The ubiquitous bumpersticker, in these parts at least, that lists today's date marks, with a high degree of accuracy, the occupant of the driver's seat as a douche bag. At least Christmas arrives once a year for children. For these oversocialized poseurs, it has taken eight years for their day to come. Now that it's here, with the enormity of the Bush presidency in full view, I'm left wondering if it would have been more appropriate for right-wingers to celebrate 1/20/9.

George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime. Though in agreement with the 1/20/9-crowd in this assessment, the reasons could not be more different. The failure to understand why Bush's presidency failed is as depressing as the failed presidency itself. For it is not the bailouts, the big government, or the nation building to which the 1/20/9-mob objects. They will undoubtedly cheer the same policies when undertaken by the leader of their cult. One is thus left with the impression that the matter if not the manner of the Bush presidency will continue with Barack Obama taking the presidential oath of office today.

What of the Bush presidency was so disastrous?

He was the alarmist-in-chief who thrived on "crisis." He outlined mushroom-cloud-over-Manhattan scenarios that overwhelmed commonsense, resulting in a "cakewalk" that killed more than 4,000 American servicemen and an advertised pricetag of $50 billion that, after the bait and switch, will cost several trillion dollars. He conjured up Great Depression-imagery to manufacture support for bailouts of myriad companies and financial institutions.

He was President Yes, the chief executive who could not utter the most conservative word in the English language: "no." President Bush didn't veto a single bill until his sixth year in office. The gap marked the longest stretch without a veto since the 1820s. It was not because the period was devoid of unwise and unconstitutional legislation.

He was the titular leader of the Republican Party who more effectively instituted liberal policies than any Democratic Party leader in at least a generation. Whereas the 1996 Republican Platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education, George W. Bush labelled education his number one priority and ushered his No Child Left Behind Act--school-choice provisions predictably jettisoned--through Congress in his first year in office. Whereas liberals accused Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" Congress of cutting and gutting Medicare and Medicaid, George W. Bush proudly added an expensive prescription-drug entitlement that will become ever more onerous as his fellow baby-boomers get older and sicker. Whereas W the candidate dubbed the McCain-Feingold Act limiting political speech "unconstitutional," W the president signed it into law. Whereas Governor Bush mocked opponent Al Gore for favoring "nation building" during the 2000 presidential debates, President Bush wasted his term of office attempting to transform South-Asian Muhammedans into New England-style town-meeting members.

As Bush gazed into cloud-cuckoo-land in his utopian second inaugural address, closer to home Venezuela, Brazil, and Nicaragua fell more firmly under the grip of Communists. He announced, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." No it does not. "Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation," Bush opined. "It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time." George Washington ("Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?"), Thomas Jefferson ("peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none"), and John Quincy Adams ("she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy") prove that the second inaugural address was not only idiotic, but so obviously contrary to the stated wishes of America's early leaders. Let no man say his words did not match his actions. They were both consistently imprudent.

George W. Bush reintroduced a word foreign to the American lexicon for more than a half-century: nationalization. He nationalized airport security. He nationalized AIG, the largest insurance company in the world. He partly nationalized nine of America's largest banks and two of the three largest U.S. automakers. That nineteenth-century crackpot who called on his followers to nationalize the means of production would be proud. That his twenty-first century followers are not demonstrates the impossibility of satiating extremists.

Predictably, Bush's big-government schemes harmed the economy, expanded deficits, and devalued the currency. The man who presided over America's first $2 trillion budget bequeaths to America its first $3 trillion budget. The man who inherited a surplus leaves America with a $1 trillion-plus deficit. The man who rode into office following the booms of the eighties and nineties presided over an economic bust.

That the president who compiled such a record of failure could stay popular for so long owes something to his enemies. Had he invented them, he couldn't have come up with a more loathesome bunch. An obese, obnoxious, ball-capped filmmaker, placard-waving protestors comparing him to Hitler, conspiracy theorists charging him with masterminding 9/11--whose side were you on? A politician has never been blessed with such an off-putting opposition. Why did they hate him? Bad feelings over the outcome of the tightly-contested 2000 election and the curiousity of the popular-vote loser winning the electoral-college vote poisoned the well. For liberals, George W. Bush was a villian straight out of central casting, complete with a rich daddy, a Texas oil-man background, and a black-and-white worldview that saw clarity when its critics saw shades of gray. Though the Bush Haters proved their own worst enemies initially, their ultimate success could be seen in the widespread acceptance of the patently crazy idea that the president of the United States should be held responsible for the sad outcomes of natural disasters.

Current polls reflect the public's disgust with Bush. History will identify his co-conspirators as the same Democrats who verbally eviscerated him on a daily basis. Hillary, Kerry, and Biden voted for the Iraq war. Obama championed the bailouts. Democrats in Congress disproportionately supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription-drug entitlement, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the endless series of bailouts. Though they shared responsibility, the public blamed one man. The lesson to future Republican presidents is clear: Sucking up to Democrats is a thankless endeavor.

