Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
How history may remember G.W. Bush
At Prospect Magazine (UK), Edward Luttwak says Bush is “a Truman for our times.” Which is to say, he’s being generally derided at this point in history and will be celebrated only much later. The comparison is worth noting, although who can tell what history will think of him?
The received wisdom is that President Bush has been a foreign policy disaster, and that America is threatened by the rise of Asia. Both claims are wrong-Bush has successfully rolled back jihadism, and the US will benefit from Asian growth.
In only eight years, perceptions of Bill Clinton have changed tremendously. Back then, despite what we seemed to know about his personal behavior, the world saw him as the perennial Comeback Kid that you just couldn’t keep down. Now, Vanity Fair is calling him “The Comeback Id.” The comparison of Bush with Truman is apt: Truman’s Korean War was seen as a failure of sorts, and Asia was seen as more a threat than ever. And, Truman was hated abroad. And now, history loves Truman. “It is all a question of time perspectives: the Korean war is half forgotten, while everyone now knows that Truman’s strategy of containment was successful and finally ended with the almost peaceful disintegration of the Soviet empire.”
For Bush to be recognised as a great president in the Truman mould, the Iraq war too must become half forgotten [...] Yet the costly Iraq war must also be recognised as a sideshow in the Bush global counteroffensive against Islamist militancy, just as the far more costly Korean war was a sideshow to global cold war containment. For the Bush response to 9/11 was precisely that-a global attack against the ideology of Islamic militancy.
Compare and contrast always was one of my favorite kind of essays.
back to top43 Comments to “How history may remember G.W. Bush”
I like this one. Many of us have said this before that Bush will be vindicated, and he behaved himself in office, too. In fact, he behaved himself before he was in office (as in Edwards can’t claim that one – what a way to tank yourself).
Report comment to moderator
Try reading The Dark Side, considering the politicization of federal agencies which generally has warped objective analyses (see NIH, DOJ, EPA, etc), and consider that Russia acting in Georgia is a response to Kosovo and the fact that the US military is utterly tied down, the rise of Iran, the federal deficit out of control, the strength of al Qaida in the foothills of Pakistan and one might come away with a different conclusion entirely.
Report comment to moderator
Oh and I should have added, North Korea getting nukes
Report comment to moderator
Should the Iraq War turn out well, as it bids fair to do, including the establishment of a viable Arab form of democracy in the heart of the Middle East, Bush will be known in history as the liberator of Iraq and the founding force behind its democracy. People forget that Lincoln, like Truman, was hated by many in the North and South. History remembers bold presidents who had the courage to withstand popular opposition in order to accomplish historically significant goals.
Reuel Marc Gerecht, the former head CIA Middle East analyst, in an article, A New Middle East After All,
wries:
An uneasy and healthy tension now exists between rhetoric and reality, guaranteeing that Americans will continue to debate what has gone wrong and right in the Muslim Middle East. Whether America escapes another 9/11 or not, the president deserves credit for understanding that the region’s murderous anti-American extremists, both secular and religious, had to be confronted on the battlefield. Sanctions, cruise missiles shot at rock huts and empty intelligence-service buildings, and close liaison relationships with foreign internal-security services were not enough. If the United States is brutally struck again by holy warriors, President Bush will seem prescient and wise–about the need for reform in the Middle East’s autocracies, about the strategic shortsightedness and immorality of pre-9/11 American foreign policy toward Muslims, and about the imperative to use ugly tactics against mass-casualty terrorists. Given the forces arrayed against him, his administration’s failures, and his own limitations, these are achievements even Ronald Reagan would envy.
Report comment to moderator
If the Republican propaganda machine can make Reagan into god-like status, they might be able to resurrect Bush into okay status.
Bush
politicized the bureaucracy
established preemptive war as morally acceptable
accepted unilateral declarations of independence
bankrupted the treasury
went on vacation more than any other president
diverted military strength from al-queda to Iraq.
allowed torture
created detention camps
suspended habeas corpus
Report comment to moderator
#3 Blue,
Sadly, North Korea developed nukes starting very early in Clinton’s presidency when he naively made a trust but not verify pact with North Korea to provide them with $100 Million worth of oil, food and other humanitarian aid every year if they would stop their nuclear weapons program. They did not do so as the whole world knows, except for you lefties of course. When Bush started putting pressure on them they said, too late we already have it – thank you very much.
