BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 02:48 PM

Sawz:

Yer gonna have to do better than three and a half years in the past.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:27 AM

"...When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don't think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he's done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantánamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool's gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

The Bush administration specialized in deceit. How else could you get the public (and a feckless Congress) to go along with an invasion of Iraq as an absolutely essential response to the Sept. 11 attacks, when Iraq had had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

Exploiting the public's understandable fears, Mr. Bush made it sound as if Iraq was about to nuke us: "We cannot wait," he said, "for the final proof — the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

He then set the blaze that has continued to rage for nearly six years, consuming more than 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. (A car bomb over the weekend killed two dozen more Iraqis, many of them religious pilgrims.) The financial cost to the U.S. will eventually reach $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.

A year into the war Mr. Bush was cracking jokes about it at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association. He displayed a series of photos that showed him searching the Oval Office, peering behind curtains and looking under the furniture. A mock caption had Mr. Bush saying: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

And then there's the Bush economy, another disaster, a trapdoor through which middle-class Americans can plunge toward the bracing experiences normally reserved for the poor and the destitute.

Mr. Bush traveled the country in the early days of his presidency, promoting his tax cut plans as hugely beneficial to small-business people and families of modest means. This was more deceit. The tax cuts would go overwhelmingly to the very rich.

The president would give the wealthy and the powerful virtually everything they wanted. He would throw sand into the regulatory apparatus and help foster the most extreme income disparities since the years leading up to the Great Depression. Once again he was lighting a fire. This time the flames would engulf the economy and, as with Iraq, bring catastrophe.

If the U.S. were a product line, it would be seen now as deeply damaged goods, subject to recall.

There seemed to be no end to Mr. Bush's talent for destruction. He tried to hand the piggy bank known as Social Security over to the marauders of the financial sector, but saner heads prevailed.

In New Orleans, the president failed to intervene swiftly and decisively to aid the tens of thousands of poor people who were very publicly suffering and, in many cases, dying. He then compounded this colossal failure of leadership by traveling to New Orleans and promising, in a dramatic, floodlit appearance, to spare no effort in rebuilding the flood-torn region and the wrecked lives of the victims.

He went further, vowing to confront the issue of poverty in America "with bold action."

It was all nonsense, of course. He did nothing of the kind.

The catalog of his transgressions against the nation's interests — sins of commission and omission — would keep Mr. Bush in a confessional for the rest of his life. Don't hold your breath. He's hardly the contrite sort.

He told ABC's Charlie Gibson: "I don't spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don't worry about long-term history, either, since I'm not going to be around to read it."

The president chuckled, thinking — as he did when he made his jokes about the missing weapons of mass destruction — that there was something funny going on.
"

NYTs 12-30-08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 09:27 AM

"I don't have any idea."
-- Dick Cheney, on why he has such low approval ratings

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 09:35 AM

the way I see it...

When it comes to any prosecution of high crimes and misdemeaners of the people in the Bush administration including George himself, we will find that what can be done and what will be done are polar opposites.

What can be done within the law could shine a light on the greater good and punish our own evil doers. What will be done however, will be done behind closed doors by a commission that will expereince every delay known to goverment until every statute of limitations have past.

The sad outcome will allow very illegal act that goes unprosecuted to become a legal precedent to do it all again.

For Obama to encourage any prosecution of rich Republican Banking families, the Government officals they "hire", the mobs of criminal financial wizards and the think tanks who are their conciallari would invite certain murder.

Obama faces the same circumstances as Ceasar Augustus aka Octavian.
The wealthy Republicans of Rome were highly concerned that a populist Ceasar like Augustus, who claimed he was a man of the people, would threaten their wealth and ill gotten gains. Rome had been divided by real and virtual civil wars between the Republicans and the people. Augustus had to walk a middle road for Rome and himself to survive. So will Obama.

Augustus survived by posing a a very humble man who would not touch the Republican wealth. Augustus slowly cemented power over decades and avoided assasination until he died at 72.

DH

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 12:17 PM

Does anyone know where George W. Bush is?




You don't hear much from him anymore. The last image most of us remember is of the president ducking a pair of size 10s that were hurled at him in Baghdad.

We're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is thrashing the Palestinians in Gaza. And the U.S. economy is about as vibrant as the 0-16 Detroit Lions.

But hardly a peep have we heard from George, the 43rd.

When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don't think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he's done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantánamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool's gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

The Bush administration specialized in deceit. How else could you get the public (and a feckless Congress) to go along with an invasion of Iraq as an absolutely essential response to the Sept. 11 attacks, when Iraq had had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

Exploiting the public's understandable fears, Mr. Bush made it sound as if Iraq was about to nuke us: "We cannot wait," he said, "for the final proof — the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

He then set the blaze that has continued to rage for nearly six years, consuming more than 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. (A car bomb over the weekend killed two dozen more Iraqis, many of them religious pilgrims.) The financial cost to the U.S. will eventually reach $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.

A year into the war Mr. Bush was cracking jokes about it at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association. He displayed a series of photos that showed him searching the Oval Office, peering behind curtains and looking under the furniture. A mock caption had Mr. Bush saying: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

And then there's the Bush economy, another disaster, a trapdoor through which middle-class Americans can plunge toward the bracing experiences normally reserved for the poor and the destitute.

Mr. Bush traveled the country in the early days of his presidency, promoting his tax cut plans as hugely beneficial to small-business people and families of modest means. This was more deceit. The tax cuts would go overwhelmingly to the very rich.

The president would give the wealthy and the powerful virtually everything they wanted. He would throw sand into the regulatory apparatus and help foster the most extreme income disparities since the years leading up to the Great Depression. Once again he was lighting a fire. This time the flames would engulf the economy and, as with Iraq, bring catastrophe.