The last eight years weren't uniformly negative. President Bush went in the right direction, downward, on taxes. The top-rate, though significantly higher than what it had been at the end of Ronald Reagan's term, and higher even than the top rate under the elder George Bush--he of "No New Taxes" infamy--inched from Bill Clinton's 40 percent down to 35 percent. Though Bush failed to avert the coming Social Security trainwreck, he at least tried to fix the problem from a market-based perspective. The federal bench is more thoroughly comprised of judges who respect the Constitution and interpret the law as it was written rather than as they would have written it. This is evident at the Supreme Court, where the additions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, seem, at this point, to be wise picks. It will become more evident at the appellate level. Bush tried to kill terrorists rather than understand them. If 9/11 is an afterthought, it is because subsequent attacks that would have served as a reminder have been prevented. His best moment came during America's worst. In the rubble of the World Trade Center, Bush was Reaganesque, Churchillian. For those who doubt that one of the modern-era's least popular presidents was once the most popular, show them that dramatic footage.

If principled conservatives celebrate the Oval Office departure of George W. Bush, they do so with temperence. For the conservative, unlike his liberal counterpart, is imbued with the depressing wisdom that it can always get worse. Welcome to the Bush-Obama years. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Bravo.

"They will undoubtedly cheer the same policies when undertaken by the leader of their cult."

^^Perhaps the best line of the entire post.

Sorry Dan, have to disagree with your assessment of Bush's presidency - that is, unless you're younger than I think you are. Jimmy Carter is the worst president of my lifetime - bar none.

I have to agree with Highlander. Unless you were born after Reagan took office, then Carter is the worst President in our lifetime. (Ford is a close second for me.)

Carter was worse, but his effects have been worn down by time and the excellence of his successor. Bush's successor is unlikely to effect changes that will improve our government, economy, or defense, so Bush's shortcomings will last for a long time.

Great post, Dan. I have to admit I was moved by Bush's hyperbolic rhetoric, but I'm over it.

Considering that you’ve only voted in potentially 5 Presidential elections in your lifetime, I’d hold off saying “George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime.” For you, to date, I suppose. But by my reckoning, you have a lot of life to go and I think that after one or two years of the corrupt used car salesman from Illinois, you could be revising that.

I would agree with others about Carter. Unlike Bush, he truly made day to day life painful for Americans.

You guys are blind fools to think that Carter was the worst. What were his major mistakes? Not taming inflation? It is hard when you inherit double digit inflation from the Nixon era. Did he let deficits run wild? The federal deficit tripled under Reagan. Was he ineffective in the mid-east? Carter helped negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel. Did he not handle the Iran hostage crisis effectively? Some say his rescue mission failed, but the Algiers Accords negotiated the release of all hostages.

"Though Bush failed to avert the coming Social Security trainwreck, he at least tried to fix the problem from a market-based perspective."

That was the worst idea ever. Could you imagine if he got his way, put social security into the market, and it plummets 40% like the DOW has. Hey guess what... 40% of Americans would never get to retire.

"The federal bench is more thoroughly comprised of judges who respect the Constitution and interpret the law as it was written rather than as they would have written it."

What does it matter when he wouldn't even listen to the decisions that they made regarding the environment, habeas corpus, wire-taps, and so on...

Horse,

Doing what comes naturally, you've produced yet another load of manure.

I'd like to revise my opinion of Carter as the worst president of my lifetime... he is. But I would also like to go on record as stating that he is the absolute worst former president - of any lifetime.

Before their departure, I wonder if Bush's staff trashed the White House, stole furniture and paintings, destroyed office equipment and, an all time favorite: pulled the ‘O’ keys off of all computer keyboards?

Nah. I think as bad as Bush is advertised to be, he’s got more class, smarts and maturity in his little finger than Clinton or his caustic wife had in their whole bodies.

This country has just elected the first black man in history to the highest and most powerful office in the world, and the Inaugural Benediction goes like this… :

“we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.”

So it this what ‘post racial’ looks like?

It’ll never end for some people, will it? And the mantras of 60’s social activism will continue.

Is this the ‘Change’ we are supposed to believe in?

Carter...Carter...

Let's see, in leadership, he said we had to face that our best days are behind us. He argued that 5% unemployment was no longer a realistic goal for "Full Employment", that structural unemployment was more along the the lines of 6%. He instituted "off budget" accounting.

Reagan's deficit was fed by bringing "off budget" items back into the budget. He may have inherited double digit inflation, but there was this thing called the Oil Embargo going on.

And then there is the hostage crisis debacle.

But I have to admit, we've never had a problem again with Israel and Egypt. He did that.

Carter was a horrible president, but his list of big government interventionism pales in comparison to the leviathan state and unitary executive that Dubya now leaves us with. And that is the case even if we account for fact that Carter had only one term to inflict his damage on rest of us.

That should clinch the discussion, to all willing to really evaluate the records. But for those still unconvinced, consider that Carter did his damage as a self-described liberal. We got what we should have expected. Dubya, on the other hand, has eviscerated the conservative label -- completely morphing the movement and what it stands for, for all intents and purposes.

The result is an impotent conservative movement, emptied of all principle that would fundamentally differentiate it from the liberals (heck, it is getting harder to make the case that conservatives at least stand athwart history shouting: "go slower!" After Bush, the pace toward Leviathan has gathered frightening speed). And that -- the lack of a true and effective limited-government opposition -- portends nothing but bad things for America’s future.

