The G.W. Bush Liberry

Anthrax?

 

You didn't get my reasoning right, or maybe I didn't explain it well enough. The issue is not "skating through Harvard." I think it's fair to say that he didn't skate through HBS. He actually did some work. Good for him. That's what you're supposed to do.

The issue is getting into Harvard in the first place. He did not deserve to be there. Period. End of discussion. You connect the dots. And now he has the temerity to insist that other affirmative action programs (even those that make the attempt to be fair - unlike the legacy system) be dismantled and that those who benefit from them should be subject to the same standards as everyone else. Fine. Then he should resign the Presidency. He has, perhaps, benefitted from these sorts of systems more than anyone in history? Has anyone else had more free rides?

Many of your claims are extremely debatable, and could just be "whistling through the graveyard." There are plenty of knowledgeable sources that are claiming that terrorist plotting and training has never been more active. We've spent how many billions and still no Osama? Instead we got the boobie prize: We bombed the crap out of Iraq, and it turned out they were already effectively neutered. What happens when/if there is another major terrorist attack (as even his administration claims is inevitable)? Suddenly the record doesn't look so hot. It's like an airlines with a perfect safety record. It only takes one crash to put you at the bottom of the list.

As for the economy, over what time period are you talking about?The defense sector may be growing. The rest of the economy is not. The Fed may rethink its plan to raise rates because of the lousy jobs report. Rates are still near historic lows, so the Fed has not even begun to put the brakes on. And try telling those who work in the high tech sector in CA about the booming economy. Maybe in MA; not in CA.

As for the ballots, they didn't count the ones that were thrown in the ocean, or the ballots that MIGHT have been counted in minority neighborhoods that mysteriously closed early. I think Jeb still has some uncounted ballots in his trunk.

Again, would you like to offer up any morsels about how Bush distinguished himself before he was elected? Is there anything in his past which stands out (other than a drinking problem)? Has he ever shown any vision? Bush escaped the Harken Energy scanndal just in time. His one claim to fame as Gov. of Texas were the gains in education. Those turned out to be baloney. He milked the post 9/11 sentiment for all it was worth until most people figured out he doesn't have a clue.

There should be a picture of him in the dictionary next to the word "ordinary" or "mediocre".

No, he's not dumb as a stump. But there is no way in hell he is qualified or deserving to be President, and he has displayed his lack of ability in spades. He couldn't run a baseball team; he can't run the country either. Time for a change.

 

Which is, of course, pure speculation on your part. I don't suppose that you sat on the admissions board at Harvard Business School back in the 70's, did you?

It appears that your knowledgable sources are wrong, since there hasn't been any foreign terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

If Osama isn't dead under a pile of rubble in Afganistan already, he'll turn up. Besides, almost the entire leadership of Al-Qaeda is either dead or in custody. As for Iraq, a brutal dictator who slaughtered millions of his own people has been removed and arrested. Do you think that's a bad thing?

Of course...but I guess we'll have to wait & see if there is another attack, won't we?

Right now. Much like Reagan, Bush's tax breaks took time to take effect, and we're seeing the results starting now.

CA is in a mess in large part to illegal aliens sapping the state budget, which I will be the first to admit is a huge shortcoming with Bush.

Tom, you and I both know that there were no ballots tossed into the ocean, and that no polling places closed early. That's urban myths and wishful thinking on the Dem's part.

Bush hasn't had a drink in almost 30 years. Is that the best you can do, a cheap shot like that? I suppose that you've never had a personal problem?

The people of Texas apparently disagree with you, since he was one of the most popular Governors there.

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. However, the more I hear about John Kerry's war record, the more I think he's not qualified or deserving to be elected dog catcher.

 

Five things:

1. I'm voting for John Kerry, and I am not a fan of Bush.

2. I don't blame Bush, Clinton, Congress, or any government agency for the 9/11 attacks; I blame al-Qaeda. I think the objective here should be to promote reforms, not play armchair quarterback.

3. I think Bush is probably an intelligent guy; he just isn't anywhere near as articulate as Clinton. We got spoiled.

4. I think Bush legally won Florida according to mutually agreed-upon rules (though there were some small irregularities, such as the butterfly ballot and the purging of non-felons from the voter roster, which probably gave Bush those 537 votes and then some).