If the U.S. were a product line, it would be seen now as deeply damaged goods, subject to recall.

There seemed to be no end to Mr. Bush's talent for destruction. He tried to hand the piggy bank known as Social Security over to the marauders of the financial sector, but saner heads prevailed.

In New Orleans, the president failed to intervene swiftly and decisively to aid the tens of thousands of poor people who were very publicly suffering and, in many cases, dying. He then compounded this colossal failure of leadership by traveling to New Orleans and promising, in a dramatic, floodlit appearance, to spare no effort in rebuilding the flood-torn region and the wrecked lives of the victims.

He went further, vowing to confront the issue of poverty in America "with bold action."

It was all nonsense, of course. He did nothing of the kind.

The catalog of his transgressions against the nation's interests — sins of commission and omission — would keep Mr. Bush in a confessional for the rest of his life. Don't hold your breath. He's hardly the contrite sort. ... (Bob Herbert, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:57 PM

He's down here in Crawford, TX, if you want a physical location. "Where he's at" in a metaphysical sense is more complex. "In deep shit" would be nice, but I doubt it will happen. :)

I haven't read this thread much, though I am reassured that it is here for occasionally dipping into, or venting.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:14 AM

"...But the brazenness of Bush's alternative-reality history is itself revelatory. The audacity of its hype helps clear up the mystery of how someone so slight could inflict so much damage. So do his many print and television exit interviews.

The man who emerges is a narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever. It's that arrogance that allowed him to tune out even the most calamitous of realities, freeing him to compound them without missing a step. The president who famously couldn't name a single mistake of his presidency at a press conference in 2004 still can't.

He can, however, blame everyone else. Asked (by Charles Gibson) if he feels any responsibility for the economic meltdown, Bush says, "People will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived." Asked if the 2008 election was a repudiation of his administration, he says "it was a repudiation of Republicans."


Forgotten but not Gone (New York Times)
"The attacks of September the 11th came out of nowhere," he said in another interview, as if he hadn't ignored frantic intelligence warnings that summer of a Qaeda attack. But it was an "intelligence failure," not his relentless invocation of patently fictitious "mushroom clouds," that sped us into Iraq. Did he take too long to change course in Iraq? "What seems like an eternity today," he says, "may seem like a moment tomorrow." Try telling that to the families of the thousands killed and maimed during that multiyear "moment" as Bush stubbornly stayed his disastrous course.

The crowning personality tic revealed by Bush's final propaganda push is his bottomless capacity for self-pity. "I was a wartime president, and war is very exhausting," he told C-Span. "The president ends up carrying a lot of people's grief in his soul," he told Gibson. And so when he visits military hospitals, "it's always been a healing experience," he told The Wall Street Journal. But, incredibly enough, it's his own healing he is concerned about, not that of the grievously wounded men and women he sent to war on false pretenses. It's "the comforter in chief" who "gets comforted," he explained, by "the character of the American people." The American people are surely relieved to hear it.

With this level of self-regard, it's no wonder that Bush could remain undeterred as he drove the country off a cliff. The smugness is reinforced not just by his history as the entitled scion of one of America's aristocratic dynasties but also by his conviction that his every action is blessed from on high. Asked last month by an interviewer what he has learned from his time in office, he replied: "I've learned that God is good. All the time."

Once again he is shifting the blame. This presidency was not about Him. Bush failed because in the end it was all about him."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:25 AM

"...Exit, Stonewalling


Published: January 3, 2009 (NYT)

True to its mania for secrecy, the Bush administration is leaving behind vast gaps in the most sensitive White House e-mail records, and with lawyers and public interest groups in hot pursuit of information that deserves to be part of the permanent historical record.

E-mail messages that have gone suspiciously missing are estimated to number in the millions. These could illuminate some of the administration's darker moments, including the lead-up to the Iraq war, when intelligence was distorted, the destruction of videotapes of C.I.A. torture interrogations, and the vindictive outing of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

The deep-sixed history also includes improper business conducted by more than 50 White House appointees via e-mail at the Republican Party headquarters. Historians and archivists are suing the administration. We should be grateful for their efforts. Entire days of e-mail records have turned up conveniently blank at the offices of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Mr. Cheney, of course, retreats from sunshine with the wariness of Alucard; he is fighting to the last the transfer of his records to the National Archives, as required by law. He recently argued in court that he "alone may determine what constitutes vice presidential records or personal records." As in: L'etat c'est Dick.

Modern administrations from Ronald Reagan's to Bill Clinton's typically tried to evade at least some disclosure obligations under the public archives law. But the Bush team, from day one, has flouted the requirement to preserve a truthful record, ignoring repeated warnings from the National Archives. In government agencies, the public's freedom-of-information rights have been maliciously hobbled.

The National Archives is further burdened by the steady and inevitable growth in digital records — a mass 50 times larger than that left eight years ago by the Clinton administration. It will take years to ingest before historians can truly get a handle on what is missing.

History is truly the poorer for the Bush administration. President-elect Barack Obama must quickly undo the damage by ordering that records be shielded from political interference, by repairing the freedom-of-information process, and by ending the abuse of the classification process to cloak the truths of the presidency."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:40 AM

"Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real "real America," a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy."

Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM

Time Magazine Jan 2 2009:

Gilberto Coker OBREGON, MEXICO:

Once he takes office, what's the first thing Barack Obama should do regarding foreign policy?

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

I hope the next Administration will continue what the Bush Administration has been doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

That's pretty senseless taken out of context and trimmed to a minimum, Sawz.

