SOTU Address: Is This What a Failed Presidency Looks Like? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 01-24-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1005327.shtml
President Richard Nixon's approval rating fell as the Watergate scandal became public in the first half of 1973, and was at about 25 percent during 1974.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012300787.html
.........Only two presidents have had lower approval ratings on the eve of a State of the Union speech. Richard Nixon was at 26 percent in 1974, seven months before he resigned in disgrace because of the Watergate scandal. Harry S. Truman was at 23 percent in January 1952, driven down by public disapproval of the Korean conflict and his firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur..........

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2384943.shtml
.....Mr. Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he's handling his job. .....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics
President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 24, 2007; A13

In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush presented an arguably misleading and often flawed description of "the enemy" that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States.

Under Bush's rubric, a country such as Iran -- which enjoys diplomatic representation and billions of dollars in trade with major European countries -- is lumped together with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat," Bush said, referring to the different branches of the Muslim religion.

Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." Bush is referring to attacks nearly a quarter-century ago on a U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks when the United States intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization -- it fought a war with Israel last summer -- but the European Union does not list it as a terrorist organization.

At one point, Bush catalogued what he described as advances in the quest for freedom in the Middle East during 2005 -- such as the departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon and elections in Iraq. Then, Bush asserted, "a thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics and in 2006 they struck back." But his description of the actions of "the enemy" tried to tie together a series of diplomatic and military setbacks that had virtually no connection to one another, from an attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq to the assassination of Maronite Lebanese political figure.

In his speech, Bush argued that "free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance." He also said that terrorist groups "want to overthrow moderate governments."

In the two of the most liberal and diverse societies in the Middle East -- Lebanon and the Palestinian territories -- events have undercut Bush's argument in the past year. Hezbollah has gained power and strength in Lebanon, partly at the ballot box. Meanwhile, Palestinians ousted the Fatah party -- which wants to pursue peace with Israel -- from the legislature in favor of Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction and is considered a terrorist organization by the State Department.

In fact, many of the countries that Bush considers "moderate" -- such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- are autocratic dictatorships rated among the worst of the "not free" nations by the nonpartisan Freedom House. Their Freedom House ratings are virtually indistinguishable from Cuba, Belarus and Burma, which Bush last night listed as nations in desperate need of freedom.

Bush also claimed that "we have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism." But Monday, a poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries was released that showed that global opinion of U.S. foreign policy has sharply deteriorated in the past two years. Nearly three-quarters of those polled by GlobeScan, an international polling company, disapprove of U.S. policies toward Iraq, and nearly half said the United States is playing a mainly negative role in the world.

In his State of the Union address a year ago, Bush said that progress in Iraq meant "we should be able to further decrease our troop levels" but that "those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C." Bush now proposes to increase troop levels, after having overruled the concerns of commanders. In his speech last night, he sidestepped this contradiction, saying that "our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options" and "in the end, I chose this course of action."

On domestic policy, Bush at one point said that "the recovery" has added more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. But the net number of jobs created since Bush became president in January 2001, is much lower -- just 3.6 million. The Bush administration's performance is fairly mediocre for the sixth year of a presidency, according to historical statistics maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nearly 18 million jobs were added by the sixth year of Bill Clinton's presidency -- and nearly 10 million were added at this point in Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Bush claimed credit for cutting the budget deficit ahead of schedule and proposed to eliminate it over the next five years. He did not mention that he inherited a huge budget surplus -- $236 billion in 2000 -- compared with a $296 billion deficit in the 2006 fiscal year, largely as a result of Bush's tax cuts and spending increases. Bush claimed that the No Child Left Behind Act has helped students to "perform better at reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap." But states made stronger average annual gains in reading during the decade before the law took effect, education researchers have found, and half a dozen recent studies have shown little progress in narrowing the test-score gap between minority and white students.

Staff writer Amit R. Paley contributed to this report.

If you argue that there was no surplus in 2000, you must hold Mr. Bush to the same standard...by comparing the increase in the amount of the federal treasury debt YOY. The increase was just about eliminated in 2000, and under Mr. Bush, off-budget appropriations for the "wars", arguably budgetable in large measure, 3 years after the invasion of Iraq, were not included, enabling Mr. Bush to tout a false impression that the increasing debt has been mitigated. Fiscally, this is a failed presidency, judging from the debt trend reversal:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012301075.html
President Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address

.....Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget.

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: We can do so without raising taxes.

(APPLAUSE)

What we need is spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.......

Quote:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
09/28/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 (Total debt increased just $18 billn)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,633.43

01/23/2007 $8,681,645,622,941.55 (4 month debt increase= $164 billn)
09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 (Total debt increased just $574 billn)
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 (Total debt increased just $553 billn)
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/wo...gewanted=print
January 24, 2007
Iraq Parliament Finds a Quorum Hard to Come By
By DAMIEN CAVE

BAGHDAD, Jan. 23 — Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, read a roll call of the 275 elected members with a goal of shaming the no-shows.

Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister? Absent, living in Amman and London. Adnan Pachachi, the octogenarian statesman? Also gone, in Abu Dhabi.

Others who failed to appear Monday included Saleh Mutlak, a senior Sunni legislator; several Shiites and Kurds; and Ayad al-Samaraei, chairman of the finance committee, whose absence led Mr. Mashhadani to ask: “When will he be back? After we approve the budget?”

It was a joke barbed with outrage. Parliament in recent months has been at a standstill. Nearly every session since November has been adjourned because as few as 65 members made it to work, even as they and the absentees earned salaries and benefits worth about $120,000.

Part of the problem is security, but Iraqi officials also said they feared that members were losing confidence in the institution and in the country’s fragile democracy. As chaos has deepened, Parliament’s relevance has gradually receded.

Deals on important legislation, most recently the oil law, now take place largely out of public view, with Parliament — when it meets — rubber-stamping the final decisions. As a result, officials said, vital legislation involving the budget, provincial elections and amendments to the Constitution remain trapped in a legislative process that processes nearly nothing. American officials long hoped that Parliament could help foster dialogue between Iraq’s increasingly fractured ethnic and religious groups, but that has not happened, either.

Goaded by American leaders, frustrated and desperate to prove that Iraq can govern itself, senior Iraqi officials have clearly had enough. Mr. Mashhadani said Parliament would soon start fining members $400 for every missed session and replace the absentees if they fail to attend a minimum amount of the time.