5. I don't really mind that Bush is a recovering alcoholic, and I wish he would make his recovery a central theme of his campaign biography. In its own way, it's as dramatic and compelling as Kerry's Vietnam service (and it would help destigmatize other recovering alcoholics). Going from rock bottom to the presidency of the United States is damned impressive, no matter what you think of the man's policies (and I don't think much of them).


Cheers,

 

You know, Tom, that's a really good point.

 

It is a very good point, but I can understand why Bush wouldn't want to make a big deal of it. It involved a tiny portion of his life, and it's almost 30 years in the past.

 

It's only 18 years in the past; he was able to cut down in 1986, after fighting alcoholism for his entire adult life. He directly ties kicking the habit to his religious conversion. Certainly sounds like a pretty big deal to me.

But the "no big deal" line seems to be the canned Republican response, as I learned when I did a Google on "George Bush" +alcoholism and found nothing but anti-Bush "dry drunk" rants (which I think are uncharitable, to say the least). Bush seems to have gathered such a personality cult among conservatives that they can't admit he ever struggled in any way with anything, even things he admits to--which only does that much more to boost the anti-Bush caricature of a guy who always had everything handed to him. That's unfortunate, even from where I'm standing.


Cheers,

 

To use your words: "If this is true, then why is Harvard still one of the most prestigious universities in the world..." Exactly. If you want to think that HBS regularly hands out coveted spots to entirely mediocre students with no record of achievement, then go ahead. You'll hear and see better with your head out of the sand, however.

The fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack (here, anyway)says nothing about what sort of plotting and scheming is going on. By your reasoning, as of 9/10/2001 there couldn't have been any terrorist activity since it had been years since a major attack here.

Yeah, he'll turn up eventually. He'll die eventually, just as we all will. Eventually the universe will break apart too. How long should we wait, and at what cost?

You're joking, right? If you'll remember, Reagan/Bush nearly bankrupted this country with tax cuts and deficit spending. Bush was ousted primarily because of how he (and Reagan) screwed up the economy. It took 8 years of Clinton/Gore to put things back in order. Most economists agree that the kind of tax cuts offered by Reagan, and now Bush, have, at best, a very short term effect, if they have any effect at all. Are you still reaping the benefits of your tax cut? Do you even remember how much it was? I thought not.

I'll agree with you that that's part of the problem.

Absolutely not urban myth (except maybe the part about ballots in Jeb's trunk).

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/29/election.naacp.reut/

The question remains. Can you name anything, anything at all, in which Bush distinguished himself prior to election? I guess not, or you would have mentioned something.

Ok, I'll go along with you on that one. By that reasoning, Bush must be one of the worst Presidents since he has one of the lowest approval ratings in history.

Compared to Bush's war record? Oh, that's right, he doesn't really have one. Or was he a deserter? It's hilarious to hear the Repub's bitching about whether Kerry earned his Purple Hearts, or whether his wounds were that severe etc. The Repub's seem to think they have cornered the market on exploits in battle, and it kills them to be in the position of having to defend their candidate who has, at best, a dubious record. They should have learned a lesson when the tables were turned during Bush Sr./Clinton. Rather than try to denigrate the war record of Bush Sr., the Dems merely pointed out that a sterling war record is not necessary to be an effective President (which Clinton proved)

Fact: Kerry served honorably in VN; he was wounded, and he did earn the respect of those who served with him. Also fact: Bush was awarded another coveted spot that he didn't earn, and he essentially ran like a cockroach. He's a spoiled, privileged, rich kid/brat. Are you prepared to defend Bush's war time record even as you denigrate Kerry's. If so, I'd love to see it, and you're a much braver man than I.

 

Carl, landsman, compadre, you maybe blew this one:

"As for the body language, you can't honestly tell me that you can't derive a person's basic level of intelligence from just watching them for a while.... Well, we've all seen plenty of dubya now, and Michael Moore showed us "more" so to speak...."

So, watching, erm, Stephen Hawking, tells us what, exactly, about intelligence levels?

 

Which is it Tom....is Harvard prestigious, or do they hand out diplomas to the children of the rich & powerful? You can't have it both ways (unless you're John Kerry, of course)

The proof is in the pudding....there hasn't been any attacks, nor do I think there will be any successful attacks. I certainly hope that I'm wrong, but it seems like you almost want one.