I think what clinches it for me regarding Carter was his pessimism, his tendency to accept the worst as the status quo, his habit of treating the symptoms rather than the disease, and ultimately, his lack of faith in the American people.

He was overmatched, reactive, and clearly puzzled by his inability to influence events. His presidency, born in that now familiar hope and change, fell behind early and never caught up. It was a depressing experience to live through.

In part, his failures then have fueled his activism in subsequent years. In a real sense, Carter has been trying for a do-over. His cronic mischief-making would be sad were it not so dangerously counter-productive.

Oh, and I forgot, the Carter administration "emancipated" the mentally ill from institutions so they could live on the streets as Reagan's problem "homeless".

And although the media never picked up on it until Reagan was president, the denial of pensions started in earnest in the Carter administration. My Poly-Sci 300* books--not to mention my instructor--were by no means conservative, but they explain how Congress warned the Carter administration that it was going to happen--but Carter's impersonation of Philip Hapsburg (having to read almost every official document himself) slowed down things to the extent that the administration could not take action--despite expressing concern.

Ana-lysts on both sides, pretty much agreed that the next president would need to delegate, something for which the other side soon criticized the next president. Carter was a one-man gridlock.

agreed Sea King that letting the mentally ill become homeless probably contributed to Regan's high crime rates and homeless rates... but does that make him worse than W? The wait for unemployment claims is creeping into 3 month territory, leaving many to fall between the cracks. Not to mention the wait list for Section 8.

"Doing what comes naturally, you've produced yet another load of manure."

You are full of it and needlessly insulting. It reflects on your intellect. I brought up several valid points that you can't refute. I have seen a different inflation number wherever I look, but the fact remains that times were tough anyway. Can he be blamed for OPEC raising prices so high and squeezing us by the nuts? Or what about Nixon's price controls... "Richard Nixon had imposed price controls on domestic oil, which had helped cause shortages that led to gasoline lines during the 1973 Oil Crisis." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis

"Carter was a one-man gridlock."

And thank God for that!

This bumper sticker says it all.

Horse,

Oh, I wouldn't say needlessly. Seems to me you called me a paranoid, fear-monger the other day. That qualifies as an insult too I think.

"As for the MSM. It's true that Fox is the largest single cable network, and conservative talk radio is King...liberal media still reaches more people."

These two statements don't jive buddy. It is paranoia to assume the latter knowing full well that the first premise is true. If liberal media reaches more people, back up your opinion with proof, otherwise you are selling the concept that a liberal MSM big brother is out there pulling the strings with nothing to back it up. You are pushing fear that is baseless. Prove me wrong and you will no longer be a paranoid fear monger.

Remember, poor people (namely liberals) don't watch the news or read. How are they being indoctrinated? Word of mouth? Is that the new MSM?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/bush.day/index.html

just one example of major MSM bias

Horse,

The Media is a lot bigger than cable TV or talk radio. Between CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, Time & Newsweek, PBS, NPR, the Associated Press, most of the largest publishing houses, Hollywood, and other outlets too numerous to mention - all of which tout the same liberal line - they do out number Fox and talk radio in terms of audience. To anyone but the most partisan of liberals, that should be blatantly obvious. People like Evan Thomas have pointed this out.He is in a position to know - and he's certainly no conservative.

So, do you see how those two statements jive now Buddy? It doesn't involve paranoia to recognize the media advantage that liberals enjoy. And to point out the obvious hardly qualifies as fear-mongering.

I would like to apologize for the manure remark though. It was over the top. I can only offer in my defense the fact that, after eight years of listening to irrational, spittle-flecked rants from Bush-haters, I am running very short of patience. I believe you are too invested in your position to have a realistic perspective on George Bush. But trust me when I tell you, your view will not stand the test of time.

These are simple truths that cross ideological boundaries. State-capitalism (the welfare-warfare state) is crushing people and will continue to crush people into essentially slavery. I appreciate your elucidation of these important issues, although I vehemently disagree with some basic aspects of your ideology. You continue to hit the ball clear out of the effing park, Mr. Flynn. Keep up the amazing work.

PBS, NPR, the Associated Press as liberal enterprise=Paranoid. Next you'll say its because the Annenburg Foundation funds NPR and PBS or something trite like that. So does Medtronics and the Howard Hughes Institute among many other funders.

Newsweek ripped on Caroline Kennedy recently
Evan Thomas works for Newsweek and is critical of Obama and his following
NY Times has conservative and liberal writers
Washington Post has conservative and liberal writers
There are several blogs on the LA Times website bringing forth criticisms of Obama
Time wrote a comparative piece of McCain/Obama's economic plans Aug. 08. and a promotional cover story on McCain in Feb. 08.

Hollywood!!!!??? WTF? I didn't know Finding Nemo was communist propaganda. Oliver Stone's W. was was hailed as an empathetic tragi-comedy showing the best side of the man rather than a demonizing piece.

Really? Are you serious? The MSM liberal bias argument is flaccid. I admit there is some bias by some programing but to say that all of the MSM was pushing for Obama is ridiculous. He was simply the better choice between the proverbial douche bag and the turd sandwich.