Some of Iraq’s more seasoned leaders say attendance has been undermined by a widening sense of disillusionment about Parliament’s ability to improve Iraqis’ daily life. The country’s dominant issue, security, is almost exclusively the policy realm of the American military and the office of the prime minister.

Every bombing like the one on Monday, which killed 88 people at a downtown market, suggests to some that Parliament’s laws are irrelevant in the face of sprawling chaos and the government’s inability to stop it.

“People are totally disenchanted,” Mr. Pachachi said in a telephone interview from Abu Dhabi. “There has been no improvement in the security situation. The government seems to be incapable of doing anything despite all the promises.”

Though the Constitution grants Iraq’s only elected body wide powers to pass laws and investigate, sectarian divisions and the need for a twothirds majority in some cases have often led to deadlock. Sunni and Shiite power brokers have blocked efforts to scrutinize violence connected to their own sects.

“Parliament is the heart of the political process,” Mr. Mashhadani said in an interview at his office, offering more hope than reality. “It is the center of everything. If the heart is not working, it all fails.”

Monday’s attendance actually surpassed the 50 percent plus one needed to pass laws. It was the first quorum in months, caused in part by the return of 30 members loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, whose end to a two-month boycott created a public relations blitz that helped attract 189 members.

But the scene in the convention center auditorium where Parliament meets only underscored the rarity of the gathering. It seemed at times like a reunion. At one point Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who is head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and a Shiite rival of Mr. Sadr, arrived late — after being marked absent. He spent the first five minutes waving and nodding at colleagues, some of whom he apparently had not seen in months.

Parliamentary officials refused to provide attendance lists for every session, fearing retribution. They said all sects and regions had members who often did not come.

Each representative earns about $10,000 a month in salary and benefits, including money for guards. Yet on Monday, members from Baghdad neighborhoods to small towns in the hinterland — Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians and Turkmen — were all on the list of no-shows that Mr. Mashhadani read aloud.

The largest group of absentees consisted of unknown figures elected as part of the party lists that governed how most people voted in the December 2005 election. Party leaders in Baghdad said they had urged their members to attend but emphasized that for many, Parliament had become a hardship post.

Representatives who travel from afar stay at the Rashid Hotel in the Green Zone, across a road, two checkpoints and several pat-downs from the 1970s-era convention center. It is not luxurious. It is barely safe. The food is mediocre.

In short, many said, the job is not what members thought they had signed up for.

“Most of them were here for the game, for prestige, for the money,” said Muhammad al-Ahmedawi, a Shiite member of the Fadhila Party. “It’s upsetting and disappointing. We want the members to come, to pursue the interests of their constituents, especially in this sensitive time.”

<h3>host comments: Bush told us that our troops were sacrificing so this arrogance and selfishness could happen? </h3>

Mr. Ahmedawi said politicians who had larger shares of power before the elections seemed to view Parliament as a demotion best ignored. Mr. Allawi, for example, who did not return calls to his London aides requesting an interview, has been rallying support in Amman and London among exiles who have fled Iraq’s violence.

Of the 25 members of his bloc, only six attended the session on Monday.

Mr. Pachachi, who is in his mid-80s, said he left Iraq a few months ago because his wife needed open-heart surgery and he did not trust that she would be well cared for in one of Baghdad’s decrepit hospitals. He said he hoped to return in a few weeks, admitting that “one has to be there — you can’t be a member of the Parliament and live abroad.”

But he said the dangers involved with being a public figure in Iraq had made it much more difficult to participate in government. He has 40 guards to protect him when he comes to Iraq, he said, and the salary from Parliament pays for only 20.

“I have protection, and unfortunately the protection is not sufficient for anyone anymore,” he said. “The level of violence has become unmanageable.”

Other Iraqi politicians take a harder line. Adnan Dulaimi, a member of the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, put it simply, “If there are some members who think there is no benefit to attending, then they should resign.”

Mr. Mashhadani seems to be shaping a slightly softer approach that mixes persuasion with punishment. Like Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, he has met repeatedly with party leaders, pushing them to ensure the attendance of their members.

During an interview in his office, lined with baroque cushioned chairs with gold trim, he also acknowledged that more money should be set aside for members’ security, but only if members show up to pass a budget.

He said the shaming of the absentees at the public session, a first, was the first step. He said the fines and threat of replacement would also help.

There is, of course, only one problem. For the proposals to be put in place, a majority of members in Parliament have to be present to pass them.

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6586404

Begins on page 12 in .pdf version:
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_g...oup_report.pdf

.......Currently, the U.S. military rarely engages in large-scale combat operations. Instead,counterinsurgency efforts focus on a strategy of “clear, hold, and build”—“clearing” areas of -insurgents and death squads, “holding” those areas with Iraqi security forces, and “building” areas with quick-impact reconstruction projects.
Nearly every U.S. Army and Marine combat unit, and several National Guard and Reserve units, have been to Iraq at least once. Many are on their second or even third rotations; rotations are typically one year for Army units, seven months for Marine units. Regular rotations, in and out of Iraq or within the country, complicate brigade and battalion efforts to get to know the
local scene, earn the trust of the population, and build a sense of cooperation.

Many military units are under significant strain. Because the harsh conditions in Iraq are wearing out equipment more quickly than anticipated, many units do not have fully functional equipment for training when they redeploy to the United States. An extraordinary amount of sacrifice has been asked of our men and women in uniform, and of their families. The American military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises around the world.

A primary mission of U.S. military strategy in Iraq is the training of competent Iraqi security forces. By the end of 2006, the Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq under American leadership is expected to have trained and equipped a target number of approximately 326,000 Iraqi security services. That figure includes 138,000 members of the Iraqi Army and 188,000 Iraqi police. Iraqis have operational control over roughly one-third of Iraqi security forces; the U.S. has operational control over most of the rest. No U.S. forces are under Iraqi command.......

--- "The Iraqi Army is making fitful progress toward becoming a reliable and disciplined fighting force loyal to the national government. By the end of 2006, the Iraqi Army is expected to comprise 118 battalions formed into 36 brigades under the command of 10 divisions. Although the army is one of the more professional Iraqi institutions, its performance has been uneven. The training numbers are impressive, but they represent only part of the story. Significant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some Iraqi units specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda. Of Iraq's 10 planned divisions, those that are even-numbered are made up of Iraqis who signed up to serve in a specific area, and they have been reluctant to redeploy to other areas of the country. As a result, elements of the Army have refused to carry out missions.