You lefties tried to blame Bush for 911 when Clinton allowed the US to be attacked over and over again by Islamofascists during the 90’s starting with the 1993 WTC bombing and then moving on to Al Khobar, the USS Cole, the two US embassies in Africa and Clinton did nothing.
When it became apparent that these particular 911 terrorists were in the country for most of the 90’s training and planning to bomb the WTC again, right under Clinton’s nose and, even though Ossama was an unindicted co conspirator for the original 1993 WTC bombing, Clinton refused to take him from The Sudan in 1995, it became clear that the the left was lying through their teeth and blaming the innocent Bush for Clinton’s huge failures when it came to terrorism.
Some, actually many, lefties said that Bush himself blew up the WTC, and they still spew this foul swill this to today. Their shame has no bounds.
There have been no attacks since 911. Al Queda has been diminished. The War in Iraq was huge success. The Taliban will be destroyed in Afghanistan when and if they come out of the Pakistan mountains that shield them.
But nice try once again at rewriting history anyway. This is something you lefties think you are very good at for some reason – even though you always get caught. You have to admire your spunk and knack for lying anyway.
Not to belabor the point but the federal deficit only spun out of control since the democrats took over congress two years ago and took over the budget and controlled all spending for the last two years. Prsidents can’t spend money but the left forgets that too. They also forget they are responsible and accountable for all spending the last two years – it was their budget and their spending.
Last month, just one lousy month, the deficit was $119 billion dollars and it is now running at an average of $1.43 trillion dollars a year – about 8 times higher than the last year the right controlled spending. You lefties will have a hard time running on that lie.
No Americans will allow lefties to run a deficit of 1/3 the entire federal budget. But you will try to run it even higher since Obama has so far promised an additional $1 trillion more spending per year on top of the lefty spendthrift ways to date. It is sad really that the truth about spending would come out at this horrible time for the hopes of a better future the Obmana has aid only he can deliver on. I hate to see so many sad lefties who will ahve their hopes and dreams once again dashed by those that keep them as slaves adn lie to them over and over and over again – but socialist and Marxist slave masters are good a lying, so it is not the poor poor lefties little piggies mistake.
You just can’t trust the left woth your life or money it seems as these facts clearly show – but we know you will try to blame Bush for it anyway – but thaat is all you got.
Report comment to moderator
Claims that Bush will be vindicated by history seem to me so desperate, pathetic, and highly unlikely that they hardly merit notice.
Ok, sure, maybe. We’ll see.
But for now?
His reputation is in the crapper.
Report comment to moderator
House-to-house fighting in obscure Baghdad neighborhood and in Afghanistan’s endless mountain ranges is Bush’s “global counteroffensive againist Islamic militancy”?
No matter how the Iraq War turns out will anyone in their right mind think the results were worth the cost?
Report comment to moderator
Llama,
I know its hard but do try to keep your facts straight. And do try to take in more information than the self-reinforcing pablum of Townhall. Let me try to break it down simply for you. Before Bush, surplus budget. After Bush deficit budget. Al Qaida rebuilding in Pakistan (read the news, just once something other than a rag that tells you what you think you already know).
Oh and lastly, do know someone who is on the left when you actually encounter such a person (hint for your file, it’s not someone who simply disagrees with the accepted wisdom you have received from conservative dittoheads.)
Report comment to moderator
Don’t forget the American public has had a very sanitized view of the war.
We have not seen pictures of the tens of thousands (at the very least) of innocent old men, women and children that the loathsome Bush has killed.
The graft and corruption reports of the tens of billions of dollars that are missing or unaccounted for is still far from complete.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting article on Bill Clinton. I’m only halfway through it but this quote on how the past president is now viewed intrigues me:
Report comment to moderator
#2 Blue,
It really doesn’t matter why the insane Russians attacked the sovereign nation of Georgia. They have been warning them, the Ukraine and Kazakhstan and other ex Soviet countries to stop trying to join NATO or face ‘dire consequences’ for months now. We now know what these consequences are. NATO was created for two reasons. One, to act as a joint military force against Russia if it attacked any NATO members and because it was well known that Germany, Britain, Italy, France and the rest of Western Europe in NATO could not and would not protect themselves from naked Russian aggression.