You know, if our government recommitted itself only to carry out the purposes of the Preamble to the Constitution, the economy would roar and people would practically all have the ability to care for themselves. But then that's just crazy talk.

Bush is the worst president of my lifetime, and I do hope that's always true. Carter, I suppose, wasn't in my lifetime but I don't take the word of the Bush Cultists on here to be worth the paper the uranium forgeries were written on.

Airport de-regulation actually commenced under Carter, as well as tax cuts, and he was serious about spending. Carter had the great misfortune of having the economy go against him at the wrong time -- a phenomenon that sent Bush's father packing as well.

I think we should ask how we should assess a good or bad president. Of course most people on here think a president is good if they like him and a bad president if they don't like him. For instance, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but he really wasn't that bad of a president.

Bush is a bad president for the following reasons: 1) his defining issue is the Iraq war 2) the Iraq war was not relevant to our national security nor a respone to 9/11 3) the Iraq war turned out to be really bad and 4) the casus belli -- WMD -- was entirely fictional 5) Bush exaggerated and manipulated evidence to scare Americans into supporting this war.

The common refrain that Bush kept us safe is just historical rubbish. Americans were not anymore safe from terrorism during the Bush years than we were during the Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan years. Yet these presidents didn't need to violate the law and spy on innocent Americans to keep us safe. The Bush Administration uses fear to get what it wants -- where is the greatness or nobility in this?

I too vote W the worst of my lifetime that includes Carter enough to say that. Not the worst of all time but one of the worst, where I place him on that list can only be judged a decade or two hence at a minimum.

Horse,

Let me ask you a simple question. And please answer it seriously. Can you point to any positive accomplishments of the Bush presidency?

I already have, and in recent threads. I look towards Africa. I also think Condi did well with the Israel/Palestine conflict. He may have strengthened relations with Mexico’s Caldarón in the past 2 years, but true free trade is no where to be seen. Beyond that, no. The most recent newsweek cover story praised Bush (that darn MSM) saying that his expansion of powers was better than an inept executive branch, and also said that most top level intelligence officials were proud of no attacks on US soil, but I think that last one may be inferring a little too much. I think if they really wanted to attack us they would have no problem. Nothing on the scale of 9/11, but a simple attack would still be easy. Our trains and shipping containers are all too vulnerable.

Horse,

Nice try - but you missed quite a few. See my response to Eric on the "Two Georges Say Farewell" thread for a partial list.

So, you ascribe to the recently conjured "if they really wanted to attack us, they could have" school of thought. Well, they really do want to Horse - and they haven't been able to. It's true that someone could probably shoot up a McDonalds or hand-grenade a bus-stop, but a significant attack requiring serious planning and coordination is what they want, and it hasn't been done. That kind of operational capability has been seriously degraded - in no small measure due to that needless war in Iraq. No amount of mental gymnastics on the part of Bush's critics is going to change that fact.

1.a. Qaddafi renounced terrorism but allowed for terrorist genocide to persist in neighboring Sudan for 4 years before starting peace talks. Real strong renunciation there.

b. Wow, there is a direct quote from one of those liberal MSM publications that you don’t believe in yet praises bush. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bushs_better_world_149578.htm

c. Bush also fielded a missile defense system protecting us from nothing and tried to start Cold War 2 with Russia over it.

d. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/PSI says that “PSI participants have downplayed the concept of membership in the initiative, explaining in a press statement that PSI is ‘an activity not an organization.’… and that The initiative does not empower countries to do anything that they previously could not do. Most importantly, PSI does not grant governments any new legal authority to conduct interdictions in international waters or airspace.”

e. I can’t argue that, but it seems like the tip of the iceberg

2. Your first sentence sounds right out of the Rumsfeld bible. There were no links to terrorism nor 9/11, period. The war has cost us dearly, and prevented a concerted effort on the GWOT.

3. This one will make the country broke, another liberal victory.

4. A growing number of educators and educational researchers worry that the NCLB-fueled race for federal approval and funds based on student attainment in math and reading skills leads to schools’ sacrificing a well-rounded education that includes history, physical education, social sciences, science, and art. As well the program punishes schools not meeting expectations rather than aiding them.

5 I agree.

6. It would be hard to mess this up, and you could say the same for Regan, H., and Clinton.

"The wait for unemployment claims is creeping into 3 month territory, leaving many to fall between the cracks. Not to mention the wait list for Section 8".

And this is a bad thing how?

leaving many to fall between the cracks... increasing homelessness, crime rates, drug and alcohol addictions, and people jackin' yo $hit.

I got an idea. Why don't we limit the social safety net to those who truly are needy and have no other options and who are law abiding citizens and not give rewards in the form of unlimited public assistance to criminals, drug addicts or alcoholics?

You compromise any argument you might have when you talk about society's reprobates falling through the cracks. They are the cracks. And even though they might get public assistance (aka - free $hit) they still commit crimes and are addicts. Only with public assistance they have more time, money and comfort to do it with.

