune. But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy's performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it. If that's the test, today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year. Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent. That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says. Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008. The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent. The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent. The trends look the same when examining shares of the population that are poor or uninsured, rather than the absolute numbers in those groups. When Clinton left office in 2000 13.7 per cent of Americans were uninsured; when Bush left that number stood at 15.4 per cent. (Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.) When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down. Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6 million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined as much over two presidential terms. The number of children in poverty plummeted from 15.3 million when H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to 11.6 million when Clinton stepped down in 2000-a stunning decline of 24 per cent. (That was partly because welfare reform forced single mothers into the workforce at the precise moment they could take advantage of a growing economy. The percentage of female-headed households in poverty stunningly dropped from 39 per cent in 1992 to 28.5 per cent in 2000, still the lowest level for that group the Census has ever recorded. That number has now drifted back up to over 31 per cent.) The number of Americans without health insurance remained essentially stable during Clinton's tenure, declining from 38.6 million when the elder Bush stepped down in 1992 to 38.4 million in 2000. Looking at the trends by shares of the population, rather than absolute numbers, reinforces the story: The overall poverty rate and the poverty rate among children both declined sharply under Clinton, and the share of Americans without health insurance fell more modestly. So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this: Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent. Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent. Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent. Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent. Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle. Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980. But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Sep 09 - 10:00 AM President Obama, who eagerly claimed ownership of the war on Afghanistan, calling it a "war of necessity," has already committed an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to the occupation. That escalation brings the total number of U.S. forces to approximately 62,000. Four thousand additional troops from the 82nd Airborne Division will be sent in September to train Afghan soldiers. This is in addition to private U.S.-paid military contractors in Afghanistan, which were estimated at 130,000 to 180,000 in mid-2007. In addition, Obama has authorized predator drone attacks on Pakistan—killing civilians, expanding the violence, and destabilizing that country. Afghan resistance fighters, who took a wait-and-see attitude, avoiding direct combat as 4,000 U.S. troops surged into the Helmand province in southern Afghanistan in early July, have fought back with improvised explosive devices, dramatically increasing foreign casualties. As of press time, more than 300 foreign troops had already been killed in Afghanistan in 2009, making it the deadliest year for the occupying foreign armies, with four months to go for the body count to further rise. During August, 47 U.S. troops were killed, making it the deadliest month of the entire eight-year-long war for the United States. The administration, well aware of the heavy political costs they will incur as more troops return home in body bags, is looking to increase the use of unmanned predator drones. The fiscal year 2010 budget calls for $3.5 billion to be spent on unmanned aerial vehicles. There are several different UAVs made by defense industry contractors. The Reapers, made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, are priced at $10 to $12 million apiece. Use of Predator drones may minimize U.S. military deaths, but it becomes a vicious Catch-22 for the war effort. Any attempt to lessen civilian support for resistance to the occupation is doomed from the start, when drones have rained death from the sky on entire families, on wedding celebrations and funerals. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in the attacks. The United States has attempted a bribery campaign to win hearts and minds, paying money from a fund created by Congress, the Commander Emergency Relief Program, which has $250 million allocated this year for southern Afghanistan alone. The United States plans to dole out $2,500 to compensate for each civilian killed. The payment for killing a cow would be roughly equivalent, according to The Washington Post. The new administration faces increased opposition at home. A Sept. 1 CNN poll found that 57 percent of respondents opposed the war in Afghanistan. That rising tide of opposition is also seen in England, where a survey showed 52 percent calling for immediate withdrawal of British troops. Scrambling to avoid defeat in Afghanistan, the Pentagon is searching for a strategy that will help maintain U.S. dominance over the country and the region. U.S. workers have nothing to gain from the war on Afghanistan. In the month of October, a wide variety of actions will take place on the 8th Anniversary of the war on Afghanistan as people take to the streets across the United States to oppose the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Sep 09 - 04:03 PM Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago WASHINGTON – The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday. Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps. The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives. As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability. In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law "provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions)." Leahy responded with a statement saying it is important for the administration and Congress to "work together to ensure that we protect both our national security and our civil liberties." The committee has scheduled a hearing next week on the Patriot Act. From 2004 to 2007, the business records provision was used 220 times, officials said. Most often, the business records were requested in combination with requests for phone records. The lone wolf provision was created to conduct surveillance on suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. It has never been used, but the administration says it should still be available for future investigations. The roving wiretaps provision was designed to allow investigators to quickly monitor the communications of a suspects who change their cell phone or communication device, without investigators having to go back to court for a new court authorization. That provision has been used an average of 22 times a year, officials said. Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union called the administration's position "a mixed bag," and said that the group hopes the next version of the Patriot Act will have important safeguards on other issues, particularly the collecting of international communications, and a specific bar on surveillance of protected First Amendment activities like peaceful protests or religious assembly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 09 - 03:01 PM fter leaving prison, Muntadar al-Zaidi went straight to al Baghdadiya - the TV station he was working for at the news conference where he threw the shoes. Addressing his own news conference, he said he had been tortured: "At the very moment that the Prime Minister Mr al-Maliki was on TV saying he wouldn't rest until he was sure I was sleeping on a comfortable bed, I was being hideously tortured. "I was being given electric shocks, and being hit with cables and steel roods... I was left handcuffed and immersed in water until dawn in cold weather. I demand that Mr al-Maliki apologise for concealing the truth." An advisor to the prime minister told the BBC that the torture allegation should be investigated. When I saw the war criminal Bush, I wanted to show my resentment - after six years of occupation, this killer came to my country smiling and bragging about victory Muntadar al-Zaidi And a spokesman for the ministry of human rights told us they do not believe he was tortured in the jail where he spent the past nine months, as it is a "detention centre with acceptable human rights standards". They concluded that, if he was tortured, it must have happened soon after he was arrested and before his trial. At his news conference, Mr Zaidi offered an explanation for his shoe-throwing protest. "I'm not a hero," he said, "but when I saw the war criminal Bush, I wanted to show my resentment - after six years of occupation, this killer came to my country smiling and bragging about victory." He went on: "When I saw the pictures of the dead, it kept me awake at night." He also addressed objections that journalists should throw questions at presidents, and not shoes: "If I gave the profession of journalism a bad name, I apologise," he said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:39 PM "Until the network under Ben Laden is dust, however it is achieved, we will not be able to put paid to this account, not because of blood-hunger but because of survival." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Donuel Date: 10 Sep 09 - 10:35 PM Yogi Quayle hmmm For the Republicans to come up with another success like George just deny education benefits to those with pre existing IGNORANCE. You'll have a whole crop to choose from. PS I have noticed that the lily white military officers (below generals and admirals) in this DC area have hundreds, no, thousands of Obama nigger jokes they spread by email. Do you think I should release some of these to MSNBC? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 10 Sep 09 - 12:36 PM "...The typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago. To me, that's the big news from the Census Bureau's annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation. In the four decades that the Census Bureau has been tracking household income, there has never before been a full decade in which median income failed to rise. (The previous record was seven years, ending in 1985.) Other Census data suggest that it also never happened between the late 1940s and the late 1960s. So it doesn't seem to have happened since at least the 1930s. And the streak probably won't end in 2009, either. Unemployment has been rising all year, which is a strong sign income will fall. What's going on here? It's a combination of two trends. One, economic growth in the current decade has been slower than in any decade since before World War II. Two, inequality has risen sharply, so much of the bounty from our growth has gone to a relatively small slice of the population."