"The Iraqi Army is also confronted by several other significant challenges: Units lack leadership. They lack the ability to work together and perform at higher levels of organization the brigade and division level. Leadership training and the experience of leadership are the essential elements to improve performance. Units lack equipment. They cannot carry out their missions without adequate equipment. Congress has been generous in funding requests for U.S. troops, but it has resisted fully funding Iraqi forces. The entire appropriation for Iraqi defense forces for FY 2006, $3 billion, is less than the United States currently spends in Iraq every two weeks.

"Units lack personnel. Soldiers are on leave one week a month so that they can visit their families and take them their pay. Soldiers are paid in cash because there is no banking system. Soldiers are given leave liberally and face no penalties for absence without leave. Unit readiness rates are low, often at 50 percent or less."

--- "The state of the Iraqi police is substantially worse than that of the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Police Service currently numbers roughly 135,000 and is responsible for local policing. It has neither the training nor legal authority to conduct criminal investigations, nor the firepower to take on organized crime, insurgents, or militias. The Iraqi National Police numbers roughly 25,000 and its officers have been trained in counterinsurgency operations, not police work. The Border Enforcement Department numbers roughly 28,000. Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians. The police are organized under the Ministry of the Interior, which is confronted by corruption and militia infiltration and lacks control over police in the provinces.

--- "The Facilities Protection Service poses additional problems. Each Iraqi ministry has an armed unit, ostensibly to guard the ministry's infrastructure. All together, these units total roughly 145,000 uniformed Iraqis under arms. However, these units have questionable loyalties and capabilities. In the ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Transportation controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr, the Facilities Protection Service is a source of funding and jobs for the Mahdi Army. One senior U.S. official described the Facilities Protection Service as 'incompetent, dysfunctional, or subversive.' Several Iraqis simply referred to them as militias."....

Bush handpicked the chairman Jim Baker, a loyal family friend to chair the commission that wrote the preceding ISG report excerpts. The goal of training an Iraqi security force "to stand up", so our troops can "stand down", seems doomed due to a refusal of Iraqi counterparts to American troops to make a similar commitment to the one that American troops have consistently obeyed orders to make. The effect on our troops, on their equipment, and on the overall readiness is of grave concern.

The concept of a democratically elected government with a representative legislature seems equally shattered, at this time, and we see Mr. Bush reduced to making his featured statement of accomplishment....an intentionally misleading impression that he is reigning in the ballooning annual increase in federal debt, that his policies brought from near zero, to $574 billion annually, in just six years.

If this does not look like a failed presidency to you....tell us why it isn't. Please do not simply vote in the thread poll without posting justification.

pan6467 · 01-24-2007, 12:22 PM

Most definately it is. The people's trust in him, the world view, what he did after 9/11 when he had every chance to do something great..... but instead made up a war, drove allies away, gave those that hate us more reason to, divided us at home, had a cavalier attitude, used dirty politics, has hurt the economy, has set education back, used religious right propaganda to make laws, abused his office.............

I could go on but your articles say it much better than I could Host.

host · 01-24-2007, 12:35 PM

Thank you, pan....

Here is Cheney's new interview with Blitzer....an attempt to justify the Bush era, I think:

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002405.php
Transcript: CNN Interview with Cheney
By Paul Kiel - January 24, 2007, 2:16 PM

We've just received the transcript for Vice President Cheney's interview with Wolf Blitzer this morning. It's posted in full below the fold.

Q And joining us now, the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. Mr. Vice President, thanks very much for doing this.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's good to see you again, Wolf.

Q We heard the President mention Osama bin Laden last night in his State of the Union address. Why can't you find this guy?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously, he's well hidden. We've been looking for him for some time. I think the fact is he's gone totally to ground. He doesn't communicate, except, perhaps, by courier. He's not up on the air. He's not putting out videos, the way he did oftentimes in the past.

Q His number two, Ayman al Zawahiri is --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Zawahiri is much, much more visible. Yes.

Q I mean, he's on television almost as much as I am.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know if anybody is on as much as you are, Wolf -- but he's more of a public figure than Osama is. If you've ever been in that part of the world, it is some of the most rugged territory imaginable. I've flown over it, been on the ground in Afghanistan, Pakistan, up along the Khyber Pass and so forth. And that general area is a remarkably difficult area to get people into -- parts of it have never really been controlled by anybody.

Q Is bin Laden still alive?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think so.
Q And do you think he's in Pakistan, Afghanistan, on the border someplace?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to be that precise.

Q Because this is so frustrating to so many people, more than five years after 9/11 -- not only that bin Laden is out there, but that his deputy pops up every now and then on television and makes these threats.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, but look what we have done. We have not gotten Osama bin Laden, obviously, because he's very careful and, say, he doesn't communicate and he's not sort of in direct contact on a regular basis. But we've taken out several times that whole layer of leadership underneath Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri. One of the most dangerous jobs in the world is to be number three in the al Qaeda organization, because a lot of them are now dead or in custody. So we've done a lot of damage to that senior leadership, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and many others, as well, too.

Q The criticism is that you took your eye off the ball by going into Iraq and, in effect, reducing the focus of attention on al Qaeda and bin Laden.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's just not true. I've heard that charge; it's simply not true, Wolf. The fact of the matter is we can do more than one thing at a time, and we have. And we've been very successful with going after al Qaeda. They're still out there, they're still a formidable force, but they're not nearly as formidable as they once were in terms of numbers and so forth. We have successfully defended the country for over five years against any further attacks.

They've tried, we know, repeatedly -- the President talked about it last night in his speech -- we know they tried last summer to capture airliners coming out of the U.K. and to blow them up over the United States or over the Atlantic. There have been numerous attacks that have been disrupted. It's been a remarkable performance by the U.S. military, by our intelligence services and everything else.

If you had asked shortly after 9/11 what the odds were that we could go better than five years without another attack on the homeland, I don't think anybody would have been willing to take that bet. The fact is, we've been enormously successful in that regard. We still, obviously, want to get Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri, but we've had great success against al Qaeda.

Q Here's what the President said last night:

"We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country and, in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario."

He was talking about the consequences of failure in Iraq. How much responsibility do you have, though -- do you and the administration for this potential scenario?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, this is a argument that there wouldn't be any problem if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Now --

Q Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran --

Q But he was being contained as we all know --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He was not being contained. He was not being contained, Wolf.