What this clearly points out is that NATO is still needed for both reasons and that the left and Obama are totally clueless when it comes to military matters and we cannot trust them with our lives. Most of the left sided with the Russians in their evil empire attack on Poor Georgia claiming that it was – what else – all Bush’s fault and the Russians were justified because of Kosovo adn georgia somehow attacked Russia by attacking itself.
Obama started by saying he wanted both sides to stop fighting and said nothing can be gained from it thinking his saying this would end the fighting from fear of Obama’s wrath I guess. Well, that didn’t pan out too good which just shocked hoim to no end and he was being ridiculed by all involved.
Putin said he would be glad to be Obama’s running mate if asked. So then Obama got tough and came out and said well it looks like the Russians might have attacked Georgia while he wasn’t looking and he wanted them to stop right this very minute. The howling from those that know about these things was deafening.
Then Obama came out and said he wanted the Russians to really stop this time or he wouldn’t pick Putin as his running mate. Putin said he was too busy to even think about it right now but call back later. Now of course Obama has adopted McCain’s initial line on this whole issue, actually hook loine and sinker, claiming it was idea to talk to like McCain did all along and McCain was too reckless by doing so a wek ago.
You got to love children.
Now there is no question that Obama is a lightweight and totally not even close to being ready to defend this country as commander in chief. They should have picked Hillary. At least she would have surrendered gracefully by now and sent her husband to sign the surrender documents in the Kremlin.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Blue,
And don’t tell me it is Bush’s fault the US military is spread too thin either when it was Clinton that cut the military nearly in half and the left has had nearly two full years now to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan any time they wanted. this had been their war since they took over congress and took the responsibility and are now entirely accountable for it.
You need to talk to the left if want the US military spread less thin or you want it bigger. No one can stand int heir way. The problem is they don’t have a way, a plan or a clue when it comes to this nations defence.
#2 Blue,
And don’t tell me it is Bush’s fault the US military is spread too thin either when it was Clinton that cut the military nearly in half and the left has had nearly two full years now to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan any time they wanted. this had been their war since they took over congress and took the responsibility and are now entirely accountable for it.
You need to talk to the left if want the US military spread less thin or you want it bigger. No one can stand int heir way. The problem is they don’t have a way, a plan or a clue when it comes to this nations defence.
Report comment to moderator
Bush will be remembered as a disgrace.
Report comment to moderator
What a hoot!
I love this quote: “For the Bush response to 9/11 was precisely that-a global attack against the ideology of Islamic militancy.”
No. It was to invade a secular government that posed no threat to the US, while taking resources away from the justified war in Afghanistan.
4141 dead soldiers — so far.
Bush apologists getting a head start on rewriting history?
Report comment to moderator
“politicization of federal agencies which generally has warped objective analyses”
Federal agencies that report to the president…
The executive department is run by the President and serves his policies. The agencies that carry out its directives are inherently and correctly political in that the President is elected and held accountable.
Objective analysis meaning that which the Administration’s critics accept. Warping is how the critics define others coming to different conclusions.
“Russia acting in Georgia is a response to Kosovo” pure Soviet (oops I mean Russian) propaganda. Russia was meddling in Ossetia long before Kosovo. Besides America’s cooperation with the UN in the Balkans took place during the Clinton administration.
“the US military is utterly tied down”
“Utterly” migh be a little over the top, but their present committment is paying huge dividends.
” the rise of Iran” I thought this was about Bush, not Carter.
“the federal deficit out of control” Historically, and put in context as a percent of GNP, it has been far worse. This is one area I am willing to criticize Bush for acting too much like a Democrat.
“the strength of al Qaida in the foothills of Pakistan” as opposed to all of Afghanistan and free to roam the world in pursuit of murder and mayhem.
“Oh and I should have added, North Korea getting nukes” aided and abetted by Jimmy Carter’s meddling in diplomacy and Clinton’s failure to contain him.