But I don't have time to do your legwork for ya. At least learn to make a link to your sources.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:12 PM

The Bush Legacy Propaganda


President Bush repeatedly argues that neither he nor his contemporaries are yet able to fully assess his legacy. Rather, he and his advisers say -- again and again and again -- that "history will judge" whether he was an effective president. Despite this oft-repeated claim, the President seems disinclined to leave any of his legacy to chance. In recent weeks, he and his advisers have offered assessments of the Bush era that are increasingly at odds with reality. Condoleezza Rice, for example, argued that Bush engaged the United Nations more than any other president. And just yesterday, Bush told a crowd that Donald Rumsfeld did an "outstanding job" as Secretary of Defense. In a similar vein, the White House recently released a report entitled, "Highlights of Accomplishments and Results of the Administration of George W. Bush" that featured a list of "100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record." As Frank Rich wrote for the New York Times, "This document is the literary correlative to 'Mission Accomplished.'" As Rich notes, much of the legacy report's claims about the Bush administration's economic, social, and international accomplishments are only true under very narrow conditions, suggesting that the President hopes that Americans would blind themselves to the broader failures of his presidency.

TOLL ON ECONOMY: The Bush legacy document declares that Bush "instituted pro-growth policies" that produced "six years of uninterrupted economic growth and an unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job creation" and asks, "Did you know the President's tax relief helped fuel growth that led to the largest three year increase in revenues in 26 years?" In reality, the President's "pro-growth policies" served to weaken the economy by nearly doubling the federal debt, championing deregulation on Wall Street, and increasing the income gap. While Bush claims that his tax cuts provided needed economic stimulus and pulled the economy out of recession in 2001, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained simply, "None of this is true." A recent Los Angeles Times poll found that 75 percent of Americans feel that Bush economic policies were responsible for the current weakened state of the U.S. economy. Further, Americans see the error of Bush's reckless economic deregulation, with 62 percent calling for more aggressive regulation on Wall Street. Bush, however, has not learned his lesson. Yesterday, he told the conservative publication Human Events, "I will continue to argue for low taxes, less regulation."

TOLL ON SOCIETY: In his legacy document, Bush claims credit for promoting a "culture of life" by banning the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research and instituting regulations allowing health care professionals to refuse to participate in medical procedures that violate their personal beliefs. His ban on federal funding for stem cell research "set research back five to six to seven years in this country," delaying potential treatments for a number of degenerative and life threatening diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Similarly, the President's regulatory change allowing health care providers to abstain from procedures they deem unethical allows virtually anyone in the health care sector -- including janitors, receptionists, and volunteers -- to refuse to assist patients with obtaining birth control, abortion, fertility treatments, sterilization, or even referrals to those who would provide such services. As family health insurance premiums nearly doubled, employers became less likely to offer coverage, and the total number of Americans without health insurance grew by 7 million individuals, Bush failed to meaningfully address the nation's health care crisis. In fact, he vetoed expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, denying 10 million low-income childrenaccess to health care. Thankfully, in failing to pass his unpopular Social Security privatization plan, the Bush presidency was not as damaging as it could have been. Had he been successful in the drive, retirees would have suffered massive losses as a result of the current financial crisis that he had a hand in creating.

TOLL ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: The legacy document also tells a story of how Bush "kept America safe and promoted liberty abroad." But this ignores the obvious fact that the attacks of 9/11 happened on his watch, not to mention the roughly 4,000 troops who have died in his wars. Further, while the President claims credit for expanding and strengthening the nation's counterterrorism tools, the U.S. military is weaker now than it was five years ago, the State Department is suffering from staffing shortages and low morale, and Bush's approval of illegal interrogation techniques harmed the CIA's intelligence-gathering initiatives and threatened troops abroad. The President's cowboy diplomacy and his disastrous invasion of Iraq led to unprecedented levels of U.S. unpopularity around the world. But Bush remains untroubled, saying recently, "I think I'll be remembered as a guy who was dealt some pretty tough issues and I dealt with them head-on and I didn't try to shy away."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:19 PM

"That's pretty senseless taken out of context and trimmed to a minimum,"

'spose you put it context mr. word wizard.

And while you are at it tell us if Bush has caused America's oil supply to be cut off.

I keep asking but you don't seem to be willing to do your own legwork.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:58 PM

Oh, horse manure, Sawz. Learn to make links, why don't you? Why are you asking me that question, anyway? Ask Big Dick Cheney. He knows the oil business real well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:24 AM

Everytime Obama opens his mouth, Bush looks better!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:32 AM

Obama- four more years of the Bush Administration- Just like I said before the election.


Obama is smart: He will act as he sees is in the best interest of the U.S.. So Obama will continue most if not all of the policies that Bush was promoting.


Sorry, Bobert and Amos. That is MY opinion, and so far is being borne out by what is happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:03 PM

Acting in the best interest of the United States means different things to different people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:40 PM

"Learn to make links" Show me yours Mr Wizard.

"Why are you asking me that question, anyway?" Why not? Why do you avoid answering it? Chicken? You are constantly berating people for doing the same things you do.

I can't figure out if Obama I will be Carter II or Clinton III or Bush III.

So far all I see is the same warmed over appointees. The continuation of the same policies. This is change?

I want the guy to do good. I am not hoping for him to fail but I am afraid that before the end of his term, people will be at his throat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:09 AM

Wake up Sawz. You question was answered hours ago on the other thread in which you make these mindless sarcasms.

If you wish Barack Obama well, I'm sure he will reciprocate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 10:05 AM

In any event, he certainly has his work cut out for him!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 11:37 AM

the book 100 things you didn't know about GWB is released.
\This should establish a long lasting legacy with facts such as saving civilization and that George knows all the lyrics to American Pie.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:05 PM

Bush's Achievements
Ten things the president got right.
by Fred Barnes
01/19/2009, Volume 014, Issue 17


The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That--defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his presidency.

Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 01:29 PM

"Ideological considerations permeated the hiring process at the Justice Department's civil rights division, where a politically appointed official sought to hire "real Americans" and Republicans for career posts and prominent case assignments, according to a long awaited report released this morning by the department's inspector general.