Q -- by the no-fly zones in the north and the south.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, the entire sanctions regime had been undermined by Saddam Hussein. He had --

Q But he didn't have stockpiles of weapons of --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- corrupted the entire effort to try to keep him contained. He was bribing senior officials of other governments. The oil-for-food program had been totally undermined, and he had, in fact, produced and used weapons of mass destruction previously, and he retained the capability to produce that kind of stuff in the future.

Q But that was in the '80s.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You can go back and argue the whole thing all over again, Wolf, but what we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do; the world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq, there's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government, Saddam has been brought to justice and executed, his sons are dead, his government is gone and the world is better off for it.

Now, you can argue about that all you want, but that's history, that's what we did. And you and I can have this debate -- we've had it before -- but the fact of the matter is, in terms of threats to the United States from al Qaeda, for example, attacks on the United States, they didn't need an excuse. We weren't in Iraq when they hit us on 9/11.

Q But the current situation there is --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: But the fact of the matter was -- the fact of the matter was that al Qaeda was out to kill Americans before we ever went into Iraq.

Q The current situation there is very unstable.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It is.

Q The President himself speaks about a nightmare scenario right now. He was contained, as you repeatedly said throughout the '90s, after the first Gulf War, in a box, Saddam Hussein.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he was after the first Gulf War -- had managed -- he kicked out all the inspectors. He was providing payments to the families of suicide bombers. He was a safe haven for terror, was one of the prime state sponsors of terror, as designated by our State Department, for a long time. He'd started two wars. He had violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions. If he were still there today, we'd have a terrible situation. Today, instead --

Q But there is a terrible situation.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, there is not. There is not. There's problems, ongoing problems, but we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been there for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off. They have got a democratically written constitution, first ever in that part of the world. They've had three national elections. So there's been a lot of success.

Q How worried are you --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We still have more work to do to get a handle on the security situation, but the President has put a plan in place to do that.

Q How worried are you of this nightmare scenario, that the U.S. is building up this Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with an enormous amount of military equipment, sophisticated training, and then in the end, they're going to turn against the United States?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, that's not going to happen. The problem that you've got --

Q Very -- very -- warming up to Iran and Syria right now.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is, we've made major progress, we've still got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of provinces in Iraq that are relatively quiet. There's more and more authority transferred to the Iraqis all the time.

But the biggest problem we face right now is the danger that the United States will validate the terrorist strategy, that, in fact, what will happen here with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq, with the pressures from some quarters to get out of Iraq, if we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task --

Q Here's the Nouri al Maliki --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- that we don't have the stomach for the fight.

Q Here's the problem.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's the biggest threat right now.

Q Here's the problem that I see, and tell me if I'm wrong -- that he seems to be more interested right now, the Prime Minister of Iraq, in establishing good relations with Iran and Syria than he is with moderate Arab governments, whether in Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I just think you're wrong, Wolf. He's been working with all of them. They're all in the neighborhood. He's got to develop relationships with all of them, and he is.

Q Because he's a Shia, and these moderate Arab governments are Sunni.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He's also an Iraqi. He's not a Persian. There's a big difference between the Persians and the Arabs, although they're both Shia. You can't just make the simple statement that he's Shia, therefore he's the enemy. The majority of the population in Iraq is Shia. And for the first time, we've had elections, and majority rule will prevail there. But the notion that somehow the effort hasn't been worth it, or that we shouldn't go ahead and complete the task, is just dead wrong.

Q Here's what Jim Webb, senator from Virginia, said in his Democratic response last night. He said:

"The President took us into the war recklessly. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed."

And it's not just Jim Webb, it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House, are now seriously questioning your credibility because of the blunders, of the failures. All right, Gordon Smith --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash. Remember --

Q What, that there were no blunders? The President himself says there were blunders --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Remember, remember me -- remember with me what happened in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s supporting the effort against the Soviets. The Mujahideen prevailed, everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power, they created a safe haven for al Qaeda, training camps were established where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan, because we walked away and ignored it, we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa, and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

Now you might have been able to do that before 9/11. But after 9/11, we learned that we have a vested interest in what happens on the ground in the Middle East. Now, if you are going to walk away from Iraq today and say, well, gee, it's too tough, we can't complete the task, we just are going to quit, you'll create exactly that same kind of situation again.

Now, the critics have not suggested a policy. They haven't put anything in place. All they want to do, all they've recommended is to redeploy or to withdraw our forces. The fact is, we can complete the task in Iraq. We're going to do it. We've got Petraeus -- General Petraeus taking over. It is a good strategy. It will work. But we have to have the stomach to finish the task.

Q What if the Senate passes a resolution saying, this is not a good idea. Will that stop you?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by Joe Lieberman, among others, in his testimony, about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, but we don't agree with the mission you've been given.

Q So you're moving forward no matter what the consequences?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: We are moving forward. We are moving forward. The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding. But in terms of this effort, the President has made his decision. We've consulted extensively with them. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done. I think General Petraeus can do it. I think our troops can do it. And I think it's far too soon for the talking heads on television to conclude that it's impossible to do, it's not going to work, it can't possibly succeed.

Q What was the biggest mistake you made?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Oh, I think in terms of mistakes, I think we underestimated the extent to which 30 years of Saddam's rule had really hammered the population, especially the Shia population, into submissiveness. It was very hard for them to stand up and take responsibility in part because anybody who had done that in the past had had their heads chopped off.

Q Do you trust Nouri al Maliki?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I do. At this point, I don't have any reason not to trust him.

Q Is he going to go after Muqtada al Sadr, this anti-American --

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think --

Q -- Shiite cleric who controls the Mahdi army?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think he has demonstrated -- I think he has demonstrated a willingness to take on any elements that violate the law.

Q Do you want him to arrest Muqtada al Sadr?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: He has been -- he has been active just in recent weeks in going after the Mahdi army. There have been some 600 of them arrested within the last couple of days.

Q Should he be arrested, Muqtada al Sadr?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: That's a decision that's got to be made --

Q Because as you know, the first U.S. general there, Ricardo Sanchez, said, this guy killed Americans, he has blood on his hands, he was wanted, basically, dead or alive. Whatever happened to that?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Wolf, you've got to let Nouri al Maliki deal with the situation as he sees fit. And I think he will.