“established preemptive war as morally acceptable” Sloppy nomenclature reveals sloppy thinking. Not waiting for actively pursued hostile designs to bear their evil fruit hardly merits the “preemptive” description. The hostilities of the first Gulf War stopped with a ceasefire. The terms of the ceasefire were consistently and flagrantly violated by Hussein. Preemptive war has no relevance to President Bush and the current Iraq war.
“accepted unilateral declarations of independence” At best a morally neutral observation, hardly a criticism.
“bankrupted the treasury” We still have money in the US.
“went on vacation more than any other president” Based on what statisics? Since all vacations any president takes are working vacations, this is irrelevant petulance.
“diverted military strength from al-queda to Iraq” wher Al-quada in Iraq was annihilated.
“allowed torture” No.
“created detention camps” in which to put prisoners of war, lawful or unlawful, as have all previous presidents.
“suspended habeas corpus” You apparently have Bush confused with Abraham Lincoln who did do that. There has never been any writ of habeas corpus that applied to enemies taken prisoner on a battlefield under any of our previous forty plus presidents that Bush could have suspended.
Report comment to moderator
Why does a Christian website still support Bush?
It is widely acknowledged that Christians had more freedom of religion under Hussein than they did after Bush “liberated” them.
Christians are not the only ones fleeing Iraq. All of the upper class, but especially doctors are leaving so the future of that country looks grim.
Report comment to moderator
One reason never to follow Llama’s advice in any matter: he can’t get the facts straight.
Take, for example, the whole “Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, but Clinton said no” meme.
That garbage has been refuted up and down and is a matter of public record. Llama is, simply put, LYING.
The FBI, CIA and every other government agency testified under oath during the 9/11 hearings that Sudan never approached the U.S. government, at any level, and offered up Bin Laden.
I’m no fan of Clinton, but to think that Clinton, as well as everyone else in the U.S. government, would let Bin Laden go, is ridiculous.
Want to know the real story?
Sudan was getting ready to expel Bin Laden because U.S. sanctions against Khartoum were taking a toll. Sudan was in contact with Saudi Arabia about sending Bin Laden back there. Bin Laden offered to move to Afghanistan, bribing the Sudanese handsomely to allow him to leave.
These are facts.
Llama’s are lies.
Don’t believe me? Look up the facts – they are public record.
You can’t prove Llama’s because they are lies.
Report comment to moderator
Llama
You have singular lack of education on the difference between the executive, who runs DoD and allocates where troops go and the legislature which only funds such things. Afghanistan has troops because the President rightly put them there in the aftermath of 9/11. There are not enough troops in Afghanistan because of the commitment to Iraq. And it was SecDef Rumsfeld who argued for the light footprint approach. The Administration bought the light footprint approach and paid the price for that in American blood and treasure. Thank God for the 2006 elections which brought both SecDef Gates and Gen. Petraues into DoD leadership. Those are simple facts. Your paranoia about left-wing bogeymen blinds you Llama.
On Georgia, the Russians are not insane. I don’t like what they have done, but their execution and logic in terms of bringing about their desired result is hard to fault.
Putin said he would be glad to be Obama’s running mate if asked Where do you come up with this tripe Llama? Some blogger who will be discredited in about a nanosecond?
On NATO and Russia, George Kennan (the intelligence behind containment during the cold war) observed that encircling Russia would eventually cause the Russians to react badly. Now they have, no one should be surprised, least of all SecState. Russia has called our bluff and it isn’t pretty.
Report comment to moderator
Remember when the comical Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea the “axis of evil”?
Bush also said he looked into the eyes of Russia’s Putin and found him “straightforward and trustworthy”?
It sounds like Bush should have included Russia in the axis of evil.
Bush, how could one man be so wrong, so often?
Report comment to moderator
One in five Iraqis have been displaced.”
According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003.”
A fine neoconservative legacy.
Report comment to moderator
Llama has had the wool pulled over his eyes by the Bushies and McSame-ies
Report comment to moderator
Ken
Objective analyses means you don’t force an agency to change facts based on political views. You take in the facts and then react with the policy and politics, unless you really don’t care about actually resolving problems.
Kosovo – the recognition of Kosovar independence happened just this year — you miss that in Faux news? And no, not Soviet, that is so late 20th century. Please see Russian history — from tsarist times to now, this is how Russia acts in its near abroad.