The extensive study of hiring practices between 2001 and 2007 concluded that a former department official improperly weeded out candidates based on their perceived ties to liberal organizations. Two other senior managers failed to oversee the process, authorities said.

The key official, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bradley Schlozman, favored employees who shared his political views and derided others as "libs" and "pinkos," the report said.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief H. Marshall Jarrett said they would refer their findings to legal disciplinary authorities.
ad_icon

"The Department must be vigilant to ensure that such egregious misconduct does not occur in the future," Fine said in a statement.

The report marks the last in a series of inquiries by internal watchdogs into hiring lapses at the Justice Department during the Bush administration, a scandal that prompted the resignations of more than a dozen senior officials.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the findings "confirmed some of our worst fears about the Bush Administration's corruption of the Justice Department."

"Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent government," Leahy added.

The report's release was delayed by more than six months after inspector general agents referred the case for possible prosecution by authorities in the District. But prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's office declined to pursue the matter last week, according to lawyers involved in the case. ..." (WAPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 06:47 PM

"Bush's 'Ultimate Exit Interview'

Yesterday, President Bush appeared before the White House press corps for his 47th -- and last -- full-scale press conference, taking questions in what he called "the ultimate exit interview." Though the White House had high expectations for Bush's farewell meeting with the media, telling reporters that it would be "standing room only," the last two rows in the seven-row briefing room were empty. Subsequently, a press aide had to tell White House interns to fill the seats. Despite job approval ratings around or below 30 percent since February 2007, Bush "seemed largely in good spirits" as he pontificated on his years in office. Bush "was by turns impassioned and defiant, reflective and light-hearted, even as he conceded that some things 'didn't go according to plan,'" notes the New York Times. "Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake," said Bush. "Running the Social Security idea right after the '04 elections was a mistake." Bush continued his administration's efforts to paint his legacy in a positive light, declaring that he had "a good, strong record." Unfortunately for Bush, the American public believes his administration "will be remembered more for its failures than its accomplishments."

BUSH DEFENDS KATRINA RESPONSE: Asked if he "made any mistakes" while in office, Bush said he had "thought long and hard about Katrina" and admitted that "things [could] have been done better." However, he denied any problem with the federal response to the disaster, insisting, "Don't tell me the federal response was slow." The fact is that the federal response was disastrously slow. As the White House itself acknowledged in a February 2006 report, "the response to Hurricane Katrina revealed a lack of familiarity with incident management, planning discipline, and field-level crisis leadership." A 2006 report compiled by House Republicans slammed what it called "a failure of leadership," saying that the federal government's "blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina's horror." The report specifically blamed Bush, noting that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because the President alone could have cut through bureaucratic resistance. In fact, despite a FEMA official's eyewitness accounts of New Orleans's levees being breached starting at 7 p.m. on Aug. 29, the Bush administration "did not consider them confirmed" until 11 hours later. FEMA did not order the evacuation of New Orleans until 1:30 a.m. on Aug. 31, two full days after Katrina made landfall. Bush even praised the rescue efforts as a "pretty good response."

BUSH DEFENDS U.S. STANDING IN THE WORLD: Asked about President-elect Obama's desire to restore "America's moral standing in the world," Bush bristled at the idea, saying, "I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged." "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope." But it isn't just "the elite" who question the negative effect that Bush's presidency has had on America's standing in the world. As a Gallup fact-check of Bush's comments points out, 69 percent of Americans believe that the "U.S. position in the world" lost ground under Bush. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, "positive views of the United States declined in 26 of the 33 countries where the question was posed in both 2002 and 2007." "Mounting discontent with U.S. foreign policy over the last eight years has translated into a concern about American power. In the view of much of the world, the United States has played the role of bully in the school yard, throwing its weight around with little regard for others' interests," according to Pew.

BUSH DEFENDS HIS ECONOMIC RECORD: Asked to give his "closing message" to the American people about his economic policies, Bush acknowledged that "obviously these are very difficult economic times" while deflecting much responsibility for the economy's troubles. "This problem started before my presidency, it obviously took place during my presidency," said Bush. He also vigorously defended his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, adding that he "will defend them after my presidency as the right course of action." "There's a fundamental philosophical debate about tax cuts," said Bush. "Who best can spend your money, the government or you? I've always sided with the people on that issue." But as the Washington Post noted yesterday, Bush "has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades." The federal government "had a modest budget surplus when Bush took office," but his administration ran up deficits "even as the economy was growing at a healthy pace." When Bush took office, it was projected that the federal government would run a $710 billion budget surplus in 2009. Now, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has calculated that Bush's tax cuts accounted for 42 percent of the fiscal deterioration between 2001 and 2008. Though Bush claims he "sided with the people" through his economic policies, he really just squandered their money.


...

ADMINISTRATION -- REPORT: BUSH'S EX-CABINET MEMBERS 'MADE A MINT ON THE BACKS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS': According to a new report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), 17 of 24 former Bush Cabinet members have taken positions with at least 119 companies, including 65 firms that lobby the government and 40 that lobby those officials' former agencies. These include former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, who "accepted director's fees and consulting work from several firms seeking contracts with his old agency," and former energy secretary Spencer Abraham, who took a post as a director of Occidental Petroleum, "which soon became the first firm in 20 years to ship oil to the U.S. from Libya." Melanie Sloan, CREW's Executive Director, said the report "has shown that most of these former Bush administration officials have cannily leveraged their time spent in the public sector." "By using their government positions as springboards to new lucrative opportunities, [these officials] have successfully made a mint on the backs of American taxpayers," Sloan said. "It may be legal, but it is certainly not honorable."