Q Do you think he's going to go after the Mahdi army?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think he will go after all of those elements in Iraq that are violating the law, that are contributing to sectarian violence. They're criminal elements, they're Baathist former regime elements. All of them have to be the target of the effort. He'll have a lot of help, because he'll have 160,000 U.S. forces there to work alongside the Iraqis to get the job done.

Q Here's the problem that you have -- the administration -- credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the last throes, the comment you made a year-and-a-half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats, and a lot of Republicans now are saying they don't believe you anymore?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, Wolf, if the history books were written by people who have -- are so eager to write off this effort, to declare it a failure, including many of our friends in the media, the situation obviously would have been over a long time ago. Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes. It is hard. It is difficult. It's one of the toughest things any President has to do. It's easy to stick your finger in the air and figure out which way the winds are blowing and then try to get in front of the herd. This President doesn't work that way. He also -- be very clear in terms of providing leadership going forward for what we need to do in Iraq.

Now, fact is, this is a vitally important piece of business. It needs to be done. The consequences of our not completing the task are enormous. Just think for a minute -- and think for a minute, Wolf, in terms of what policy is being suggested here. What you're recommending, or at least what you seem to believe the right course is, is to bail out --

Q I'm just asking questions.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: No, you're not asking questions.

Q Yes, I am. I'm just asking --

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Implicit -- implicit -- implicit in the critics --

Q -- your critics are --

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Implicit in what the critics are suggesting, I think, is an obligation to say, well, here's what we need to do, or we're not going to do anything else. We're going to accept defeat. Defeat is not an answer. We can, in fact, prevail here, and we need to prevail. And the consequences of not doing so are enormous.

Q You've said that Iran as a nuclear power is unacceptable.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q Are you ready to go to war to stop that --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Come on now, Wolf. You know I'm not going to speculate on something like that.

Q Well, how are you going to stop that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, we've got a policy in place that's I think producing results. We've gone to the United Nations. We've got a unanimous agreement to a sanctions resolution that's now in place with respect to the Iranian uranium program, and we're continuing to work the problem. We want -- we want to solve the problem diplomatically. We'll do everything we can to achieve that. But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table. Now, no administration in their right mind is going to answer the question you just asked.

Q Because you've heard Senator Biden, Senator Rockefeller say they think you need more congressional authorization if you're going to take any military steps against Iran. Do you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to speculate on military steps, Wolf. You can ask that question all day long.

Q All right, there's a lot of good questions -- let's move on to some other domestic issues. The whole notion of your long-time aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- he's in the papers, his lawyer now suggesting on opening day of the trial that he was basically set up by people in the White House to protect Karl Rove, the President's political aide. What do you make of this?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Now, Wolf, you knew when we set up the interview you can ask all the questions you want, I'm going to be a witness in that trial within a matter of weeks, I'm not going to discuss it. I haven't discussed with anybody in the press yet, I'm not going to discuss it with you today.

Q Are you -- but you've --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, you've got my answer. You've got my answer.

Q Have you contributed to his legal defense fund?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am a strong friend and supporter of Scooter's. I have not contributed to the legal defense fund. I think he's an extraordinarily talented and capable individual.

Q Let's talk about illegal immigration right now because a lot of your conservative Republican base, they're upset at the President and at you for supporting a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants right now. What do you say to them who are worried that you're going to team up with a lot of Democrats and moderate Republicans and pass this legislation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we think we need immigration legislation passed, that it would be irresponsible for us not to try to deal with that problem. It's a serious problem. It's very important from the standpoint of the millions of illegals who are already here, from those segments of our economy that depend upon them. But it's also important that we have secure borders and that we have control over our borders. And we've done a lot already to move in that direction. We've doubled or tripled the size of the Border Patrol force in the budget. We've got border security measures adopted in the last Congress. What we need now is a temporary guest worker program, a comprehensive solution that will regulate that flow. I think we can do it. I believe that, in fact, there's sufficient support on both sides of the aisle, and I think we'll get legislation passed.

Q Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I don't.

Q Why?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.

Q Do you think she will be President then?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't.

Q Who do you think will be?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to speculate.

Q It won’t be you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It won't be me.

Q John McCain.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to speculate.

Q Been rather critical of you -- John McCain -- lately?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, John is a good man. He and I have known each other a long time, and we agree on many things and disagree on others.

Q He said the other day, he said, the President listened too much to the Vice President. Of course, the President bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and most of all the Secretary of Defense. That was John McCain.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So.

Q Want to react?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I just disagree with him.

Q He said, about the former Defense Secretary, "Rumsfeld will go down in history along with McNamara as one of the worst Secretaries of Defense" --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I just fundamentally disagree. You heard my speech when Don retired. I think he's done a superb job.

Q We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter Mary, she's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby. You're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting, for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family:

"Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father, doesn't mean it's best for the child."

Do you want to respond to that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I don't.

Q She's obviously a good daughter --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf, and obviously think the world of both of my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

Q I think all of us appreciate --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think you're out of -- I think you're out of line with that question.

Q -- your daughter. We like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up and it's a responsible, fair question.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective.

Q I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild. Let's wind up on a soft note. Nancy Pelosi -- what was it like sitting up there with her last night as opposed to Dennis Hastert?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I prefer Denny Hastert, obviously. I liked having a fellow Republican in the Speaker's chair. Nancy is now the Speaker of the House. We had a very pleasant evening.

Q But it's different to have a Democrat --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure, it's different to have a -- but it's the way it has been during most of my career in Congress, so I didn't find it all that surprising or startling.

Q How do you feel?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good.

Q Mr. Vice President, thank you.

pan6467 · 01-24-2007, 12:50 PM

Very good hard interview, I liked it ...... up until bringing Cheney's daughter into it. I think that was cheap, Cheney said he didn't want to talk about that and it should have been left at that.

Otherwise, I found the questions pretty interesting and Cheney open, seemingly lost in propaganda at times, and absolutely resuing to take any responsibility for anything bad.... but expects kudoes for all the good.