...NYT Gee, George, that was quite the slippery slope you sent us down. Whadya think? Time to cut some more brush? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Arkie Date: 26 Aug 09 - 02:21 PM Perhaps with the current economic situation in America, Obama does not wish to place the country at risk for law suits due to actions of people one might construe were working for the U.S. government. My own feeling is that the people of this country should not be held responsible for the actions of the Bush-Cheney administration. While their actions were supported by some citizens, they were not acting in behalf of the country but on their own in pursuit of power or perhaps in the interest of major oil in grabbing control of Iraq oil fields. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 26 Aug 09 - 10:11 AM The Torture Papers NYT Published: August 25, 2009 "The Obama administration has taken important steps toward repairing the grievous harm that President George W. Bush did to this nation with his lawless and morally repugnant detention policies. President Obama is committed to closing the Guantánamo Bay camp and creating legitimate courts to try detainees. He has rescinded the executive orders and the legal rulings that Mr. Bush used to excuse the abuse of prisoners. The Defense Department has taken the important step of reversing policy and notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross of the identities of militants who were being held in secret at camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a prosecutor to investigate the interrogation of prisoners of the Central Intelligence Agency, whose inhuman treatment was detailed in a long-secret report written by the agency's inspector general in 2004 and released on Monday. Yet despite these commendable individual steps, Mr. Obama and his political advisers continue to shrink from the broad investigation of the full range of his predecessor's trampling on human rights, civil liberties and judicial safeguards that would allow this country to make sure this sordid history is behind it for good. Indeed, the administration seemed reluctant to make public the C.I.A. report, which was released under a court order and was heavily censored, with whole pages blacked out — including the four pages of recommendations. Before Mr. Holder announced his investigation, the White House made it clear that it was unhappy with his decision — repeating its sadly familiar line about "looking forward, not backward." Mr. Holder displayed real courage and integrity in ordering the investigation. But he stressed that it was limited to the specific interrogations outlined in the C.I.A. report, and did not amount to a full-blown criminal investigation of the Bush-era detention policies. The interrogations are certainly worthy of criminal investigation. The report describes objectionable and cruel practices well beyond waterboarding. They included threatening a detainee's family members with sexual assault and threatening to kill another's children; the staging of mock executions; and repeatedly blocking a prisoner's carotid artery until he began to faint...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 24 Aug 09 - 09:11 PM The NYT reports: "WASHINGTON — The Justice Department's ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter. Susan Walsh/Associated Press Eric H. Holder Jr. Related Times Topics: C.I.A. Interrogations Blog The Caucus The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion. More Politics News Readers' Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (388) » The recommendation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, presented to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in recent weeks, comes as the Justice Department is about to disclose on Monday voluminous details on prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the C.I.A.'s inspector general but have never been released. When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general's findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder's associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider. With the release of the details on Monday and the formal advice that at least some cases be reopened, it now seems all but certain that the appointment of a prosecutor or other concrete steps will follow, posing significant new problems for the C.I.A. It is politically awkward, too, for Mr. Holder because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda."... This is a tone of humility and attention to justice yu would never have heard from John Ashcroft, et al. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: alanabit Date: 24 Aug 09 - 02:09 PM It is very hard work to find anything good to say about Bush or find anything to thank him for. However, I owe my Martin guitar to him and it would be churlish not to give thanks. He cocked up the economy so badly and drove the relative price of your exports so low that even I could afford one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 24 Aug 09 - 02:04 PM Memo Reveals Details of Blackwater Targeted Killings Program By Gabor Steingart in Washington A US district court will decide this week whether one of the darkest chapters of the Bush era, the relationship between the administration and the private security company Blackwater, should be reexamined. Former Blackwater employees want to shine light on the company's shadowy activities. Susan