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -- AFTER RECEIVING PHONE CALL FROM OLMERT, BUSH ORDERED RICE TO ABSTAIN FROM GAZA CEASEFIRE VOTE: Last week, the United States notably abstained from a voting on a U.N. Gaza ceasefire resolution, "an apparent reversal of earlier promises to Arab states." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, despite voicing support for the resolution, raised concerns about "Egyptian mediation efforts" in explaining the abstention. But in reality, Rice was essentially ready to support the resolution -- until a last-minute intervention from President Bush on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "I said 'get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert recalled in a recent speech. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me. I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour." Rice had worked extensively on the resolution with Arab, British, and French foreign ministers. "She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert boasted. The State Department disputed Olmert's account today. "Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along," an aide said. ..."

The Progress Report

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 07:21 AM

ROURKE: 'BUSH WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME'

Monday January 12,2009

Actor MICKEY ROURKE sympathises with U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH - insisting he doesn't know how any politician could have successfully navigated America after the 9/11 attacks on New York.

The Hollywood tough-guy spoke out about his political views in a candid interview with Britain's GQ magazine, and admits he doesn't understand why so many people blame Bush for a string of world issues - including Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in the West.

And the actor, who claims he didn't follow last year's (08) historic U.S. election battle between Barack Obama and John McCain, urges the public to consider the tremendous pressure the controversial president was under following the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

He tells the publication, "President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation.

"I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it.

"It's too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I don't think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

Rourke also confesses he was so angry after 9/11, he wanted to fight the war on terror himself.

He adds, "I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?"

And the star is baffled by the U.K.'s approach to fundamentalists - insisting he was taken aback by the freedom of speech allowed in the U.K.

He explains, "I was in London recently and I couldn't believe all these hate-talking fanatics you have over here who are allowed to carry on doing their thing even when a bus full of women and children gets blown to pieces.

"I know you've deported one or two of them, but it seems crazy. I think there is worse to come, something terrible will happen to either America or the U.K., or France even. I don't think these fundamentalists should be allowed to talk all this crap, and brainwashing these young kids."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:19 AM

In the litany of violations of public trust and accountability by the Bush administration, a last round of restrictions on access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, hardly ranks with, say, warrantless wiretapping. But it is sadly characteristic of an administration that has insulated itself from scrutiny at every opportunity.

A recent report by ProPublica and the Columbia Journalism Review identified a host of ways in which the administration is making it harder for the public to access records heretofore more readily within reach. The Department of Energy wants to eliminate a rule that allowed it to release documents if it concluded that they would serve the public interest. The Department of Education has expanded its authority to refuse release of materials even after they are redacted to remove students' names and identifying information. Other agencies are raising fees for processing and copying. The Securities and Exchange Commission wants to charge $70 an hour for processing some requests -- not that anyone would want to study the efficacy of regulation and enforcement in the stock market.


From its first months, the Bush administration has encouraged bureaucrats to search for reasons to deny requests for information, directly reversing former Atty. Gen. Janet Reno's order to government workers during the Clinton years to opt for release whenever permitted by the FOIA. So the latest actions are best seen not as an epiphany by this administration but rather as mop-up after a long, determined effort to shut the public out of government....(LAT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Arne
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 06:28 AM

Amos:

The most telling development recently is the government's admission that they have indeed committed war crimes, at the very least, torture. Notable here is that al-Qahtani was the alleged "20th hijacker" (or at least one of them; there have been several, just as there have been myriad "#2 in al Qaeda"s) ... and the torture has poisoned any possibility of a fair trial on this charge.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 08:26 AM

Whatever Bush did, Obama has many more important things to do than to try to go after Bush, Cheney, and others for what will probably never be proven. It would be the same kind of witch hunt we saw when Ken Starr went after Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:45 AM

"When I look at those double-page New York Times spreads of all the individual pictures of people who have been killed [in Iraq], I got to think, 'Maybe there wouldn't have been a war if I hadn't gone to Miami-Dade. Maybe there wouldn't have been, in my view, an unjustified war if Bush hadn't become president.' It's very disturbing to me."


-- Roger Stone, the GOP consultant who led the "Brooks Brothers Riot" against the Miami-Dade County election board during the 2000 Florida recount

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:31 AM

An interesting series of comments on prosecuting the Bush Administration, or not. NYT Letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:06 AM

The larger problem, the way I see it, is if you go after public officials for what they did in office, the folks who follow them will be reluctant to do anything, anywhere. That would seem to be worse--or could be.

                         I do agree with the guy who thinks they should pardon the enlisted people who were courtmartialed for torture. It should be pretty apparent by now that they were just following orders. What were they supposed to do about it, tell some Major to stick it up his ass?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:18 PM

"While campaigning for president, George W. Bush often repeated that he would seek to change the negative and partisan tone in Washington, D.C. "I'm a uniter, not a divider," Bush would say. "I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another." Similarly, during his campaign for president, Barack Obama stated his desire to end the bitter partisanship of American politics, often saying he would be president, not of "blue" or "red" America, but the United States of America. Indeed, since Nov. 4, President-elect Obama appears to be living up to that promise by reaching out to conservatives and signaling that he is open to conservative ideas. "The monopoly on good ideas does not belong to a single party," Obama said recently. "If it's a good idea, we will consider it." But Obama will arguably have a tougher time uniting the country, toning down partisanship, and creating a more bipartisan atmosphere than Bush did in January 2001. A recent CNN poll found that a whopping 82 percent of Americans believe that Bush did not unite the country. In fact, Bush himself just recently admitted that he had not lived up to his "uniter, not a divider" rhetoric, saying last month that he "didn't do a very good job of it" (though he later blamed others for "needless name-calling"). But over the last eight years, "pitting one group against another" is exactly the kind of politics Bush played. He and his allies exploited national issues, ruthlessly attacked progressives for political gain, and politicized the federal government to serve the interests of the Republican party.

POLITICIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan recently admonished his former boss, saying that the White House took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing.  In 2003,  Bush's political guru Karl Rove or his top aide, Ken Mehlman, "visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action." Rove also led an unprecedented campaign to politicize the federal government to serve the interests of the Republican Party. Earlier this year, a Department of Justice report found that agency officials "violated both federal law and Department policy" by hiring, firing and promoting of some Department applicants and officials for political reasons. Another DOJ report released in September found that the firing process of nine U.S. attorneys was "fundamentally flawed" and in some cases governed by politics. For example, Bush appointee and former DOJ official Monica Goodling refused to hire an experienced counterterror official because his wife was a Democrat, and she rejected a DOJ attorney's promotion because of an "inappropriate" gay relationship. But Justice was not the only department tainted by politics under Bush. A DOJ inspector general released a report just this week finding that Bradley Schlozman, a former Justice official "entrusted with enforcing civil rights laws," had refused to hire lawyers whom he labeled as "commies" and transferred another attorney for allegedly writing in "ebonics" and benefiting from "an affirmative action thing." The White House also routinely favored politics over science regarding climate change by muzzling NASA's chief global warming scientist James Hansen's climate change findings, censoring scientific evidence on global warming in an EPA report, and editing all government scientists' testimony to fit its political aims. The Office of Faith Based Initiatives, the General Services Administration, the Interior Department, the Defense Department, Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy were also not spared of politics during the Bush years. 

DIVIDING ON SOCIAL ISSUES: Shortly after taking office, Rove convinced Bush to issue an executive order that effectively ended federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Despite evidence showing the enormous scientific benefits to such research, Rove's move sought to appease the GOP base, rather than promote sound policy.  In the run-up to the 2004 election, Rove orchestrated a campaign to significantly boost turnout of the GOP base by placing measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot in numerous battleground states. Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans -- the GOP's largest gay group -- said at the time that Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was part of a calculation by Rove that "4 million evangelicals stayed home in 2000. As a result, the 2004 campaign has focused on energizing the far right while ignoring mainstream Republicans." 
"

(Excerpted from the Progreess Report

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 10:54 AM

Yes, Bush did all of those things, but we have to play the hand we're dealt. We don't have time to go after Bush and Rove and the rest of those buffoons. We have serious problems to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:06 PM

(01-15) 13:30 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The direct income President George W. Bush receives from taxpayers will be cut in half when he leaves the White House next week. Still, he'll receive a pension of almost $200,000 to tide him over in his first year of retirement in his new home in Dallas.

MORE NEWS
Gaza truce takes hold, Israel troops begin leaving 01.18.09
Obama pauses to honor US war dead at Arlington 01.18.09
Armstrong makes pro cycling comeback in Australia 01.18.09
Vice President Dick Cheney also will be able to survive a prolonged recession with a pension starting at about $132,000, according to the National Taxpayers Union, a taxpayer advocacy group that follows pension issues.

The president's pension is set by the 1958 Former Presidents Act. Bush, who receives a $400,000 annual salary as president, will get an almost identical pension in 2009 — factoring in the 20 days in January he was still president — the same as Jimmy Carter, his father George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Their pension for the year is $196,700, a figure that will grow to $203,600 next year and $210,700 in 2011. The NTU estimates that if Bush, now 62, reaches his current life expectancy of 83.5 years, he will receive pension payments of $5,564,800, compared to the $3.2 million he earned serving in the White House.

The 1958 act also provides a former president with office space and office staff, a travel fund and mailing privileges. A presidential widow can get a lifetime annual stipend of $20,000. In fiscal year 2008, the General Services Administration provided total allowances of more than $1 million for Clinton, and almost $800,000 for George H.W. Bush, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Former presidents up through Clinton could, if they so chose, receive lifetime Secret Service protection. Congress changed that in 1997 with an act limiting protection for future ex-presidents and their families to 10 years, barring exceptions for specific threats.

The NTU's Pete Sepp said the "pension champion" was former President Gerald Ford, who served less than 2 1/2 years in the White House but also spent 24 years in the House. He was receiving more than $300,000 a year when he died in 2006 at age 93. Presidents receive the same pension regardless of how long they are in the White House.

Cheney, who also serves as president of the Senate, is on the same pension plan as members of Congress. The NTU estimated his initial benefit of $132,451 based on his more than 29 years of government service, including eight as vice president, 10 as a member of the House and more than 10 in executive positions such as White House chief of staff in the Ford administration and defense secretary in the first Bush administration.

Members of Congress, who can also contribute to 401(k) type programs, are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service or at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service.

The Congressional Research Service, in a report last year, said the average annual pension currently received by retired members was $36,732 in 2007. The NTU estimated that Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who was defeated for re-election last November after serving four decades in the Senate, is eligible for an annual pension of about $122,000.

Sepp said a married member of Congress retiring at age 62 after eight years in office would get an initial pension of a little more than $20,000. Rank-and-file lawmakers in 2009 will receive salaries of $169,300. (SF Chronicle)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:19 PM

ea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities."

President-elect Barack Obama has not closed off the possibility of prosecutions, but hinted he does not favor them.

