George W Bush @ MindSay 
george bush
Joel Himelfarb writes that President GW’s twilight months left in Office is beginning to mirror Slick Willie’s twilight months in Office.
Both are guilty of attempting last minute diplomacy to establish a memorable legacy.
Slick failed with North Korea and Palestinian terrorists.
GW is attempting to do the same thing while apparently leaving the problem of a nuclear Iran to the next President as Slick left Osama bin Laden for GW.
JRH 4/1/08 (Hat tip Don Moore – Blind Conservatives)
Then, Bush got into office, and started doing things his own way. Turned out, he wasn't really against nation-building at all, and launched us into a war far more pointless and expensive than Bosnia could have ever hoped to be. Sound familiar? It should to those of us who understood history. Bush's campaign tactic was identical to that of Richard Nixon in 1968. Nixon also billed himself as the "moderate republican," the guy who was going to end the Democrat's war in Vietnam. Like Bush, Nixon had no intention of pulling out, but instead expanded the war into Cambodia. He introduced bills that had devastating long-term effects on the economy as well as health care. Nixon ushered in the modern world of Republican hopelessness. He changed this country from one that is supposed to benefit "We the People" to one benefiting "We the Corporations."
Some, including myself, have called John McCain "Bush II" I now don't believe that comparison to be accurate. In my study of history, and my discovery of where "this all" started, it is plainly apparent that George W. Bush is merely Nixon II, making John McCain Nixon III. It is his legacy that is alive and well in these two politicians, the boy of privilege and the "Maverick" war hero.
Few can argue that Nixon and Bush's presidencies weren't disasters for our nation. Nixon instituted improper government control over health care with his bill mandating HMO's be offered by all employers. He ended the gold standard on purely a whim, surprising the economists of the time. Bush used evidence he knew was faulty and fresh fear over 9/11 to push us into an immoral war with Iraq, costing this nation trillions while turning security of our ports over to an extremist-friendly nation and leaving our border with Mexico almost completely unguarded.
Don't fall for John McCain's "moderate republican" lie. We've heard it before, and quite frankly, the "moderate Republicans" just haven't done a very good job with this country.
Daniel Pipes writes a brief summary of President Bush’s historical legacy followed by conclusions about the success or failure of the Bush Agenda. I agree with Pipes’ outline of President Bush’s outstanding beginning and half heartedly agree with Pipes’ conclusions.
The conclusions are wholly negative. I have to admit deservedly so.
For me President Bush’s two terms in office is like Bush my hero and Bush my disappointment. The Bush agenda is still valid except maybe the valiant effort to export Western Democracy to a people whose Theo-political belief system purely cannot grasp or agree with the concepts of individual liberty and civil freedoms.
The Bush Agenda would have to become a true imperialist (as were the early Mohammedan conquerors) to force a change in religiously held beliefs of submission to Allah which over the years has given incredible social power to Mohammedan clerics and the rulers that manage or support the clerics.
In the Western World 21st century that would be totally be politically incorrect and would probably start a coalition of Westerners to bring down American geopolitical hegemony even though concepts of American Liberty more than once saved Western Europe from Statist despotism.
The Bush political interference in military strategy in post Saddam Iraq has prevented an outright victory against terrorism there. If the initial strategy was comparable to the current “Surge” then the implementation of civil administration would probably be more assured today. It may have alienated both Sunni and Shia factions initially; however without terrorist enclaves the Mohammedan understanding of power would have pacified violent opposition to American occupation and allowed time to build a new Iraqi political infrastructure. Admittedly the new infrastructure would not resemble Western Democracy. It would probably resemble more a democratic republican oligarchy in which tribes and clerics managed a system based on Mohammedan culture (hopefully not a total reliance on Sharia Law).
President Bush the disappointment is the Bush that implemented a faulty post Saddam clean up fearing the wrath of the Arab supporting/oil dependant Western allies that combined could hamper American National Interests. The coalition of the willing were militarily weaker mostly Eastern European governments that have admired American Liberty and wished to court American favor in case the big bear of Russia tried to rebuild its empire realized under Soviet Communism.
The Bush failure to date in the War on Terror was not the agenda but the failure of West Europeans controlling the European Union to comprehend the danger to Western Culture presented by Islamofascist transnational terrorists and Islamist rogue nations and individual Islamist billionaires (Mostly Saudi) who support the concept of a Global Jihad.
The EU failure to join the Bush Agenda could potentially weaken the Western Culture of the future to withstand Islamist attacks. And I am not necessarily writing of military or terrorist attacks, but the allowance of a Mohammedan Trojan Horse to infiltrate our culture and weaken our resolve to retain Liberty, Freedom and Democratic Institutions.
The Bush disappointment is a failure of realization of European Union peoples to comprehend the threat.
No member of the American government wants to represent the people of this nation. Bush is a killer, he represents the worst that America has to offer – the Evangelical Christian Right-wing. He represents the Crusader mentality – those who rape, pillage, and murder in the name of their satanic deity.
Hey, don’t pick on me ... Even St John said it, in his “Revelation”. He proclaimed, at a time when there was only one Church emerging, that The Church of the City of the Seven Hills is the Church of Satan. That Church is the Church of Rome (antiquity’s only City of Seven Hills).
History tells us very clearly that the Church turned from the teachings they professed to support. But fortunately I’m not under their auspice and so have naught to fear – but those who follow the Evangelicals have much to fear; at least they have much to fear if there is any truth in the teachings they ignore.
