One must be out there. Somewhere.
Right?
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Hey Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I went to Harvard too! That was the worst fieldtrip of my life, but I went there...
Posted on 03/04/2009 9:29:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
George W. Bush had the misfortune to become president when two long-term trends that predated his presidency reached historical tipping points: First, decades of militant Islamic ferment culminated in 9/11. Second, a combination of a decades-long buildup of debt, reckless financial practices (abetted by government policies) established in the ‘90s, and habitual inflationary policies by the Federal Reserve System, finally culminated in the great financial panic of 2008. Twice, Bush reaped what he had not sown and, fairly or not, those historical events are what he will be remembered for. Of course, this is not to say he hasn’t made mistakes.
We are all armchair quarterbacks when it comes to the war in Iraq. I didn’t see how any president in a post-9/11 world could adopt a passive response to that attack. Whether toppling Saddam was the best possible alternative is something we can never know. What we do know is that Bush merely carried out the official U.S. policy, adopted under his Democratic predecessor, of removing Saddam Hussein because of his potential for providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. (In response, the not-so-loyal opposition twisted the CIA’s incompetent intelligence-gathering into vicious charges of “Bush lied,” rather than stimulating bipartisan efforts to shore up our intelligence capacities; like the far left’s pro-Viet Cong cheerleaders in the ‘60s, they embrace Saddam as more trustworthy than Bush; cynically, they repaid our troops’ sacrifices by prematurely declaring the war lost.) What we also know is that there have been no terrorist strikes on American soil since 9/11. Yes, it looks like we will have to play whack-a-mole with terrorists for a long time, but does anyone seriously believe that this wouldn’t be the case if we had allowed Saddam to continue his sadistic, terrorist-financing rule?
If Bush were a lesser man, he could have declared victory in Iraq once Saddam was captured and brought the troops home. Many politicians would have done so. Bush did not. He refused to break faith with two groups of people—the Iraqi population, who would have suffered massive bloodshed, and the American military, whose great sacrifices would have been for naught. Bush’s willingness to accept vilification rather than break faith with those most directly affected by the war showed great character. In the economic realm, Bush has been a major disappointment. When government expenditures soared to finance the war, he never once proposed that Uncle Sam reduce other spending by even a token amount to help pay for it. His “compassionate conservatism” has helped bankrupt the country. He was the first president to preside over a $2-trillion budget and also the first to preside over a $3-trillion budget. A 50 percent increase in federal spending and a near-doubling of the national debt in only eight years is neither conservative nor compassionate.
On the positive side, Bush’s strategic tax cuts during his first term were his greatest economic achievement. They strengthened the economy. However, he allowed federal spending and deficits to soar out of control due to his own spending initiatives and his refusal to veto any of the pork-laden bills passed by the Republican-controlled Congress during his first six years in office. Thus, Bush must share the blame, both for his own party’s self-destruction and for the flood of red ink that he leaves behind.
To his credit, Bush tried unsuccessfully to rescue Social Security as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from their collision courses (one still pending, the others already past) with bankruptcy, but Congress foiled him. By 2008, he was the lamest of lame-duck presidents, resigned to being unable to stop the political tide, and so he meekly went with the flow and signed on to the massive bailout scheme favored by Democrats and Wall Street insiders.
Bush has been likened to Truman (unpopular war) and Hoover (gigantic financial panic), but I think the most striking parallels are with the other president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson. Bush is the first president since LBJ to have created a new federal entitlement (the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Like LBJ, Bush conducted a “guns & butter” policy—waging an expensive, unpopular military war while massively increasing domestic spending. Like LBJ, Bush’s runaway spending has sown the seeds of stagnation and inflation. Future stagnation, the “War on Terror,” and the financial collapse of 2008 will comprise the legacy of our 43rd president.
Right now, it seems unlikely that anyone will ever long for “the good old days” when Bush II was president, although what happens in the future may alter our perceptions. If Barack Obama tries to conciliate Islamic militants and they, in turn, inflict a devastating strike on an American city, or if, in his zeal to be the second coming of FDR, Obama drives the economy into a second Great Depression, then the American people might gain a new-found appreciation for the presidency of George W. Bush.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is a faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Prior U.S. law required China’s NTR status to be renewed on an annual basis (which it was from 1980 to 2001); a measure many analysts considered inconsistent with WTO rules if applied to a WTO member.
amnesty = HE DID NOT SIGN AN AMNESTY BILL! That was Reagan.
bailout = What would you have preferred he do - let the world economy collapse?
“a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion, was drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.”
“their estimation was that by 2 o'clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy system of the United States and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.”
the military = WHAT about the Military? Please explain! Did you not approve of his spending increase on them?
subsidies = What subsidies? Were there subsidies that had never been given before?
Medicare = A drug benefit had been in the works in CONgre$$ for several years. There was going to be one, period. The republicans, right or wrong, took the lead to shape the bill as opposed to the rats.
social security = What about it? HE TRIED! He was not a dictator.
compassionate conservatism = Not sure what you mean.
domestic gutlessness = Meaning what? He had to make a great deal of nasty compromises to get the funding for our troops and the war.
a globalist fruitcake = What EXACTLY did he do to earn that label?
Thanks! I may have to "borrow" that on occasion.
It would have required an all-out effort by the Bush administration at Tora Bora before Al Qeida escaped to its Pakistani sanctuaries. There isn't much doubt that Bin Laden was there CLICK HERE but, for some reason, Bush didn't pursue. I suppose he felt that the Paks would get their feelings hurt if he pursued the remnants into the region after a full-scale attack. Still there was the so-called "Bush Doctrine" announced at the '02 State of the Union address. 'course, despite my belief in the president at the time, it was just another piece of empty rhetoric from "Mission Accomplished"!