Extremely partisan, Cheney.... but that is to be expected, look what the good GOP soldiers in Congress allowed this Admin. to do.

scout · 01-24-2007, 02:19 PM

Respectfully, now that we have once again established all that is wrong with the Bush presidency from a Democrat's point of view, what do you propose we do to fix it? In other words, instead of rehashing the already rehashed Democrat Party talking points does anyone have any grand ideas on how to get us out of Iraq without the whole area falling into chaos, gas going to $8 or more a gallon and our whole economy collapsing because everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, are over-extended on their credit versus their earnings ratio? At some point we all have to let the bygones be bygones and move on to something new and better. So far all we have heard is what is wrong but no one knows or at least no one is offering a way to fix the alleged wrongs happening both here and abroad other than a total pullout of troops from Iraq. I offer you this, both the Democrats and Republicans are asshole deep in oil money and while we may not see the increase of troops the President wants we will have troops there "guarding the oil fields" for many decades to come. The Democrats have control of the House and Senate, roll up your sleeves and get to work, don't set around and cry about what happened in the previous years. You have approximately 18 months before the next election to make a difference, good luck and thank you for your time.

flstf · 01-24-2007, 02:31 PM

The President's approval rating seems to have fallen even below that of Congress. It is a sad state of affairs when the majority of people disapprove of almost all our elected representatives. It makes one wonder why we keep voting them into office. I wonder if it is even possible for them to get our overall approval.

I also wonder if a President or Congress should be considered a failure if the majority of people consistantly disapprove of them.

Willravel · 01-24-2007, 02:33 PM

Ideas? Sure:
1) Impeach the president and vice president.
2) Raise taxes on all non clean burning fuels and lower taxes for clean fuels and energy sources.
3) Remove all US and Coalition troops from Iraq over the next 8 months, and include extensive training for the Iraq security forces.
4) Allow Iraqi companies to be the organizations that rebuild Iraq instead of American companies, in order to recactivate the ecomony.
5) Send a formal apology to all the Iraq people who were hurt or who lost someone in the invasion and resulting civil war.
6) Suggest to the UN to offer humanitarian aid to Iraq.
7) Cry.

dogzilla · 01-24-2007, 03:25 PM

Maybe failed only in the sense that we should have done a better job of cleaning house and establishing an interim government with a stronger hand back in 2003. That failure I associate with those who thought we should not have acted in Iraq unless we were attacked first by terrorists from Iraq.

dksuddeth · 01-24-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

1) Impeach the president and vice president.

and that will accomplish what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

2) Raise taxes on all non clean burning fuels and lower taxes for clean fuels and energy sources.

looking for the fast track to a recession?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

3) Remove all US and Coalition troops from Iraq over the next 8 months, and include extensive training for the Iraq security forces.

why 8 months? what will that accomplish that another year wouldn't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

4) Allow Iraqi companies to be the organizations that rebuild Iraq instead of American companies, in order to recactivate the ecomony.

good idea

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

5) Send a formal apology to all the Iraq people who were hurt or who lost someone in the invasion and resulting civil war.

war is war and we are hardly responsible for the resulting civil war. why not blame the factions themselves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

6) Suggest to the UN to offer humanitarian aid to Iraq.

limiting the UN to only humanitarian aid would be a better idea

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

7) Cry.

j8ear · 01-24-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Most definately it is. The people's trust in him, the world view, what he did after 9/11 when he had every chance to do something great..... but instead made up a war, drove allies away, gave those that hate us more reason to, divided us at home, had a cavalier attitude, used dirty politics, has hurt the economy, has set education back, used religious right propaganda to make laws, abused his office.............

I agree Pan.

..belay my last...

-bear

Willravel · 01-24-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and that will accomplish what?

Justice, for one. If someone walks in your house every day and takes a shit on your table every morning, if you stop him, while you will not negate the past shit, you will prevent shit in the future. I don't want them shitting on my table anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

looking for the fast track to a recession?

We're already on our way. The idea is to force a transition away from fossil fuels and no longer depend on foreign energy. Self sufficient energy is one of the best ways to remain secure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

why 8 months? what will that accomplish that another year wouldn't?

It will save about a thousand soldiers' lives, at the rate we're going. I don't want them to die. I'd rather they be home actually protection our country instead of being he private army of the corporations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

good idea

Thank you. I suspect that a more stable economy over there could help to solve some of the civil unrest. Having power and water and food could very easily have a calming effect on some people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

war is war and we are hardly responsible for the resulting civil war. why not blame the factions themselves?

There is plenty of blame to go around. We are responsible. They are resonsible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

limiting the UN to only humanitarian aid would be a better idea

Isn't that what I just said?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Sorry, but in the post I was responding to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

...don't set around and cry about what happened in the previous years.

It's okay to cry, so long as you're still taking action.

dksuddeth · 01-24-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Justice, for one. If someone walks in your house every day and takes a shit on your table every morning, if you stop him, while you will not negate the past shit, you will prevent shit in the future. I don't want them shitting on my table anymore.

you wouldn't be able to impeach them both at once. So IF you were able to impeach Bush, you'd have Cheney as president until he got a new VP nominated. Then, if you impeached Cheney, the newly nominated VP would become Pres. I'm not sure about you, but I don't want someone as president who was elected via the congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We're already on our way. The idea is to force a transition away from fossil fuels and no longer depend on foreign energy. Self sufficient energy is one of the best ways to remain secure.

The part that i've bolded is where you're going to run in to constituent problems. People don't take to change easily, especially forced change. You'll end up with more resentment than anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It will save about a thousand soldiers' lives, at the rate we're going. I don't want them to die. I'd rather they be home actually protection our country instead of being he private army of the corporations.

the things I want to say would be another topic for another day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Thank you. I suspect that a more stable economy over there could help to solve some of the civil unrest. Having power and water and food could very easily have a calming effect on some people.

I think you'd end up with pretty much the same violent society you have now. The only thing that would change is the targets.

Lizra · 01-24-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It is a sad state of affairs when the majority of people disapprove of almost all our elected representatives. It makes one wonder why we keep voting them into office. I wonder if it is even possible for them to get our overall approval.

HA!

This is a good bit!

I would be very happy to have political elections not using privately paid for commercials to advertise candidates.
We all hate all the bullshit election ads and mudsling, the outrageous spin. And what a horrific waste of $$ it is!

Eliminate all the political "selling", just have a series of well monitored debates, .....mabe a dozen or so.... equal opportunity for all.....let's level the field. There is so much bullshit offered up anymore come election time, it's true....we don't really know who we are voting for.....

Willravel · 01-24-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you wouldn't be able to impeach them both at once. So IF you were able to impeach Bush, you'd have Cheney as president until he got a new VP nominated. Then, if you impeached Cheney, the newly nominated VP would become Pres. I'm not sure about you, but I don't want someone as president who was elected via the congress.