Highlander,

Why do you keep repeating the Bush Cult mantra that "he kept us safe from terrorism." First, that's really not true because the greatest act of terrorism in history occured on his watch and second, we are not anymore safer during the Bush years than the Clinton years. Your argument is basically: if we hadn't invaded Iraq there would've been lots of terror attacks, but because we did invade Iraq these terroris attacks were averted. This is just a classic example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy -- after this, so therefore because of this. After the invasion of Iraq there hasn't been another 9/11, so therefore because of the invasion of Iraq there hasn't been another 9/11.

Isn't it interesting that the most popular Bush Cult argument in defense of President Bush is nothing more than an elementary logical fallacy?

Eric,

I repeat it because it's fact. Bush has kept us safe post-9/11. That equates to "when we were paying attention". I never said we were safer than during the Clinton years - or any other time for that matter. I simply argued that he has kept us safe from harm here at home. Those are two different things and you know it.

You deliberatley mis-represent my arguments. I never said because we invaded Iraq there have been no terror attacks. Where Iraq is concerned, I said the war had helped to degrade much of their operational capability. Do you dispute that or not. Cut the Latin BS and deal with the argument head-on.

What would the Obama Cult mantra be? "Change we can believe in"? Maybe.

Sounds about right and I suppose it's as good as any considering that he hasn't done ANYTHING anywhere or anytime.

Like him or hate him, Bush was an accomplished businessman and politician who among other things, yes (say it with me now), "kept us safe".

But oh, wait a minute. I have the perfect Obama mantra - "Present".

Lefties have proved that they are just obtuse enough to believe in nothingness.

Highlander,

Your obtuseness is beginning to show. If you want to argue that Bush "kept us safe," you need to answer: compared to what? I don't remember planes crashing into buildings during the Clinton years, or Muslim radicals slaughtering tens of thousands of Americans every year. If this was the case then you could make the argument that "Bush kept us safe," but it's simply not true.

After 9/11 we were "paying attention?" Now that's rich. We've always had intelligence organizations tracking threats to America. What happened after 9/11 wasn't the United States "paying attention," but the cynical and wicked misuse of 9/11 by the Bush Administration to promote a preconceived foreign policy of global hegemony. The fear campaign to convince Americans that we needed to wage war against Iraq didn't come from a concern to keep us safe, but a desire to wage an imperial war in Iraq.

Let's be honest. If there really was a significant "terror" threat out there, and President Bush was serious about keeping us safe, then there would've been major efforts to protect the border. No one in the Administration was concerned about terrorists streaming into America and carrying out suicide missions because they knew the "terror" threat was entirely
manufactured.

"Where Iraq is concerned, I said the war had helped to degrade much of their operational capability."

Who is "their?" That's quite generic. If you've noticed when we refer to the enemy in the so-called War on Terror it's always generic e.g. terrorists, Islamists, jihadists, the enemy etc. People can only use generic terms because there's nothing concrete i.e. real behind the war on terror.

Bush kept us safe from terrorism in the same way he kept us safe from Iraq's WMD: both are imaginary.

Thank Eric. I thought it was reality but now I understand that that horrible dream that occurred on 9/11 was just in my imagination.

Eric,

We we're being attacked during the Clinton years. We just didn't acknowledge it. Mostly overseas (Kobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Africa), but I seem to remember a first attack on the twin towers during Clinton's tenure.

Whats's more, there have been a number of terrorists attempts that have been thwarted during the Bush years. They are well documented. I wouldn't be surprised if we learn of more in the near future.

Do you seriously believe that the terrorist threat is a contrivance to allow U.S. "global hegemony"? Are you serious in that assertion? An imperial war? Do you know what an empire is?

Eric, up to now I could at least take you seriously, but here you are, mouthing Marxist platitudes all over this thread. I haven't heard stuff like that since my brother and I listened to English language Radio Peking on the shortwave in 1968. We found it amusing coming from the Red Clinese. From you, it's just ugly.

"Cut the Latin BS and deal with the argument head-on. "

Ha! For having 3 degrees or whatever, you would think that you have taken a formal logic class somewhere in there. You fail to realize the flaw of your 'bush kept us safe' argument, when it is simply a correlation, with no evidence of a direct causative. We could just as easily say that our producing wind energy on a large scale has kept us safe, or something illogical like that. The only problem is that you believe what you said, and I don't believe that wind energy kept us safe, but I realize the weak nature of a correlation.

"I said the war had helped to degrade much of their operational capability. "

There were no Al Queda or Taliban in Iraq to begin with, so how did that war help degrade their operational capability?

"he hasn't done ANYTHING anywhere or anytime."

He froze congressional salaries and started on lobbying reform. You can no longer say that.

"I thought it was reality but now I understand that that horrible dream that occurred on 9/11 was just in my imagination."

Iraq and WMDs had nothing to do with that, stop playing dumb, or being dumb.

"but here you are, mouthing Marxist platitudes all over this thread"

You only say that because you believe in the Iraq war argument and that Bush didn't have 'special interest' stamped on his forehead. Otherwise you would say differently.

Highlander,

Yes, there was terrorism during the Clinton years just as there was terrorism during the Reagan years. However, no one saw terrorism as the number one national security issue, or even the number one issue that confronted our nation. We are not safer from terrorism under George Bush than we were under Bill Clinton, yet because of terrorism Bush founded a new cabinet department, committed felonies against the Constitution, increased the power of the security state, and waged a war that not only turned out badly but was entirely irrelevant to fighting terrorism.