I suggest you look the situation at the time of the battle. One has to muster the right for, and the fact is that the 10th Mountain troops were not acclimitated to the high altitude. Nothing something unsurmountable, but as in our lives, little things do matter, like Tony Romo’s thumb.
I miss him soooooo much!
I doubt seriously that the surge coming two years earlier would have made any difference in the outcome of the Presidential election. That election was decided primarily on the basis of the sorry state of the economy, the blame of which I put at the feet of the dims and over 50 years of their environmental policies. This election was a prima facia example of a political party "having it's cake, and eating it too". No question about that fact.
We could argue ad naseum about this or that policy, buy the fact remains that Bush did a good job. We were not attacked any more and he kept the country safe.
Perhaps in 2012 you guys will get Duncan Hunter or whatever ultra right conservative that you think is the savior of all mankind. I predict that you will find that they will be just as "ineffective" as you claim was President Bush.
I doubt seriously that the surge coming two years earlier would have made any difference in the outcome of the Presidential election. That election was decided primarily on the basis of the sorry state of the economy, the blame of which I put at the feet of the dims and over 50 years of their environmental policies. This election was a prima facia example of a political party "having it's cake, and eating it too". No question about that fact.
We could argue ad naseum about this or that policy, but the fact remains that Bush did a good job. We were not attacked any more and he kept the country safe.
Perhaps in 2012 you guys will get Duncan Hunter or whatever ultra right conservative that you think is the savior of all mankind. I predict that you will find that they will be just as "ineffective" as you claim was President Bush.
If only George W. Bush could talk. He couldn’t sell ice water in Hell.
One must be out there. Somewhere.
Right?
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Hey Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I went to Harvard too! That was the worst fieldtrip of my life, but I went there...
If Bush were a greater man, he wouldn't have announced "Mission Accomplished" (pretty much declaring victory) when there was so much more to do.
But Hendrickson is pretty much on target about everything else.
We would be in much better shape if we had President Duncan L. Hunter!
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing. FReepers that do not know what that was about almost 6 years later are really pathetic.
Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion — and the sign itself — became controversial after guerilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, among both coalition (approximately 98.3% as of October 2008) and Iraqi combatants, and among Iraqi civilians, has occurred since the speech. Wikipedia
That was 2003. Bush didn't exactly use those words in that order on that occasion, but the sign was a public relations disaster that can't be blamed on anyone else.
The LBJ analogy is dumbest analogy I’ve heard. Johnson lost a war; Bush won a war.
Really? Why is Bush so different? I mean he and Carter share the same bad economic legacy. And while his eventual firing of Don Rumsfeld and reluctant signing on to the surge that saved Iraq rescued his military one, pre-surge Iraq was hardly different than that of the Iranian crisis during Carter's term, IMO!
I doubt seriously that the surge coming two years earlier would have made any difference in the outcome of the Presidential election.
It would have meant a world of difference in 2006 though...
That election was decided primarily on the basis of the sorry state of the economy, the blame of which I put at the feet of the dims and over 50 years of their environmental policies. This election was a prima facia example of a political party "having it's cake, and eating it too". No question about that fact.
While the economic health of the country was an issue, I cannot put all the blame on Democrats. Though not as guilty, the Republicans had a piece of the pork pie bills that Bush failed to veto...
We could argue ad naseum about this or that policy, but the fact remains that Bush did a good job. We were not attacked any more and he kept the country safe.
This argument is a non sequitur with me...indeed the same can be said about Obama thus far. Bush had both the support of the country, manpower and equipment to crush both Iraq and the Taliban in 2001/02 but didn't accomplish the mission due to the "butter before guns" philosophy of Msrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney. Like his old man did in the first Gulf War, he capitulated to advocates urging limited warfare instead of charging ahead a la Abraham Lincoln and going full bore after terrorists; therefore allowing insurgency to fester and flourish.
Perhaps in 2012 you guys will get Duncan Hunter or whatever ultra right conservative that you think is the savior of all mankind. I predict that you will find that they will be just as "ineffective" as you claim was President Bush.
I am not an ultrarightist but I do believe in the principle of overwhelming force always in warfare as forwarded by persons such as Hunter. I believe that great strategic warriors, even primitive ones such as Shaka Zulu and Crazy Horse got it right when they pointed out the need to ultimately conquer and never leave a dedicated enemy alive to strike again. Though such philosophy means total devastation of the enemy, this nation got it right in its campaign against Germany and Japan in WWII--neither nation had the will to continue the fight after being thoroughly beaten.
Mainly because I realized that he had the gonads to use overwhelming force in taking on terrorism and I had dubious reasons to suspect that Bush didn't after his old man somehow managed to pull defeat out of a spendid victory on the "Highway of Death" in Gulf War One. I reasoned that the acorn doesn't fall that far from the oak in assessing gene pools and I knew that "Mission Accomplished" would listen to the same kind of "limited warfare" advocates that doomed his "Read My Lips" old man's presidency. Pre-surge Iraq proved me right...and, despite your admiration of a miserable failure, you cannot argue with the fact that Bush waited until "Ah took a thumpin'" in the 2006 election to finally can Rumsfeld and listen to people such as Gen Petraeus in conducting OIF the correct way.
As I said: We must agree to disagree.
Given that he never polled higher than 1 or 2%, it was always going to be tough to ever see a President Duncan L. Hunter. But I do agree, that Duncan would be a H*LL of a lot better than what we got now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.