"Save Yourself, Blame Bush"

[gerryhatrick]

Save Yourself, Blame Bush

By Joe Scarborough

Sunday, September 17, 2006; Page B01

I can't help but feel sorry for my old Republican friends in Congress who are fighting for their political lives. After all, it must be tough explaining to voters at their local Baptist church's Keep Congress Conservative Day that it was their party that took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a record-setting $400 billion deficit.

How exactly does one convince the teeming masses that Republicans deserve to stay in power despite botching a war, doubling the national debt, keeping company with Jack Abramoff, fumbling the response to Hurricane Katrina, expanding the government at record rates, raising cronyism to an art form, playing poker with Duke Cunningham, isolating America and repeatedly electing Tom DeLay as their House majority leader?

Ouch!

Even when the administration would not give generals the troops they needed to win the war in Iraq, Republican leaders did nothing. When the president refused to veto a single spending bill while the deficit spiraled upward, Republican leaders looked away. And when chaos was reigning in the streets of New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast in Katrina's horrific aftermath, Republican leaders remained mute.

That silence -- proof that it is better to be feared than loved in politics -- has had devastating results. The United States is more divided than ever, our leaders are despised around the world, our fiscal situation is catastrophic and congressional approval ratings are the lowest ever. Since nothing sharpens the mind like a political hanging, Republican leaders in the Senate and House are finally considering doing what effete newspaper editorialists have suggested for years: throwing Bush overboard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6091500996.html

He engages in some democrat bashing at the end, but you've got to hand it to Joe....he's not afraid to give an honest assessment of the failed Bush presidency.

[August1991]

At a critical moment in its history, Bush Jnr had the courage to spend taxpayers money and use US military power abroad. This provides a useful precedent for future presidents - the US military is a credible threat.

It is a comparison of degree between the Montreal policeman shooting this armed lunatic in a school and the US military dealing with the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. (The US is not the world's policeman. It will only intervene if the US government perceives a threat to Americans.)

The lesson seems to be that the sooner one intervenes, the lower the distress. I suspect too that there will be less mayhem of this sort in the future.

As a matter of fact, Libya's Qaddafi uncovered his WMD as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

----

Bush Jnr and Cheney will not be running in 2008. Bush has done his job. It would be surprising if the Republicans did as well in these mid-terms as they've done in the past few elections. But the message is out that the American people will stand up to lunatics and bullies.

[gerryhatrick]

At a critical moment in its history, Bush Jnr had the courage to spend taxpayers money and use US military power abroad. This provides a useful precedent for future presidents - the US military is a credible threat.

If that is the only benifit that came out of Iraq, I'd say it's a bigger mistake than it already appears. They lost all credibility, but they gained a little on being willing to use force. On a misguided exercise. If neo-con idiots are ruling the day.

As a matter of fact, Libya's Qaddafi uncovered his WMD as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Actually that's a bit of a myth. Qaddafi had been looking for credibility for years, and there's much agreement that the pathetic little arsonal that he laid on the table was designed solely to gain in stature. The history of him trying to be taken seriously and engage the USA was long and well-documented. The paltry little collection of nuke material (which wasn't a threat) is widely believed to have been puposely gathered for the purpose of declaring it to get his foothold in international affairs. It appears to have worked to some extent. Now he's a good guy in the eyes of the naive.

[Riverwind]

At a critical moment in its history, Bush Jnr had the courage to spend taxpayers money and use US military power abroad. This provides a useful precedent for future presidents - the US military is a credible threat.

I disagree completely. The Iraq invasion has demonstrated how useless US military power is. Iraq is in chaos and will most likely disintegrate into three states within 10 years. US financial resources are stretched to the limit simply maintaining the current effort - the US does not have the military or economic capacity to deal with another large engagement and tyrants from North Korea to Iran know this. US public opinion is now so much against the war that it will be politically impossible to launch a similar attack for a generation or more. A fact which makes it impossible for the US to use the threat of military action as diplomatic lever in the future. IOW - the US military is no longer a credible threat in world politics

The lesson seems to be that the sooner one intervenes, the lower the distress. I suspect too that there will be less mayhem of this sort in the future.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan created chaos in what was a relatively stable country. This chaos was one of the ingredients that made 9/11 possible. 30 years from now we will look back on this Iraq fiasco with similar hindsight as we deal with tragedy that will have direct links to the chaos today.