Impeaching one would automaticaly impeach the other as they have coluded on all points including being united in fooling the senate into thinking Iraq was a threat. Nancy would take over, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The part that i've bolded is where you're going to run in to constituent problems. People don't take to change easily, especially forced change. You'll end up with more resentment than anything.

Not really. If you offer people a cheaper mode of transportation, I suspect that the oil industries will be screwed. The idea is to do what is in the best interest of the US and the planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the things I want to say would be another topic for another day.

S
Okey dokey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I think you'd end up with pretty much the same violent society you have now. The only thing that would change is the targets.

So the US troops, lack of clean water, lack of electricity, lack of food and instable economy aren't sources for instability?

Seaver · 01-24-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Justice, for one. If someone walks in your house every day and takes a shit on your table every morning, if you stop him, while you will not negate the past shit, you will prevent shit in the future. I don't want them shitting on my table anymore.

Um... you have this wrong. In this analogy (I dont agree with it, but regardless) you (by means we) asked him to come and shit on our table every morning. Four years later you (again "we" as electorate) asked him to keep on doing it.

So tell me again the point?

dksuddeth · 01-24-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Impeaching one would automaticaly impeach the other as they have coluded on all points including being united in fooling the senate into thinking Iraq was a threat. Nancy would take over, no?

no. you couldn't impeach both at once, even if there was collusion. The only way Nancy could take over is if both of them were killed too close together to select replacements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Not really. If you offer people a cheaper mode of transportation, I suspect that the oil industries will be screwed. The idea is to do what is in the best interest of the US and the planet.

you're making two very large and incredibly unlikely assumptions here. 1) that people will readily accept a cheaper mode of transportation instead of their own private automobiles (and by making gas even more expensive is only going to get an electorate in the next election that promises to bring back cheap gas) and 2) that the majority of this country are interested in making a lifestyle change to protect the environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So the US troops, lack of clean water, lack of electricity, lack of food and instable economy aren't sources for instability?

I wasn't saying that they weren't, but you're talking about one of the oldest religious conflicts in the area. Do you truly think they'll stop the violence if the US troops leave the area? Or if the get clean water? or have more jobs?

Willravel · 01-24-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

no. you couldn't impeach both at once, even if there was collusion. The only way Nancy could take over is if both of them were killed too close together to select replacements.

You could impeach both at once. Does it say anything about impeaching both at once? No. I don't know why you keep insisting they can't. Yes, it would be difficult, but so is watching Bush try to speak. We get through it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you're making two very large and incredibly unlikely assumptions here. 1) that people will readily accept a cheaper mode of transportation instead of their own private automobiles (and by making gas even more expensive is only going to get an electorate in the next election that promises to bring back cheap gas) and 2) that the majority of this country are interested in making a lifestyle change to protect the environment.

1) It's not going to happen overnight. The funny thing about cars is that tehy die. It will take a few years, but slowly there will be less gas stations as the supply lessens. People will figure it out or have to drill in their back yard.
2) It doesn't have to be for the environment. People seem to still be afraid of terrorism. We could use terrorism to scare people into thinking oil is bad. Also, they are much, much cheaper to run. Tesla is coming out with a vehicle that's faster than most Ferraris, costs about 1 cent per mile, and won't need a checkup for 100k miles. This first generation is kinda expensive, but the next few cars will be $30k and have similar mileage. Are people really stupid enough to say no to 1 cent per mile? that's $3.00 to go 300 miles. Compare that to like $30-$50 they pay now and we've got a clear equasion. Can you imagine driving from San Francisco to Tahoe for $3.00 worth of power?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I wasn't saying that they weren't, but you're talking about one of the oldest religious conflicts in the area. Do you truly think they'll stop the violence if the US troops leave the area? Or if the get clean water? or have more jobs?

It's about slowing the conflict, not stopping it. We can't stop the conflict without either inundating Iraq with 2,000,000 troops or by simply nuking the country. It's obvious that can't happen, so we have to do what we know will at least help.

dksuddeth · 01-24-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You could impeach both at once. Does it say anything about impeaching both at once? No. I don't know why you keep insisting they can't. Yes, it would be difficult, but so is watching Bush try to speak. We get through it.

Please show me the constitutional law that says the POTUS and VPOTUS can be impeached at the same time.

djtestudo · 01-24-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Please show me the constitutional law that says the POTUS and VPOTUS can be impeached at the same time.

Show where it says they can't?

I don't believe either SHOULD be impeached, but let's not get into a constitutional debate about it, because all it says is:

Quote:

From HERE...
Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Theoretically, all having both impeached, and convicted and removed, would mean is the next person on the list (Speaker, I believe) would become president.

Willravel · 01-24-2007, 08:58 PM

Thanks for the info, DJ.

Paq · 01-24-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The part that i've bolded is where you're going to run in to constituent problems. People don't take to change easily, especially forced change. You'll end up with more resentment than anything.

I find it so funny you say that and others say taht, but somehow, still support the forced overthrowing of the gov't in iraq...
verrrrrrrry interesting.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-24-2007, 11:15 PM

Paq's right, the last Iraqi vote I remember Saddam had a solid vote of 10,000,000 in favor of him, to none opposition. I think we over stepped our bounds here guys.

aKula · 01-25-2007, 12:36 AM

What's with all the standing ovations? Anyone else find them annoying? Or is it just the editing that makes it seem like there are so many of them?

DJ Happy · 01-25-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Um... you have this wrong. In this analogy (I dont agree with it, but regardless) you (by means we) asked him to come and shit on our table every morning. Four years later you (again "we" as electorate) asked him to keep on doing it.

So tell me again the point?

Actually, the first time round he was asked to clean the house up but decided to shit on the table and wipe his arse on the pillow case instead.

Don't ask about the second time, I still can't believe that happened. I'd have fired the maid the first time round, bollocks to second chances.

reconmike · 01-25-2007, 05:00 AM

No Host this is what a failed president looks like....

not even close..

dc_dux · 01-25-2007, 05:44 AM

Responding to a recent (informal and unscientific) survey of historians by George Mason Univ., some of the comments compared Bush as a failed president with others:

Quote:

“I think the presidency of George W. Bush has been generally a failure and I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Ronald Reagan--because of the unconscionable military aggression and spending (especially the Iraq War), the damage done to the welfare of the poor while the corporate rich get richer, and the backwards religious fundamentalism permeating this administration. I strongly disliked and distrusted Reagan and think that George W. is even worse.”