We should also remember the important idea of opportunity cost. All the time, energy, arguments, spent fighting over Iraq is time our nation couldn't devote to other (really) important issues e.g. the deficit, the economy etc. So what has the so-called conservative movement been doing for the past six years? Has it been arguing and fighting for less government, vouchers, border security, the flat tax etc.? No. It's devoted its entire energies to defend a very unconservative president and a very unconservative war.

"Whats's more, there have been a number of terrorists attempts that have been thwarted during the Bush years. They are well documented. I wouldn't be surprised if we learn of more in the near future."

There are always terrorist attempts that are diverted. Remember the Millennium plot under Clinton? The point you keep ignoring is that there is no reason to think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has averted another 9/11. Roughly, the war in Iraq has cost the economy about 3 trillion dollars. Is that really the most efficient way to spend this money? Instead of dumping billions of dollars into Iraq couldn't we instead build a secure border fence, increase the technologies that allow us to protect the country from threats etc.?

"Do you know what an empire is?"

The term "global hegemony" comes from the writings of Mr Kristol and Kagan who both demanded the United States re-assert its military power after the Cold War. The Weekly Standard published an article by Max Boot _The Case for an American Empire_. So again the Neocon foreign policy, which was instrumental in shaping the last 6 years, is well-documented and factual.

"Eric, up to now I could at least take you seriously, but here you are, mouthing Marxist platitudes all over this thread."

You're on to me. Did you know that in the last election I supported the well-known Marxist agitator Ron Paul? I also have other strong Marxist credentials e.g. I believe in the wisdom of George Washington's exhortation to avoid "entangling alliances."

"There were no Al Queda or Taliban in Iraq to begin with, so how did that war help degrade their operational capability?"

Al Qaeda declared Iraq to be the number one front in their war against the West. Many of their members went there to fight. Recruits that would have gone elsewhere were sent to Iraq. There they died by the thousands. Many of Al Qaeda's most valuable assets were killed in Iraq. Hence the degradation of their capability to wage war elsewhere. Al Qaeda considers what it is doing waging war, and yet you don't. If you're in a fight with someone who's ready to kill, to ignore his intentions is to die.

"You fail to realize the flaw of your 'bush kept us safe' argument, when it is simply a correlation, with no evidence of a direct causative."

I'm a simple man Horse. Since 9/11 numerous terror attacks planned against the West have been disrupted due to actions taken by the Bush administration. Perhaps you and Eric would understand it better if I said he had kept us from harm on those specific occasions. Both you and Eric know what I mean, yet you both prefer play word games. If that's what is left to you, I can feel pretty confident in my position.

"You only say that because you believe in the Iraq war argument and that Bush didn't have 'special interest' stamped on his forehead. Otherwise you would say differently."

No, I say that because I recognize it for what it is - and you for what you are.

Highlander,

"If you don't see a case for Iraq as a stable democracy in the middle-east being in our national interests, then your vision looking forward is every bit as myopic as it is looking into the past..."

You are using words like "stable" and "democracy" without really thinking what they mean in the specific context of Iraq. So let's be clear: If Iraq is a democracy -- an authentic one in which the majority of the people get to vote and decide who governs them -- then it will be predominantly a Shiite country with close ties to Iran. This is already apparent now because the two leading Iraqi parties -- Dawa and SIIC -- are headquartered in Tehran. If the U.S. vacates Iraq do you really believe that an autonomous Muslim democracy will support the United States and Israel -- can't have one without the other -- oppose their fellow Muslims and rejoice when -- or if -- the United States invades Iran?

But what does democracy in Iraq imply? Democracy is no greater or better than the political parties running for office. So let me ask you this: If the Dawa Party -- or SIIC -- was running a candidate in the United States, would you support that candidate? If your answer is "no" then you are conceding the absurdity of argument. If you wouldn't be willing to vote for a Shiite al-Dawa politician for president of the United States, why do you want your fellow Americans to fight and die for this political party? Does it make sense to argue "I would never vote for a Dawa political candidate but I think it's patriotic when US soldiers are killed for such a candidate."

So by calling Iraq a "democracy" you are just engaging in verbal subterfuge. The reality behind democracy in Iraq is Iranian backed political parties, but you don't argue that it's good Americans are dying for these political parties; instead you say they're dying for "democracy." Democracy is just a pleasant sounding word you use to conceal the ugly reality of what you support.

"Did you know that in the last election I supported the well-known Marxist agitator Ron Paul? I also have other strong Marxist credentials e.g. I believe in the wisdom of George Washington's exhortation to avoid "entangling alliances."

Ron Paul? Well I feel better now. For the record, I didn't say you were a Marxist - just that you were using some of their favorite denunciations of the U.S. Those statements are inaccurate, regardless of where on the political spectrum they emanate from.

George Washington - yes, I've heard that argument from leftists too. That was more than two hundred years ago Eric. For all his wisdom and ability, I don't think George Washington could imagine today's geopolitics, and I strongly doubt he could keep to that pledge himself.