As a matter of fact, Libya's Qaddafi uncovered his WMD as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Like Iraq, Qaddafi's WMD program was greatly exaggerated. Qaddafi cut a deal because the US was willing to offer him one he liked - Qaddafi knew he had nothing to fear from the US military since it was already occupied elsewhere.

[Charles Anthony]

As a matter of fact, Libya's Qaddafi uncovered his WMD as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Now he's a good guy in the eyes of the naive.

Furthermore, the U.S.A. negotiated with terrorists. Kaddafi's good-guy status comes after agreeing to pay a few billion dollars to the victims of the Lockerbie airline explosion.

[Higgly]

For some reason, a myth has evolved concerning fiscal conservatism. The myth is that Conservatives are fiscally responsible and Liberals are fiscally reckless. In fact, evidence is entirely to the contrary.

In Canada, the guy who did the most to put the country in debt was Brian Mulroney. Look at graphs of national debt plotted over time. Mulroney is the hands down all-time champion of debt. Chretien, the bogeyman of the western world, did the most to reduce it. I'm not making this up folks.

And then we have the US. Bill Clinton, cigar and all, did the most to reduce national debt. George W Bush... holy cow. Want proof? Plot the value of the US dollar against the Euro over the past 10 years or so. And the diifference is most definiely not due to an accelerating European economy .

[BubberMiley]

Not to mention the deficits Reagan ran.

There is also a perception that conservatives will make government smaller. They usually make it larger but fill it with incompetent cronies, making it ineffective.

[gerryhatrick]

For some reason, a myth has evolved concerning fiscal conservatism. The myth is that Conservatives are fiscally responsible and Liberals are fiscally reckless. In fact, evidence is entirely to the contrary.

There are many myths along those lines. Another is the myth of increased national security from Conservatives. As with fiscal matters, the evidence does not support it.

And the example to the South certainly belies the myth.

[Wilber]

In Canada, the guy who did the most to put the country in debt was Brian Mulroney. Look at graphs of national debt plotted over time. Mulroney is the hands down all-time champion of debt. Chretien, the bogeyman of the western world, did the most to reduce it. I'm not making this up folks.

Look at the graphs for interest rates over time.

Governments whatever their stripe are largely victims or beneficiaries of their times. Mulroney governed through a period of the highest interest rates in modern history. Chretien benefited from the lowest rates since WW2. The difference in what it cost to service the debt during their terms was huge and Mulroney was still trying to meet federal obligations to policies that were largely implemented by Liberal governments, like sharing health care costs 50/50 which the Chretien government abandoned.

Not to say Chretien didn't do anything right but you're example is simplistic.

[Black Dog]

At a critical moment in its history, Bush Jnr had the courage to spend taxpayers money and use US military power abroad. This provides a useful precedent for future presidents - the US military is a credible threat.

America using military power abroad is not a new thing. As Michael Leeden put it "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” So I don't think there were ever any doubts about America's military being a threat. But I bet you there are now.

It is a comparison of degree between the Montreal policeman shooting this armed lunatic in a school and the US military dealing with the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. (The US is not the world's policeman. It will only intervene if the US government perceives a threat to Americans.)

Er...Iraq would be more along the lines of Amadou Diallo: unarmed and in the wrong place at the worng time.

As a matter of fact, Libya's Qaddafi uncovered his WMD as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

That's highly debatable.

In addition, it has been argued by many supporters of the Bush administration’s post-9/11 policy of preemption that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq influenced Qadhdhafi, who wanted to avoid sharing his fate.

...