U.S. military tied down — I suppose they are not utterly tied down, if the President went to war with Russia we could recall them from Iraq and Afghanistan and the DMZ in South Korea.
North Korea — Reel back to the first term of the Administration. Powell goes to the DPRK to try to cement what seemed like a deal only to come and have his knees cut by Cheney, Bolton and Rumsfeld. Some six years later the Administration makes what is essential the same deal. Hard to blame that on Clinton. (Don’t conservatives have any memory for actual history or was that covered in the first point above?)
Al Qaida in Pakistan — see Administration’s Pakistan policy writ large. Billions in arms and training so Pakistan could cut a deal, a cease fire in 2006 which allowed rebuild time and essentially failed badly.
How can you possibly argue that the Administration has not allowed torture? Please go and read the White House memos on the topic that have been FOIAed.
Iran had been held in check by Hussein’s Iraq. We crushed him with an inadequate plan to rebuild the country and created a power vacuum in the region. Foreseeable consequence — that was this Administration’s screw up. Carter had his too.
Report comment to moderator
Right on, Llama. You have your facts correct. The way the leftist loonies attack President Bush today is very similar to how they treated President Reagan during his second term (I was on White House staff for a short time in ‘86, helping to battle the lies of the left).
Today Reagan is remembered by respected people on both sides of the political aisle for being one of the greatest Presidents of our generation, and I feel confident Bush (among modern-day Presidents, at least) will score well above Clinton and Carter.
Report comment to moderator
There you have it, folks. If Outkast thinks history will look kindly on Bush, you know history will condemn him.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
How do you see the Iraq War turning out?
And if it turns out the way you think will it have been worth it?
But according to you only “leftist loonies” attack Bush. I think all Americans should be livid at Bush for getting us involved in this insane war.
Report comment to moderator
SIMILARITIES
Low approval ratings
Unprecedented assertions of presidential power
War mongering
DIFFERENCES
Truman had combat experience, did not invade a country.
Bush was the lone ranger (”You’re with us or against us”), Truman worked with allies and created NATO.
Truman was hostile toward the military-industrial complex, Bush emptied the treasury for it.
Bush air dropped tons of cash to distract combatants, Truman had a Marshall Plan.
Bush acted on his gut, Truman articulated a doctrine.
Truman apprised Congress of his actions, Bush flouted congressional statutes in secret.
Bush is brain damaged, Truman was literate — even latinate.
Truman called for universal sacrifice, Bush used war to screw Democrats.
War presidents micromanaged wars and second-guessed generals — Bush misreads history to justify his lazy mismanagement.
Report comment to moderator
HSK should love that!
Report comment to moderator
(I was on White House staff for a short time in ‘86, helping to battle the lies of the left)
LMAO
Report comment to moderator
In addition to liberating Iraq and establishing an effective policy of preemptive war necessary to fight terrorism and its state sponsors, Pres. Bush will be given credit for a vision of personal and market based choice as opposed to nanny-state progams. Michal Novak discusses this in Conservative Bush: An Effective and Pioneering President as follows:
President Bush has defined a new kind of conservatism. It is legitimate to criticize it, even to oppose it vigorously. But to do so honestly and accurately, one must note the change in method that President Bush has quietly and successfully been enacting. As often as possible, in as many ways as possible, he is using as the dynamo of personal choice and the methods of the market, not direct state-management, in order to make government programs more effective and more efficient. That is why Democrats, both of the old New Deal-type and of the new Clinton-type, oppose him so fiercely. They seem to see what he is up to better than many uneasy conservatives do.
Try to imagine the conservative future as Bush is trying to: Old-age assistance is mostly achieved by personal tax-exempt pension accounts. Medicare and other health expenses are paid for by means of personal, tax-exempt medical accounts (partly used for catastrophic insurance, mostly for ordinary health spending, and with a new incentive to watch over normal expenses carefully). Parental choice and market mechanisms help to weed out failing schools, replacing them with better ones.