Burke supported the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, during the 2008 US presidential campaign. But now that Obama is in office, she finds her views diverging widely from his. Obama is opposed to investigating the excesses of the administration of his predecessor, former President George W. Bush. Burke, an attorney, favors an investigation. Obama has thus far avoided answering the question of whether the US Constitution was violated in Bush's so-called "war on terror." Burke wants an investigation to focus on precisely this question. Obama is looking forward, while Burke is looking back. IMAGE GALLERY * * * 7 Photos Photo Gallery: Outsourcing War What Burke sees when she looks into the rearview mirror is indeed ugly. She sees 17 dead, including women and children, lying on Nisoor Square in Baghdad, killed on Sept. 16, 2007 by mercenaries working for Blackwater, a private American security firm. She sees Blackwater employee Andrew Moonen who, after a Christmas party in 2006, drove through Baghdad, heavily armed, and shot a man for no reason. She hears the shot, fired from a Blackwater helicopter, that killed an innocent man on Baghdad's Wathba Square on Sept. 9, 2007. But most of all, Burke sees Erik Prince, Blackwater's founder and former owner. In her suit, she refers to him as a "modern-day merchant of death," and she alleges that the 40-year-old created a "culture of lawlessness and unaccountability" at Blackwater, where the "excessive and unnecessary use of deadly force" was commonplace. In her motion, Burke also accuses Blackwater of war crimes. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Alexandria, Virginia, will now decide whether to take on Burke's civil suit. Committed In the Name of America The political world will also have to make some decisions. The first question is whether the US government will make public on Monday the most comprehensive report to date on the treatment of terrorism suspects. That alone would trigger a political hurricane in Washington, says former CIA Director Porter Goss. It would also make it much more difficult for the government to rebuff calls for it to finally investigate all the alleged illegal activity carried out in the fight against terrorism. It was not until the end of June that US Attorney General Eric Holder read the report, which was prepared by the CIA's inspector general in 2004. But then he spent a full two days in his office in Washington D.C. studying the document. When he had finished reading it, he apparently stood at the window for a long time, staring out at Constitution Avenue. Horrified over what had been done in the name of America, Holder looked into the possibility of appointing a special prosecutor. Sources in Washington say that he has now achieved his goal, which puts him more squarely in Burke's camp than Obama's. Blackwater characterizes Burke's accusations as "scandalous and baseless," and claims that the cases she cites were isolated incidents. According to Blackwater attorneys, "no diplomat under the protection of this service died or even was injured during the entire duration of the contract." Symbol of an Era Prince, who earlier in his career claimed to have "the heart of a warrior," is intent on preventing the civil suit from going to trial. To that end, he has hired a team of lawyers working for the law firm of Mayer Brown, which also represents 89 companies on Fortune magazine's list of the top 500 US companies ranked by revenues. Peter White, the head of the Mayer Brown team, plans to convince the judges in Alexandria this week that the Blackwater case isn't a case at all. In his written response to Burke's lawsuit, White argues that any public disclosure of Blackwater's methods would endanger its personnel in war zones, and her suit should be dismissed. White also argues that if there is any culpability, it rests with the individuals who committed the acts in question, not the entire company. He points to unsuccessful lawsuits that were filed against US corporations after the Vietnam War, including the case of Vietnamese plaintiffs who tried and failed to sue the US multinational corporation Dow Chemical, the manufacturer of the defoliant Agent Orange. In one respect, the comparison is apt: Blackwater has become a symbol of an entire era, just as Agent Orange was a potent symbol of the Vietnam War. Outsourcing War After the al-Qaida attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney began using large numbers of private security contractors for the first time. The mercenaries were intended to make up for a lack of manpower, especially in the area of personal security, as well as to perform the dirty work, such as interrogating detainees, thereby leaving US military personnel untainted. Erik Prince's company turned into an empire practically overnight, collecting more than $1 billion (€700 million) in revenues from US taxpayers. Seventy percent of Blackwater's contracts with the government were no-bid contracts. The company's most important personnel, its fighters, who were known internally as "shooters," were recruited around the world, including from places like the Philippines and Latin America. In 2007, the company proudly changed its name to Blackwater Worldwide. The advantage of privatizing the war was obvious for the Bush administration. Blackwater contractors are cheaper than regular US soldiers. When they were killed, their widows received only minor compensation, while the US military pays lifelong survivor benefits. Besides, Blackwater employees died quietly -- in other words, they were never part of the official death statistics, which was convenient for the president. With the end of the Bush administration, Blackwater received fewer contracts and the company changed its name to Xe Services. But its founder's most determined adversary, Susan Burke, continued her fight. 