Others disagree, however, arguing that Libya’s disarmament had little to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. According to this view, Libya’s decision to disarm reflects the tail-end of many years of diplomacy between Libya and the West that was aimed at resolving various issues, including Libya’s compensation for the families of the Pan Am 103 terrorist bombing, Libya’s overall support for terrorism, the lifting of economic sanctions, and the surrender of Libya’s WMD arsenal. In fact, former Clinton administration official Martin Indyk indicated that as early as May 1999, at the outset of secret negotiations with American officials, Libya offered to give up its WMD arsenal. At that time, Tripoli was suffering through major economic difficulties brought on by the ongoing international sanctions and flawed domestic economic policies. In particular, Libya was unable to import oilfield technologies necessary to expand their oil production due to the economic sanctions. Libyan President Qadhdhafi is said to have realized at some point that in order to relieve Libya’s economic strife, he needed to mend fences with the United States. Mr. Indyk has explained that at the time the U.S. government was more concerned with resolving issues related to the Pan Am 103 attack, including securing compensation for the victims’ families and getting Libya out of the terrorism business. It was assessed then that Libya’s modest chemical weapons arsenal and infant nuclear program were not an imminent threat, and as a result, there was no urgency driving the U.S. to accept Libya’s offer to surrender its WMD. This, in turn, raises questions about whether the Bush administration and Tony Blair’s administration in the United Kingdom chose to have Libya declare its intention to relinquish its WMD programs in December 2003 in order to imply the success of American and British actions in Iraq.

[jbg]

From "Hate Harper" to "Hate Bush". Old wine in a new bottle.

[geoffrey]

Not to mention the deficits Reagan ran.

There is also a perception that conservatives will make government smaller. They usually make it larger but fill it with incompetent cronies, making it ineffective.

I forgot the most imcompetent cronies charged with defrauding the Canadian public of millions were conservatives, right?

They stole, overspent, broke the sovereignty race spending laws and still came within a few tenths of percent of losing. The textbook defintion of 'when government goes bad'.

I don't know of any Canadian conservatives that have spent time in prision for constructing a campaign to funnel tax dollars into their and their party's pockets, any examples?

[BubberMiley]

From "Hate Harper" to "Hate Bush". Old wine in a new bottle.

What I really hate is that lame, backed-in-the-corner debating tactic of playing the "hate" card.

[BubberMiley]

I don't know of any Canadian conservatives that have spent time in prision for constructing a campaign to funnel tax dollars into their and their party's pockets, any examples?

The Devine Conservatives in Saskatchewan.

[geoffrey]

I don't know of any Canadian conservatives that have spent time in prision for constructing a campaign to funnel tax dollars into their and their party's pockets, any examples?

The Devine Conservatives in Saskatchewan.

Touche.

[jbg]

I don't know of any Canadian conservatives that have spent time in prision for constructing a campaign to funnel tax dollars into their and their party's pockets, any examples?

The Devine Conservatives in Saskatchewan.

Hardly ideological conservatives. They got in on the strength of tax and spend promises.

[jdobbin]

Hardly ideological conservatives. They got in on the strength of tax and spend promises.

They were Conservatives nevertheless and Grant Devine still has Peter MacKay's support.

[jbg]

Hardly ideological conservatives. They got in on the strength of tax and spend promises.

They were Conservatives nevertheless and Grant Devine still has Peter MacKay's support.

Isn't that just "devine"?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not many Cabinet Members from that government survived! The beatings were very public and very well deserved.

Bush faces many foes both inside and outside of the USA. Canada should not be a foe or even a problem for him. This nanny state nation needs to rethink its attitude toward the US. We are more than just close, we are literally related.

Canada needs to step up to the plate and help the USA. US influence in international politics is becoming detrimental to their best interests. We need to sit down and come up with some serious plans in order to preserve the place of freedom and democracy. Between the Muslim extremists and the Chinese industrialists there is more danger to the US then ever before in history. Canada is the one country that can save them from themselves as well as any threat from outside their borders. But Canada simple can't go there uninvited, and the Americans can't go there in public.

[rover1]

Well, cousins at best. Our headstrong 'cousin' is not above putting the boots to us if he sees advantage in it, however.

Jerry J Fortin makes some interesting points, and I would not be adverse to offering help or advice along the lines he implies, but I think that it is unlikely that it will be asked for.