Bush like all presidents will come in for his share of both praise and criticism. One of the items of praise will be the gracious manner he has withstood the virulent hatred of his unhinged critics, already known by Charles Krauthammer’s term, Bush Derangement Syndrome. Pres. Bush has, also, done a fine job of representing his distinguished family, as well as his Christian religion and schools, Andover, Yale, and Harvard. Just now the noise to signal ratio regarding Pres. Bush is high but that will change after the passions cool and reasonable objectivity becomes possible.
Report comment to moderator
Ken # 16
Not waiting for actively pursued hostile designs to bear their evil fruit hardly merits the “preemptive” description.
Yes it does or else you are relying on your perception of your opponents’ designs. You need facts on the ground.
The Iraq war is seen as a preemptive war in that it was not a defensive response nor aid to an ally. Combined with the west’s recognition of Kosovo, the Russian have a plausible justification for their invasion which makes the US look hypocritical. McCain’s statement that countries don’t invade countries in the 21st century is one of those moments where irony doesn’t need to be created.
“bankrupted the treasury” We still have money in the US.
Yes, you borrowed it from China and you print more. Money exists but the value of the money declines when its debased through debt.
“diverted military strength from al-queda to Iraq” wher Al-quada in Iraq was annihilated.
al-queda in Iraq didn’t exist until the US diverted its military strength to Iraq from Afghanistan. Due to the lack of order established by US occupation al-queda managed to set up base in Anbar and other Sunni regions. After misbehaving and annoying the local population, the locals chased al-queda out especially when the US began to bribe the locals.
Gitmo is not a POW camp. Red Cross visits have not been a regular occurrence. The occupants are treated according to the Geneva Convention. And in fact torture is practice there.
Report comment to moderator
To Peter
So Bush “established an effective policy of preemptive war”?
What other countries should be allowed to conduct preemptive war?
How do you feel about Japan’s pre-emptive strike at Pearl Harbor?
Since Bush “liberated” Iraq why doesn’t he go there and walk the streets, basking in trhe adulation?
Report comment to moderator
Let me break it to You Blue,
Newt Gingrich, contract with America, conservatives take over the purse strings of America, budget surplus results – socialists had nothing to do with it. but sadly, there really was no year when there was a budget surplus. It came close but each and every year of the Clinton presidency the government spent more money than it actually took in.
Yeah Al Qaeda moved up, spread out and and made hog heaven when they moved into those penthouse caves in Pakistan all right. Ossama as Chief Spelunker is way more dangerous than he used to be when he roamed the world as a multi millionaire uninhibited. You got to stop smoking that stuff and stop being led astray by whack jobs.
My wife and nearly all of her family are whack jobs from way back. They think just like you do. You are nothing special.
Lefties have a hard time with the truth. I don’t read Townhall either. I can think for myself. But you are what you are.
Report comment to moderator
Too Blue,
We have not bluffed Russia in any way so they could not call it. They are betting and taking a chance that we won’t do anything militarily against them with our armed forces but there are plenty of non military things we can do to make their life miserable.
We can send stinger missiles and weapons to Georgia like we did against the Russians when they attacked Afghanistan. We can not let them in the G 7 to make it a G8. We can toss them from the WTO. We can call them the Evil Empire again – that worked wonders for Reagan. There are all kinds of other things we could do or threaten to do but we have not done or threatened to do any of these things for Russia to call our bluff on.
We never encircled Russia. Their worthless piece of socialist and Marxist garbage of a country fell apart and the remnants just wanted a better life and to live in freedom under a democratically inspired form of representative government, just like you do, and they asked to join NATO fearing the Russians would attack them to stop them from being free.
I have, on purpose stopped using smiley faces to prove that lefties have ho sense of humor and cannot see it when it smacks them in the face.
My comments on Putin as Obama’s VP were used to show how horribly weak, inexperienced and helpless Obama is as a possible commander in chief when facing a real enemy who is telling the free countries that surround Russia, if you join NATO or get too close to the USA we will attack and destroy you. If they had been members of NATO than Russia would eb calling our bluff if we did not defend them
It is bad enough as it is when we have little that we can do and Europe is a total worthless woosie when it comes to anything that goes bang. Europe can’t even police the unarmed Muslims that are taking over their countries without a fight.