"Al Qaeda declared Iraq to be the number one front in their war against the West. Many of their members went there to fight. Recruits that would have gone elsewhere were sent to Iraq."

So it's the Bush Cultists and not Ron Paul who wants to take marching orders from al-Qaeda. The idea that the invasion of Iraq was strategically sound because it drew in a horde of al-Qaida fighters is ridiculous. Why not just stay in Afghanistan? Would Al-Qaeda not flock there?

Besides our invasion of Iraq opened up enormous problems with which he had to contend. How many Americans after 9/11 were demanding we go after Muktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army? How many Americans were demanding we kill the secular Sunnis inside Iraq?

Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq is largely exaggerated. The problems in Iraq have always been the Iraiqs -- the Sunnis who didn't form part of the new government, and the Shiites who often fight with the Sunnis and, on occasion, the US military. Besides, in early 2003 who would have thought that it would make sense to invade Iraq just to encourage a few al-Qaeda deadbeats to follow us into Iraq?

These arguments aren't serious. These arguments are made by Bush Cultists who are just grasping for straws in a vain attempt to save face. The only real casus belli for Iraq was the argument that Saddam Hussein was producing, manufacturing, and storing tons of chemical weapons deliberately to use against the United States. When this fact went up in smoke new arguments were concocted. It would be easier if they could just admit they were bamboozled by President Bush, that the war was pointless, and that we should leave immediately. But that would take honesty and grace, virtues totally absent among the Bush Cult.

"For the record, I didn't say you were a Marxist - just that you were using some of their favorite denunciations of the U.S. Those statements are inaccurate, regardless of where on the political spectrum they emanate from."

The terms "global hegemony" and "empire" come from the Neocons, not me. But you are getting close. Many of the Neocons in their former lives were Marxists. But I'm not the one who supports them.

Eric,

Guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Time will tell who's beliefs about Iraq are correct.

I do resent the implication you infer about my honesty and grace. Am I assuming correctly that you consider me a Bush cultist? To call you a Paul cultist would be just as accurate, and far more amusing.

Highlander,

Thanks for ignoring the questions I posed to you. You are Bush Cultist. How do I know? Because the arguments that are now made to defend the war in Iraq -- after the WMD story went up in smoke -- were never made prior to the war. The Bush Cult has had to change their argument about why we need to be in Iraq -- democracy, terrorism, stability, al-Qaeda -- precisely because they were wrong. I haven't had to change my argument about why should never be involved in Iraq one iota because the events have only validated my beliefs.

Inventing new arguments after the fact -- arguments that no one ever believed in -- does show a lack of virtue. This is the same as changing the rules once you begin to lose a game. It's unethical.

Eric,

Sorry about ignoring your question. It wasn't intentional. However, I could make the same accusation against you. You pick and choose your responses to meet your needs as much as any one I've seen on this thread or any other. Now to your latest post...

"Because the arguments that are now made to defend the war in Iraq -- after the WMD story went up in smoke -- were never made prior to the war"

They most certainly were. I'll admit they were not as central as the WMD argument, but they were made nonetheless.

Eric, we have the benefit of hindsight in our discussions. The Bush administration did not. The desire of terrorists to kill on a huge scale had been demonstated on 9/11. Available intelligence (however flawed) put WMDs in the hands of a hostile dictator (who had previously used them) with terrorist ties (you bet). The UN and our allies were tiring of the effort at enforcing the many resolutions Iraq was in violation of. Many were calling for an end to the sanctions. With their end Iraq would be free once more to pursue it's aims (and, as it turns out, reconstitute its WMD programs). This would put a hostile state with WMD capability in the position, should it desire, of placing WMD in the hands of terrorists with a proven desire to kill Americans on an unprecedented scale. The Bush administration, believing all of the available intelligence, understandably chose to make the WMD threat central to the argument for war. Given what was known then - not now - then, war was eminently justified. Under the circumstances, not to have acted would have been a derilection of duty.

Now, you and many others choose to believe that Bush is simply a war-monger, drunk with power, who had thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed merely for his friends enrichment and his own amusement - or, if you will, his meglomaniacal desire for global hegemony. This view is simply not consistent with the evidence. Bush may have been terribly wrong - as you know, I am not of that opinion, but he was absolutely acting in his best effort to protect this country and her citizens.

To believe otherwise is cynical, jaded, and conspiratorial in the extreme. In fact, it's a sickness.

Eric, you demonstrate a fine intellect and excellent debating skills. But you are doing justice to a premise that is, to me, just not believeable. My belief is that Bush acted with the best of intentions, to meet what he saw was his primary responsibility as POTUS - to protect and defend the United States. If that makes me a Bush cultist, then I guess I was a Clinton cultist, and a G. H. Bush cultist, and a Reagan cultist before that. I don't believe any of these men had evil intentions. Yet, for some reason you seem driven to use all your power of argument in a need to prove that Bush 43 did have evil intentions.

Here's wishing you s speedy recovery.

Highlander, Wilds accuses others of making straw man arguments and not addressing his many non-salient points. Yet, he picks and chooses which items he wants to discuss while avoiding ones that other people expect some response to. After you're on here for a while, you'll see this to be an annoying pattern.