'A Christian Crusader' Burke now plans to call 40 witnesses to testify against Prince. If the court agrees to hear her suit on Friday, eyewitnesses to the various killings will be summoned from Baghdad. In the United States, Burke, who made a name for herself defending detainees subjected to abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, will ask the court to subpoena several former Blackwater employees, including a former executive.... (Excerpted from der Spiegel.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:21 PM Frank: In all justice I think you will find he did do a few positive things while in office. While I do not remember them, and have not the time just now to go looking, I believe I remember hearing of things I approved of. However they were few and minor in contrast to the major embarrassments he brought to office. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Stringsinger Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:48 AM Objectivity is often in the eye of the beholder. The Bush years proved that nothing worthwhile could be done in government. Name one good thing that Bush did for the American people? He protected us by ignoring the threats of 911. He eviscerated the FDA, and all other government agencies. He lead us into the senseless occupation of Iraq. He justified torture. He promoted jingoism, deception, subterfuge, and political baiting to a prominent level. He ran like an ostrich to his home in Texas to clear brush. He abused the English language to the point of embarrassment throughout the world. He gave Merkel a back rub as if it were his "right" as a man to violate a woman's space He did so much to make the US ashamed of our role in world affairs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Aug 09 - 10:56 PM I also read it. Bingo. Defensive, self-serving. Uninformative. And in one of the few fora where he will not be pilloried for it--in fact preaching to the choir--at least the few tenors and a bass or two who are left. But I'm sure he has a contract with the WSJ editorial page. Usually he just attacks Obama, This is the first time I can recall he's whined about his own treatment. Pobrecito. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 20 Aug 09 - 10:48 PM Ah. but I did. I found it defensive, and self-serving, but no more than I would expect. However, Rove' version of the story is not exactly consistent with other reports on the same findings. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: DougR Date: 20 Aug 09 - 09:31 PM Amos, Donuel: Fess up. Now you really didn't read Karl Rove's article did you? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Donuel Date: 20 Aug 09 - 05:52 PM Tom Ridge of the Bush Homeland Security has a book out in two weeks that says that the raised terror alerts were for political scare tactics after the Dem Convention and before election day. ALSO the it was discovered that the CIA paid Blackwater USA $22 million for hit squads that would not be under the scrutiny of Congress. This is a biggie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 20 Aug 09 - 04:55 PM What would really clear the air around Karl Rove would be hearing him come clean about what he DID do. OF course, that is about as likely as hell freezing over. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Donuel Date: 20 Aug 09 - 03:34 PM Wow, Rove says the recent findings show he had no political involvment with firing US attorneys! That is so typically Orwellian of Karl since the "findings" show he had total involvment in the political firing of US attorneys. Amos Oh Magog and Gog. GWB could be easily deprogrammed from the cult religion that kidnapped him. Simple people are simply more gullible especially when alterior father son issues are in the balance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: DougR Date: 20 Aug 09 - 02:37 PM Check out Karl Rove's article in today's on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal. I think you will love it! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Donuel Date: 20 Aug 09 - 02:33 PM In retrospect the Bush Years were all about 9-11 and the collapse of world trade and the world trade center. WTC watching terror come, with total confusion walls trembled calamitously wasted cubicles crumbled with terrible consequences. we totally crumbled wailing tortured cries. where tiny corpses withered to chalk. we talked constantly who took control? wild terrorist cowboys washed their cash whipped the country who took cash. why this crisis? who's to change? weary terrorist commandos? weak timid cowards? western tradition continued when tensions cooled Widows taught children. Wives told Congress. Wisdom taught cautiously Weary troops cried War time cruelty Worried taunted crowds we took consolation we tivo'd comedies. while things change world trade creeps. Wallstreet trade collapsed wishful thinking careened without thoughtful care when traders cheated we thoroughly crashed. world trade centered with triumphant China when time came we took charge white terrorists conspired while toting colts watching townhall citizens wishing they could wipe them clear wanting to change what thousands created wonderful thoughtful change with tremendous care when they come we'll trap criminals dh 2009 |
