The State of The Union

[borat]

Bush is no saint, but if you want to see what a mess the lefties make when they have their way then take a look at the UK - public sector job wages rising at above private sector wages, bankruptcies up 57% in a year, more than 9 million of a 60 million population 'economically inactive' (cant call them unemployed as that would show up in the mainstream stats, and 60 million is every man woman and child, the 9 million relates only to those of working age), and to pay for the ever growing state we have to pay $8 a gallon for our fuel and 40% income tax on the top earners + 11% 'national insurance'.

Bush has kept the economy pretty good, and in opening up the market to china the short term may be pain, but the long term consequence of protectionism would be far worse.

I like his stance on oil independance from middle east too - soon as we stop buying the stuff from them, sooner then run out of cash for terrorism.

sad to see greenspan retired this week though

[cjolley]

...
Bush has kept the economy pretty good, and in opening up the market to china the short term may be pain, but the long term consequence of protectionism would be far worse.
...

I'd be interested to see a single statistic outside of home values in which things have gone better under Bush than under that "lefty" Clinton.

[KvHagedorn]

Well, when terrorists blow up one of our naval vessels we actually fight back.

[cjolley]

Well, when terrorists blow up one of our naval vessels we actually fight back.

The Bush team blew off the Osama problem untill after 9/11

Comparing anything that went before to what would happen under any president now won't wash.

[KvHagedorn]

This happened less than 9 months after he took office. In the meanwhile, Democrats wanted to filibuster or othrwise block every nominee for every government post, major or minor. Before this, they whined about the election results, taking up a full month and a half when he could have been lining everything up to make a more smooth transition. On top of this, the entire intelligence network was basically trashed by the Clintons and needed a major overhaul. Pretty easy to pop out the soundbyte that it was the Bush administration that was at fault before you really look at everyone who got in the way of solving the problem.

[cjolley]

Yes yes, I'm sure there was a reason why after being warned repeatedly and a fifth of the way through his term it was not Bushes fault.
After all, he had formed his usual committee of lawyers to look at the problem.
Look what that bunch of morons did to FEMA.
Sheesh.

[Gurm]

This happened less than 9 months after he took office. In the meanwhile, Democrats wanted to filibuster or othrwise block every nominee for every government post, major or minor. Before this, they whined about the election results, taking up a full month and a half when he could have been lining everything up to make a more smooth transition. On top of this, the entire intelligence network was basically trashed by the Clintons and needed a major overhaul. Pretty easy to pop out the soundbyte that it was the Bush administration that was at fault before you really look at everyone who got in the way of solving the problem.

Y'know... the Dems are filibustering because Bush is appointing right-wing nuts. Alito is first of all borderline autistic, or Asperger's or SOMETHING. I mean, watch him sometime. Head twitching, spaced-out stare. Clearly brilliant legal mind but can't function! And he just rubber-stamps EVERYTHING that Bush says. That's the scary part. He has a history of ignoring the law in favor of saying "yes" to authority. He has a belief that people in power are there for a reason and saying "yes" to them.

Which is just what Bush wants. Bush, Cheney, and GOD HELP US Rove all have the agenda that the executive branch MAKES THE LAW. And you know what? We have 200 years of constitutional doctrine to PREVENT EXACTLY THAT, and yet in just 6 short years they've plowed through that to the point where PERFECTLY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE (such as our own Doc M.) actually defend illegal wiretapping after hearing Bush say that it SHOULD be legal so therefore it IS legal. BULL CRAP. Illegal is illegal, no matter HOW SCARED the country is.

"He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither."

[schmosef]

I have a few additional questions.

And I'm not asking rhetorically or trying to make some silly point.

It seems to me that the same people who criticized Bush for not "breaking the law" when Katrina struck (ie., not invoking his powers to send in the military to aid in the relief efforts before all the legal rambling had been settled) are the people who are now criticizing him for "breaking the law" in this wire tapping issue.

Are the critics being hypocrites? Why/why not? Is it unfair to compare the critics' reactions to both situations? Why/why not?

[Gurm]

I have a few additional questions.

And I'm not asking rhetorically or trying to make some silly point.

It seems to me that the same people who criticized Bush for not "breaking the law" when Katrina struck (ie., not invoking his powers to send in the military to aid in the relief efforts before all the legal rambling had been settled) are the people who are now criticizing him for "breaking the law" in this wire tapping issue.

Are the critics being hypocrites? Why/why not? Is it unfair to compare the critics' reactions to both situations? Why/why not?

National disaster relief...

versus...

Spying on citizens.

[KvHagedorn]

Illegal is illegal, no matter HOW SCARED the country is.

"He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither."

So just admit, then, that FDR did worse.. Japanese internment during WW2, the shoot on sight order for American warships encountering German ships before war actually was declared, his utter contempt for anything being legally outside his power, and generally resembling Machiavelli's Prince in every way.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html

If this, according to Democrats, was our "greatest president," to what else should George Bush aspire?

Every president has been a crook in some aspect, but not so ironically, it seems those were considered the greatest presidents. If the president acted utterly and assiduously within his constitutional mandate, he would be a very weak leader (and the US would probably not exist today, having been crushed by some stronger power.)

[borat]

I'd be interested to see a single statistic outside of home values in which things have gone better under Bush than under that "lefty" Clinton.

Likewise, i dont think the economy would have faired any better under clinton than bush - foreign policy would have for sure, but both democrats and republicans seem to have agreed on a pretty free right stance for running the economy, the difference between them is at the margin - you do have to agree that clinton would not have been as morally sure about taking on terrorism by force as bush was/is.

[schmosef]

National disaster relief...

versus...

Spying on citizens.

I completely understand your point, but couldn't it be argued that "spying on citizens" was necessary to avert a "national disaster"?

[RC Agent]

I completely understand your point, but couldn't it be argued that "spying on citizens" was necessary to avert a "national disaster"?

You on crack??

[schmosef]

You on crack??

Oh that's constructive

I don't have an opinion on this. I really don't.

But couldn't better phone taps have helped avert 9-11?

Wasn't that a national disaster?

I'm asking because I'm trying to understand the issue better. I'm trying to understand if it's an issue of partisanship or if people actually genuinely care.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the goverment was taping my phones. I don't have anything to hide. As long as they don't use the info to curtail my civil liberties, I really really don't care.

[Gurm]

But couldn't better phone taps have helped avert 9-11?

No, actually. They had already tapped the phones they needed to tap. They knew - or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN - that it was going to happen. They have calls from/to Al Qaeda members on 9/10 saying "it's on for tomorrow". They DROPPED THE BALL. They don't need to spy on their own citizens to avert another 9/11, just pay goddamned attention to the intelligence they already have!