"They most certainly were. I'll admit they were not as central as the WMD argument, but they were made nonetheless."

These other arguments -- democracy, nation building -- were not made as a casus belli for the war. Obviously it would be nice to leave Iraq with a better form of government, but this was not the cause that impelled us to invade. We had to invade Iraq "because time was not on our side," because "Iraq was a threat of a unique urgency," because "Iraq is a gathering danger." These arguments were not true nor were they supported by US intelligence at the time.

Yes, President Bush and those in his administration, primarily the Neocons, did deliberately engage in propaganda campaign to convince Americans on the need for war. What would be the point of sending weapon inspectors back into Iraq if Bush all along intended to invade Iraq just to make it a democracy?

"Eric, we have the benefit of hindsight in our discussions."

Well, my foresight seems just as good as most people's hindsight: I knew Iraq wasn't a threat, and the attempt to turn Iraq into a western democracy was Utopian. This, however, was just common sense for those who were not addled by the Bush's propaganda.

"The desire of terrorists to kill on a huge scale had been demonstated on 9/11."

Yes, but those terrorists were killed on 9/11. Why impute their actions onto the whole Muslim world? Why impute them onto Iraq? It now seems that everyone views any Muslim who we have a geopolitical rivalry with as cut from the same cloth as the 9/11 terrorists. This is more propaganda.

"Available intelligence (however flawed) put WMDs in the hands of a hostile dictator (who had previously used them) with terrorist ties (you bet)."

This is dead wrong. What intelligence are you referring to? When the UNMOVIC left Iraq they said there was no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. This was known prior to the war. The IAEA contradicted the claims made by vice President Dick Cheney regarding Iraq's efforts to re start a nuclear weapon program. Also, Hans Blix directly disputed the testimony of Colin Powell. Hans Blix pointed out that he inspected all the sites Powell mentioned and there was no evidence of any proscribed activity.

Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath regime was secular and the preaching of Wahabism was banned. Our own State Department even stated that Iraq engaged in no terrorism against the West. In fact, the only terrorist group that Saddam was affiliated with was the MEK, an anti-Iranian group that supports regime change in Iran. Saddam was basically an enemy of the Iranian and Saudi regimes. He never used WMD against westerners.

"With their end Iraq would be free once more to pursue it's aims (and, as it turns out, reconstitute its WMD programs)."

This is just another ridiculous argument. Sorry, there's no other way to put it. The United States has a veto on the UNSC and therefore the sanctions would never be lifted unless supported by the United States. However, this shows that the Bush Cult must always resort to fiction to justify their case, to wit: maybe if the sanctions were lifted Saddam may re start his weapon programs and then he may give them to a terrorist group who may use them against the United States. This is speculation built upon speculation. But this never happened. If you are allowed to invent your stories about what may happen if you don't do something, anything can pretty much be justified.

"The Bush administration, believing all of the available intelligence, understandably chose to make the WMD threat central to the argument for war."

Right. If they really believed the intelligence -- which not only suggested that Iraq had WMD, but that Iraq had an intent to use WMD against Americans -- then why were they so derelict about the border? Because they knew there was no terrorist threat.

"This view is simply not consistent with the evidence."

Actually, it's perfectly consistent with the evidence. They ignored evidence from Tyler Drumhaller about Curveball's testimony being fraudulent. Also, Dick Armey, a Republican Congressman, even admitted that Cheney "BSed" him about Iraq's quest for nuclear weapons. Since Congressman Armey was showing great skepticism about the war, he had private meeting with Cheney who took the BS to a new level. Cheney told Armey that Iraq was making major strides in developing a mini nuke and that this evidence had not yet been revealed to the people. Where did Cheney get this stuff? You know where. Those in the Bush Administration had an agenda: invade Iraq. The story about WMD was just the sales pitch. They sold us a lemon.

"In fact, it's a sickness. "

It's actually a fact, based on reliable testimony.

"Yet, for some reason you seem driven to use all your power of argument in a need to prove that Bush 43 did have evil intentions."

I suppose it depends how you define evil. To me deliberately manipulating evidence in an attempt to start a war that is not in the nation's interest, and that results in thousands of dead Americans, Iraqis etc. is a wicked and evil act. Those in the Bush Administration need to prosecuted for war crimes. Anything less is to acquiesce to evil.

ASDF, Your entire arguments against me consist of accusing me of supporting Barack Obama. At no time have I supported Obama or encouraged anyone to vote for him. You are simply a Bush cultist so you assume that those who criticize Bush must be Obama fanatics. You remind me of those people who thinks wrestling is real. You think the Rs are the good guys and Ds are the bad guys and anyone who isn't on the R side is on the bad side. This is a very puerile worldview, which explains why you make such childish arguments.

Ok Eric. From now on, I will be off of the 'Bush is the root of all of our problems' bandwagon that many are on and will not comment on or defend a past President. I think a week is enough time to get the Bush Administration out of our systems.

Especially when there are so many juicy scandalous stumbles and dangerous activities perpetrated by the new administration.

So now, we'll see how much you don't support Obama by how much you don't defend his ludicrous policies.