"I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he told ABC News a week ago. "On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." ...(FOX)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM

Conyers will do everything in his power to bring charges against Bush, Cheney, Rove and others. Conyers is one member of Congress who has earned the respect of the American people and I think he is right in trying. Still, I don't think it would be productive for the country to indict and prosecute these folks.
                On the other hand, I think Ford was right to pardon Nixon, so...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 09:42 PM

CIVIL LIBERTIES -- DEPARTMENTS STILL HAVE NOT INSTITUTED CIVIL LIBERTIES PROTECTIONS: According to federal reports, the "departments of Defense, State, and Health and Human Services have not met legal requirements meant to protect Americans' civil liberties, and a board that's supposed to enforce the mandates has been dormant since 2007," USA Today reports. All three departments failed to comply with a 2007 law requiring them to "appoint civil liberties protection officers and report regularly to Congress on the safeguards they use." The oversight board was originally set up by the Bush White House in 2004, but in 2007, Congress ordered that it be recreated as an independent agency by January 2008. The agency sat vacant. In fact, President Bush didn't nominate a single member until August, eight months after the agency was set up. None were confirmed before Bush's term ended. In the meantime, the Bush White House worked diligently to undermine the board. In May 2007, Lanny Davis, the sole Democrat on the board, resigned in protest after the administration "made more than 200 revisions" to the panel's first report to Congress. President Obama has vowed to give the agency subpoena power, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that departments not following the law will be held accountable.  ..."(The Progress Report)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 07:31 AM

Why did my knees start shaking when I discovered that the fate of my civil liberties were going to be place in the hands of Joe Lieberman?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:38 AM

Early-onset Alzheimer's? I dunno.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:52 PM

Thanks for putting up with the yelling, Karzai tells Bush

ABC News

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has thanked United States President George W Bush for freeing his country from the Taliban, improving the quality of life and for weathering bouts of yelling.

"I have yelled at times, I've been angry at times, but you've always been smiling and generous and that's so nice of you," Mr Karzai told his host at the White House, thanking him for "your patience with me and some of our habits."

Mr Bush, who laughed in response, said "no question it's difficult" to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, but emphasized that he saw much "progress and promise and hope" for the strife-torn country.

Mr Karzai noted that Mr Bush leaves office in January, and told him that Afghanistan is grateful for the 2001 US-led toppling of the Taliban Islamist regime.

Mr Karzai says he will be remembered fondly.

"My trip this time to Washington, as I insisted to be here with you, is for one reason alone, and that is to thank you - and through you the American people - for all that you have done for Afghanistan," he said.

"I would like you to remember, as you leave office, that Afghanistan will remember you tremendously nicely, with affection," he added.

"Come and visit us so we can show it to you in a manner that we do traditionally in Afghanistan."

The two leaders, surrounded by top military and diplomatic aides, spoke after a secure videoconference with US commanders, regional governors, and "provincial reconstruction teams" in Afghanistan.

"This is a central part of a counter-insurgency strategy which combines economic development, education, infrastructure, with security, all aimed to help this young democracy not only survive but to thrive, so it never becomes a safe haven for those who would do us harm again," Mr Bush said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM

It is so nice how those two boys get along.


The rest of the country, perhaps not so much. In any case, if we ever get the head of Al Qeda holed up at oa Bora again, you can bet we won't be so darned nice next time!!






A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:51 PM

On the "Clinton budget surplus" that GWB reversed:

Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic advisers, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure. "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that rocked America began much earlier...
... during the Clinton Administration "the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:02 PM

Stiglitz:

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated investment banking from commercial banking, recognized the conflicts of interest that can arise when the two are conflated. But concerns about keeping them separate were put aside after the arrival at the Treasury Department of Robert Rubin, in 1995. The big banks saw getting rid of Glass-Steagall as an opportunity to become even bigger. Treasury argued that scrapping the law was of no consequence, because banks had learned how to circumvent it anyway. (If this had been so, the appropriate response would, obviously, have been to try to limit the circumvention.) Treasury also argued that it could address the conflicts of interest (which it admitted) by constructing barriers between the banks' partsâ€""Chinese walls," they were called. Of course, if such measures had worked, that would have undermined the most cogent argument for eliminating the formal separation in the first place. One cannot simultaneously claim that it is important that banks be integrated, to take advantage of what economists call economies of scope (the benefits that businesses can reap by working in many different areas), and also that it is important for the parts of a bank to be compartmentalized, to avoid any conflicts of interest. In retrospect it is clear that Chinese walls did not workâ€"or did not work well enough to prevent serious problems from arising. For example, banks continued to lend to Enron even as its problems began to surface; the profits the banks made (they got fees for Enron's deals) more than compensated them for the risk in lending.

But Sawzaw, It was the Bush's administration that eased the regulations and caused all this trouble, not Bubba's, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:35 PM

During a short verbal exchange Wednesday at the Ben-Gurion Airport Terminal, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger thanked President George W. Bush for the US's military intervention in Iraq.
Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger.

"I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq," Metzger told Bush, according to the chief rabbi's spokesman.

Bush reportedly answered that the chief rabbi's words "warmed his heart."

Metzger's stand on the Iraqi war, while reflecting the Israeli majority and Orthodox Jewry, is not shared with most US Jews. The American Jewish Committee's annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, published last year, found that 70 percent of US Jews disapprove of the Iraq war, with 28% backing it.

In a related story, Metzger was chosen as one of the 12 most influential religious figures in the world for a CBS documentary called In God's Name that appeared at the end of December.

Newsweek also devoted a story to the documentary complete with pictures of Metzger and the other religious leaders.

Metzger was chosen along with figures such as the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams and heads of the Sikh and Muslim religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has sent a congratulatory letter to outgoing United States President George W. Bush and thanked him for maintaining close ties with the Philippines, Malacañang said.

Bush will relinquish his post to president-elect Barrack Obama on January 20, after eight years in office over which he increasingly came under fire for the US-led invasion of Iraq and a recession that has spread globally.

"President Arroyo has sent a letter of congratulations to President Bush for the very good relationship we had. Among others, it was mentioned, the support of the US government is providing the Philippines, in the economy, as well as in security," Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said.

Ermita expressed hopes the ties between Manila and Wahsington would remain strong under Obama.

"It has been our experience that the US government is very supportive [of the Philippines] as allies," Ermita said.

Arroyo has supported the US-led war against terrorism, and US forces continue to undertake joint exercises with Filipino troops under her administration.