His organization is neutered, his command staff is either dead or in custody. I don't see the rush.

Yup.

$800, then $600 for child credits (I have twins). Sorry to disappoint you.

You're kidding, right? You expect me to take either CNN or the NAACP seriously? C'mon!

I already did, Tom. Try reading for comprehension. He was Governor of one of the largest states in the country.

He served in Vietnam, I'll give you that. The part about honorable and having respect.....I don't think so. The 200+ members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would vehemently disagree with you.

The whole picture of Kerry's military service is starting to come together. IMO, he went to Vietnam with an agenda to rack up as many medals as possible, get home as soon as possible, go to law school (the J.D. is the standard credential for slimy politicians), then run for public office. That's pathological.

I don't consider flying fighter jets to be running like a cockroach. A little bit of trivia for you, Tom. Many Air National Guard pilots flew combat missions in Vietnam. The particular fighter that Bush flew was declared obsolete by the Air Force, thereby excluding him from being sent overseas.

If Bush wanted a safe spot in the Guard to avoid combat, don't you think he would have gotten a gig in the Quartermaster Corps or something along those lines? Flying a fighter jet is not exactly a rear-echelon job.

BTW Tom, I'm a Veteran of both the Army and the Army National Guard. The only time I saw combat was while I was with the Guard, my unit was activated for the first Gulf War. I spent 7 months in the combat zone, which is almost twice as long as Kerry spent in a combat zone. So, I don't want to hear about the Guard being a haven for "cockroaches". And, while we're on the subject, what's your military record?

To wrap things up, Tom, I think we should agree to disagree. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine. I need to devote more time to my moderation duties and repelling the shills that have invaded here recently, so this is my final say on the subject.

 

Some comments:

- I'd say that body language can be a good positive indicator of intelligence, but lack of body language isn't necessarily a negative indicator. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have much less body language than Bush.

- I think it's a stretch to say that either Bush or Kerry didn't earn their Ivy League degrees. Both have a pretty solid academic record.

- Kerry's Vietnam record is certainly more impressive than Bush's, but there's nothing shameful about enrolling in the Air National Guard--and it wouldn't have been shameful even if his specific objective had been to avoid combat. Hell, I don't think it would have been shameful if he'd burned his draft card and fled to Canada. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to Vietnam.

- On the other hand, I doubt that relying on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is run by Nixon's top anti-Kerry hatchet man from '71 and doesn't include a single soldier who actually served on Kerry's boats, is a particularly sound way to determine whether or not John Kerry deserved his medals. No doubt he did want to be president from day one; in a wonderful (to me) article, Newsmax.com --and yes, I just called a Newsmax article "wonderful"--describes Kerry using these terms: "Kerry - just like Bill Clinton - has been running for president since he was a teenager and met President John F. Kennedy. He has devoted everything he has to one thing only: becoming president. He is so close now that he can smell it." The only word in those three sentences I disagree with is "only"; I have no doubt that he's wanted to be president for a very, very long time. Not necessarily a bad thing; would we really want to elect an underachiever?


Cheers,

 

Hawking vs. Bush

It tells us EVERYTHING. I never see the look of befuddlement or utter terror at having to make a decision in the eyes of Steven Hawking that frequently appears in Bush's eyes... There is really no comparison. Steven Hawking, despite his disabilities, STILL comes across as intelligent and brilliant even in the throes of his convulsions. Bush looks like an idiot even when he has a multi-faceted team of advisors prompting him for his every line....

 

Ah yes, the eyes are windows to the soul.

Moshe Dayan

Wojciech Jaruzelski

Emperor Diocletian

Uncle Janko

 

Agreed. We'll have to disagree on this one. I say Bush didn't earn his education credentials. You say Kerry didn't earn his combat credentials. You don't trust CNN or the NAACP. I don't trust the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (?? Republican funded smear campaign, nothing more; their spokesman was annihilated on Chris Matthews last night. Hilarious.).

Finally, nowhere did I state the Guard was a "haven for cockroaches." I mentioned one Guardsman, and one only. Go back and read for comprehension and you'll figure out who I was talking about, and why.

And I guess in your book merely being elected Governor qualifies as a remarkable achievement. I say performance on the job is what matters. This is where Bush has nothing to show as Governor of Texas. Though he did execute a lot of people, and that seemed to make a lot of folks happy.