I’ve said it before. The teachings state clearly that prisoners are to be treated humanly – no torture or waterboarding, or slapping across the side of the head. Basically, nothing which Bush and his supporters advocate is to be done to the prisoners.
Even our Constitution declares – however much bush selects to ignore it – that those under our jurisdiction are subject to all the rights of our Constitution (I believe that is Amendment Four – who cares, we ignore it anyway).
On a different note, President Bill Clinton backed the North American Free Trade Agreement and liberalizing trade with China – he was a party to the export of manufacturing from America. On the down side, that means less real product made here, and reduces us to a service economy. On the upside, service economies are mobile economies.
By mobile economy I am thinking the Russian during the Napoleon era and the invasions by Germany in both World Wars; I am thinking of their ancestral Scythian tactic of the nomad – burn the fields, and run before the enemy while striking at them like hornets. Let the elements and their own lack or provisions be their destruction.
No nation in the world can invade modern America. We do not have the native resources to support an invading army; and any invaders would require massive supply lines which are easily severed. Only absolute destruction – nuclear destruction – which leaves nobody alive and nothing to occupy would be a victorious tactic.
Unfortunately, as we have seen in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq, this same tactic is the only one which modern society has at its disposal. If we wish war, it must be total – fought from great distances, with the objective of killing all within the target territory.
The kind of “wartime presidency” which Bush envisions – the vision of the historian (I believe Bush’s Harvard degree) – is no longer valid. We cannot invade and occupy. We cannot subdue. Because they have staying power, and offer no solid target, the insurgent must always be the victor. For the insurgent to lose, they must first be allowed to rule.
When they have a formal structure, they offer a fixed target; if they fail to form a formal structure, those they seek to rule will destroy them. The insurgent who is incompetent cannot suppress the insurgent force he has trained to overthrow incompetent leadership. People will have the government they are happy with; or they will rebel.
The People of America want Health Care; they want a stable economy; they want a future with promise, and not one filled with debt. The Most Harm to the Most People doctrine dictates they shall have none of these – and so shall formulate rebellion.
Destruction of America – a Political Objective for both Parties.
Post Script: From the New York Times, “A new study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School has found that millions of veterans and their dependents have no access to care in veterans’ hospitals and clinics and no health insurance to pay for care elsewhere.”
Support the troops is the call of the Christian Conservative; it is the call of the Right-wing; it is, as with all their words, another thing they work hard NOT to do.
Rally round the Flag Boys, Rally round the Flag – all the better to die.
_____________________________________________________
Ah Osama, Osama, ... we were wondering if you were alive or dead. Now we know. You are alive and looking more fit and healthy than our dear Prez, Georgie Porgie with the pie in his eye. But really, that dye job on the beard is a bit over the top vain; and even somewhat egotistical.
However, as Georgie worries about his legacy, and the contempt with which history will view him...
Hold it! George don’t worry about history. He did, after all, proclaim that history did not matter, because (apparently, when his term in office was done) we would all be dead.
Well George, you are as good at achieving that objective as you have proved to be on every other task you have ever engaged in – with the sole exceptions of dodging service in Nam, and serving your guard commitment without going AWOL.
Come to think of it, given that Rumsfeld, Rove, et al were running the administration, George has even been AWOL from the presidency.
But back to Osama – not to be confused with Obama, though it would be entertaining to have both playing world leaders.
We all, I hope by now, know that Osama Bin Laden has been granted official American recognition as the leader of the Islamic Nation – albeit a nation without geographical territory. Osama is the leader, the official voice (per Bush Administration justification for calling the Iraq invasion and occupation a ‘war’) and hence is the soul of Islam.
As the “Soul of Islam”, Osama is in line to be the prophesied heir to the Throne of Mohamad. Is it no wonder he wants to look a youngish fifty? And even less wonder that he is now, semi-formally, calling for all in the west to convert to Islam. Osama knows his role well.
In response Bush has asserted "a reminder about the dangerous world in which we live.” Or, more appropriately, the dangerous world which Bush has created through his assertion that Osama was irrelevant in the context of the destruction of the only true Islamic leader who Osama had any fear of – Saddam Hussein.
Of course it helps that Bush, an Ivy League student of Business and History, has used his learning to destabilize the Middle East and, cause oil prices to rise, by destroying Iraq production capabilities, and making sure that the world is denied access to its largest proven reserves.
As noted, Bush holds degrees in History and Business. He has all the training necessary to realize that, when this is done, the United States will be full dependent upon whoever eventually controls Iraq.
The key is to make that position more powerful. Thus remove access to Iraqis oil until such time as the Saudis and Iranians deplete their reserves. Or, at least, until such time as a Leader of the Islam Nation is enthroned as the sole voice and power over the oil nations.
Clearly, Bush is promoting Osama Bin Laden for that job – why else withdraw troops just at the time when they were about to take Osama’s head?
In his speech, Osama has made it clear; there are two choices which he, and Bush, have promoted: "One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out. The second solution is from your side. ... I invite you to embrace Islam."
The evangelicals will, in refuting the express promise of their supposed savior that, “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword,” have insisted that this nation, and other nations, swear their allegiances to the sword.
Europe has rejected that notion. Hence it has become the target of Osama forces. America, who has sworn by the sword, and thus ensured its own promised destruction, is relatively safe from attack.
As we have seen since 9/11, why attack a nation whose leaders and people have decided to comply with every goal and objective which Osama needs to ensure his position as leader of Islam?
Were it different, were we not in the service of Osama, we would forego the sword for all purposes except to behead Osama, or any other entity who kills our people on our soil.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]