As a typical socialist appeaser and Marxist sympathizer who thinks he is a god and can talk anyone into anything, Obama would offer Putin anything to stop, begging him to stop, pleading with him to stop, he would do anything to make Putin stop (except shoot at him of course) and he just might be forced to make Putin his VP as a last resort
What a woosie.
Report comment to moderator
Peter – Bush also gave us NCLB and the prescription drug fiasco. If that’s the new future of conservatism, liberals must be thrilled. The size of the federal government has mushroomed under Bush – both under a Republican and Democrat Congress. He used his veto power – what – once?
Old-age assistance is mostly achieved by personal tax-exempt pension accounts.
Sound great, but here’s a thought: lower taxes and let people use their money as they see fit, instead of pigeon-holing it into a pension account.
Medicare and other health expenses are paid for by means of personal, tax-exempt medical accounts (partly used for catastrophic insurance, mostly for ordinary health spending, and with a new incentive to watch over normal expenses carefully).
No independent analysis of Medicare, whether done by a conservative, liberal or libertarian think tank, has made the numbers work for any sort of Medicare overhaul. The government needs to either raise taxes or cut the program drastically in some way.
Again, get the government out of the medical business in the first place and we’ll be in a much better situation.
Parental choice and market mechanisms help to weed out failing schools, replacing them with better ones
Get the government out of schools, period. School vouchers are a great way to let the federal government exert control over private schools and is a great way to allow private schools to raise their tuition by whatever amount the voucher covers (see: rise in public university tuition, thanks to federal college loans). Of course, it really doesn’t matter if a bad student goes from a bad school to a good school. If he’s a bad kid, most likely he’s got bad parents and vouchers won’t change that.
Report comment to moderator
Llama – Russia is already in the G-8, so the U.S. would have to toss them, not ” let them in the G 7 to make it a G8″ as you write.
Also, Russia is not a member of the WTO, so “We can toss them from the WTO” as you write, is not necessary.
Facts are a great think. Get ‘em straight.
Report comment to moderator
I see the entire worldwide whacked is out in force today. I know that something is going right then.
Clinton turned down Osama, as did Saudi Arabia, when Sudan offered him to each of them – regardless of any claims otherwise. Clinton also refused to bomb Osama in Afghanistan when he had been positively identified as being there by actual video footage that I have personally seen. Clinton also declined to take out Osama on other occasions when the evidence of his actually being where the CIA and the military said he was.
The facts get in the way of the left and their tall tales of complete fiction. This is why no sane person wants anything to do with them. Every 30 years or so, these Marxists and Socialsits come back from the dead to brainwash the young, weak minded and helpless who don’t or can’t remember their last nightmare – Jimmy cCrter in this case. They actually think they are something new every time too.
They form a collection of the most singed, the outer fringe and victimized of society, the weirdest of the weird whacky of the whacked and call themselves a new hope, a dream and new world order, a better future who have infallible truth dealers on their side and are lad by a new god.
They come at us the same old ways and they end up killing themselves the same old ways.
oh well.
Report comment to moderator
Llama
One thing I will say is that you do entertain. The irony of your tirades on whack jobs is charmingly lost on you.
And you do so love to change the argument. It doesn’t matter what Clinton did or did not do, same for Carter as the topic is about Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Lester-
Llama doesn’t do facts. They must make him sneeze.
Report comment to moderator
I love Llama’s tirades on here! He says out loud what most conservatives think. Most conservatives have serious anger issues and serious mental issues that causes them to go off on irrational tirades. They’re in need of psychiatric care and some strong medication. With universal health care we could get them the help they so desperately need. That alone is a good enough reason to elect Obama in November.
Report comment to moderator
“Most conservatives have serious anger issues and serious mental issues that causes them to go off on irrational tirades. They’re in need of psychiatric care and some strong medication.”
You look in the mirror lately? You’ve gone off on the same kinda tirades you accuse Llama of…
Report comment to moderator
Llama – prove you rants. You know, show us credible sources. I can point to the 9/11 Commission, who interviewed the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan at the time. He said the Sudanese never made an offer.
That is a fact. You are a fiction.
Good day Mr. Speek.
Report comment to moderator
Time will tell.
Brought to you by Cliches Are Us
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!