In a radio interview from Maguindanao province in the south, the President stressed the importance of the joint training and the assistance of US troops in community building projects.

"We've had a long partnership with the Americans, especially on counter-terrorism, especially on training, sharing of intelligence, military exchange, and most importantly, in civic works," she said.

"Together, we build schools, roads, and infrastructure needed to isolate the terrorists," she said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:52 PM

Sawz, please note that the last administration abolished the uptick rule which used to limit short selling by the equal amount of higher trades. Short seling is unbound. Short selling made many CDS and bond insurance bets come true for the investor by ruining a particular business via short sales and rumor.

Look for re establishing the uptick rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:47 PM

I have to say that all these warm and fuzzy "thanks so much, loved working with you" propositions from world leaders are, in my opinion, scarcely creditable as actual evidence. They would say the same thing as though they meant it if they were dancing with delight to see the backside for him. This are professional politicians, not known for evidentiary rectitude.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:19 AM

I see.

World leaders are not credible But the babbling you post here from Pinkola Estes and some old bastard that thinks America's oil supply has been cut off and some one horse town in Vermont decides is credible.

And you say I am in the dark. I think you must have been implanted with "various misleading data"

---

"the last administration abolished the uptick rule"

If the uptick rule is so essential, why hasn't the new administration restored it?

On September 18, 2008, Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain said that the SEC allowed short-selling to turn "our markets into a casino." Sen. McCain criticized the SEC and its Chairman for eliminating the uptick rule.

    September 19, 2008 CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Republican John McCain, buffeted by criticism about his response to Wall Street's financial problems, said yesterday he would fire the SEC chairman and create a special trust to help strengthen weak institutions.

In all but calling for the firing of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, McCain turned on a fellow Republican and former 17-year House member who served on committees overseeing investor protection and U.S. capital markets.

Speaking at a rally in an airplane hangar in Cedar Rapids, McCain said the SEC, the primary regulator of Wall Street, had let "speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino."

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president and, in my view, has betrayed the public trust," McCain said. "If I were president today, I would fire him."

It's not the first time the head of the SEC has drawn McCain's fire. Six years ago McCain called for the firing of Harvey Pitt, Bush's first SEC chairman, after accounting scandals at Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. Pitt announced his resignation four months later. Yesterday, Pitt called McCain's remarks "a lot of sound and fury."


So where is the great fixer Obama on this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:39 AM

Looks like Pitt has been reading Faulkner!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:41 AM

Now he's gone, let's admit Bush did some good

By David Quinn Friday January 23 2009 independent.ie
Poor old George W Bush. Yes, I mean that. We have castigated him as stupid, wicked and incompetent, but he was also unlucky. In fact, one might even be tempted to suggest that his presidency was cursed right from the outset.

Three events in particular blighted his presidency and were outside his control. The first was the circumstance of his election in 2000. It was so incredibly close that whether he or Al Gore finally won the Battle of Florida over those dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads, there was going to be a huge question mark over their legitimacy because both sides accused the other of foul play in the recount.

But Bush won it and, therefore, he began his presidency under a massive cloud which never left him. If Florida hadn't happened, Bush would have begun his term of office with the normal amount of goodwill a new president is accorded by non-partisans. He never received that. Instead, from day one, the left vented its hatred on him, including at his first inauguration. This was the start of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The second event was September 11, which was gestated during the Clinton era. We can criticize Bush till the cows come home about water-boarding and Guantanamo Bay and the invasion of Iraq. Some of these criticisms are justified and the most justified is the criticism of how the occupation of Iraq was conducted. But 9/11 itself wasn't his fault. If it hadn't happened, would he be quite so reviled today?

The third event was Hurricane Katrina. Again, we can criticize him about his handling of the disaster, but the hurricane was an act of God. The chances that it would hit New Orleans and burst the levees were vanishingly remote, but it happened. It was to the start of his second term what Florida was to the start of his first term.

How many presidents can you think of who were hit first by a bitterly contested election result, then by the first attack on American soil since 1941, and, finally, by a natural disaster that wiped out half a city?

If these events hadn't happened, there is a fair chance Bush would have shuffled off the stage of history remembered as a mediocre president, mildly disparaged by many, hated only by the left, but with his own support base more or less intact. There is even a possibility, God forbid, that the stage would not have been set for the election of Barack Obama as the Anti-Bush.

Did Bush do any good at all? Well, yes, actually, he did.

The most uncontroversial action was the huge increase in aid to Africa that occurred under his watch. Even Bono and Bob Geldof acknowledged this. Billions have been poured into treatment programmes for HIV/Aids and millions of lives have been saved.

He was excellent on abortion, whereas Obama is a disaster. Obama is opposed to any restrictions on abortion, including the requirement to notify parents if their teenage daughter is considering an abortion.

He made two excellent appointments to the Supreme Court. He opposed federal funding of embryo stem-cell research, although he allowed research funding on existing embryo stem-cell lines and on adult stem cells. He was accused of being anti-science but the science has since moved his way. Adult stem-cell research has shown itself to be far more promising than embryo stem-cell research.

His war on terror did yield some dividends. First and foremost, there have been no further attacks on America. That is no mean feat. Libya gave up its nuclear programme. Pakistan gave up the scientist who was selling nuclear secrets to countries like North Korea. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for al-Qa'ida. Saddam Hussein is no more, although the debate continues as to whether the war in Iraq was worth this.

The surge worked, and he was one of the very few who supported it. Barack Obama opposed it. John McCain, to his credit, also supported it.

People who worked closely with Bush spoke of his essential decency. Some of his former colleagues questioned his competence and intellect, although often for self-serving reasons. But few questioned his decency. We all know the black marks against him. They have been repeated ad nauseam these eight long years. But he wasn't all bad. He did some good. And if you're not suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome yourself, you might even agree.