“Actually, I think [Bush’s] presidency may exceed the disaster that was Nixon. He has systematically lied to the American public about almost every policy that his administration promotes.” Bush uses “doublespeak” to “dress up policies that condone or aid attacks by polluters and exploiters of the environment . . . with names like the ‘Forest Restoration Act’ (which encourages the cutting down of forests).”

“I would say GW is our worst president since Herbert Hoover. He is moving to bankrupt the federal government on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, and he has brought America’s reputation in the world to its lowest point in the entire history of the United States.”

“I think his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for the environment, for international relations, for health care, and for working Americans. He’s on a par with Coolidge!”

“Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice.”

“Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ‘hip pocket’ of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove’s favorite historical president (precedent?).”

“He ranks with U.S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Haliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant.”

“I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Andrew Johnson. It has been a sellout of fundamental democratic (and Republican) principles. There are many examples, but the most recent would be his successful efforts to insert provisions in spending bills which directly controvert measures voted down by both houses of Congress.”

“Buchanan can be said to have made the Civil War inevitable or to have made the war last longer by his pusillanimity or, possibly, treason.” “Buchanan allowed a war to evolve, but that war addressed a real set of national issues. Mr. Bush started a war . . . for what reason?”

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

Failure comes in all shapes and sizes and is the eyes of the beholder.

Only the passage of time will reveal the real impact of the Bush era.

filtherton · 01-25-2007, 05:47 AM

It must be a rough day, instead of brining up "slick willie" we had to go all the way back to carter.

I would have said kennedy myself, but that's only because he technically didn't live through it.

reconmike · 01-25-2007, 07:09 AM

I said Carter because he is the bench mark of failure, Interest rates, oil shortages, Iran, wages, oh my the list goes on and on.

dc_dux is your OP piece alittle biased? I guess George Mason U doesn't think there ever was a failed democratic presidency?

ratbastid · 01-25-2007, 07:23 AM

I'm not sure it follows that there even is such a thing as a "failed president". There are presidencies in which mistakes get made, and those mistakes have impacts. But I think the term "failed president" is meaninglessly political.

dc_dux · 01-25-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

I said Carter because he is the bench mark of failure, Interest rates, oil shortages, Iran, wages, oh my the list goes on and on.

dc_dux is your OP piece alittle biased? I guess George Mason U doesn't think there ever was a failed democratic presidency?

Mike... I have no idea of the political bias of the 400+ historians who responded to the GMU informal unscientific survey.

In any case, I would suggest that the concept of a "failed president" is a subjective measure likely to be influenced by personal bias or experience. Your benchmarks are no more or less valid than mine or any historian.

I wont suggest that the results of the TFP poll (currently: 73% failure, 27% success) validate the GMU survey

roachboy · 01-25-2007, 07:42 AM

hmm...carter's last book stirs up a little storm for the "to support israel means never admitting that israel does anything questionable" set...and now from conservativeland there floats the "assessment" of carter's administration repeated above...the collective psychological function of this repackaging is obvious: "dont worry lads, george w. bush is not the worst president in history: someone else is."---but you'd think it so transparent in its function and so obviously false in historically that no-one would buy it.

the bush administration is a catastrophe: for the united states as a whole, but ESPECIALLY for the american right. if the ethos of taking personal responsbility that the right used to float as a pretext for cutting social programs (for example) actually meant anything, you'd think that conservatives would have to fall on their swords at this point. accept the reality that the embodiment of much of their ideology has wrought--unmotivated by the way (as there was no real reason to invade iraq)---say something on the order of "the logic of our politics have resulted in an unmitigated disaster and we must now rethink that logic."---but instead you see stuff like "bush is not a real conservative" or "bush is not as bad as x". so much for taking personal resposibility i guess. scuttling away from danger, the conservative ideological apparatus is well into damage control mode, speaking to maybe 25% of the population, that potentially ficitional 25% that supposedly still supports this administration's policies, and trying otherwise to distance themselves from the bush administration: relativize the failure, spin the damage, create historical bogeymen, on and on ad nauseum.

but the right cannot simply jettison the neocons.
it is obvious that the bush administration represents a kind of uncomfortable reactionary coalition centered on the neocons, around which various elements were arranged to appeal to a range of social/religious conservative interests. it is also obvious that most of these elements have come to feel betrayed by the bush people because--somehow--they had thought the collage organized differently and that their particular interests were its core. so the bush administration has been pulverizing the right.
as the bush administration has inflicted enormous damage on the united states as a whole.
there is no element of its policy that is not a disaster: even their idiotic "no child left behind" charade has been a collosal failure.
here's a little assessment of the situation it now faces:

Quote:

State of the Union

Bush whacked

Leader
Thursday January 25, 2007
The Guardian

The back-slapping, the rictus smiles and the standing ovations of the State of the Union speech are integral to the annual ritual. But they could not disguise the hard truth that this was a very different report to Congress than any that George Bush had delivered before. Mr Bush went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday attempting to revive a presidency suffering ongoing collapse. He did so in the face of a buoyant new Democratic majority in Congress, the worst confidence ratings of any White House occupant since Richard Nixon on the eve of his resignation, and a surge of interest in the 2008 election that only emphasises his isolation. Unsurprisingly, Mr Bush's speech was a failure.

Much analysis of the state of American politics is skewed by the barely disguised hope that Mr Bush and his Iraq policies will get the comeuppance they deserve. So it is important to recognise that Mr Bush is not a lame duck - yet. If he can use his powers smartly he has several months - at least until the autumn - in which to achieve some of his political goals before the floods of the 2008 contest start closing over his head. But there was not much in Tuesday's speech to suggest a president who believes he has a strategy for dealing with the America that he faces in the coming two years. Mr Bush observed the right courtesies towards the new majority party and its leaders. But he was not defensive, and he was certainly not apologetic. On Iraq he talked of a fight that had to be won and a victory to which America must turn. He talked tough on the federal budget too, promising a plan to balance it next week. But he refuses to face the reality about both these crises. Most Americans think he got them into these holes and are reluctant to trust his solutions. More to the point, most members of Congress, including a lot of Republicans whose seats now look suddenly vulnerable, do not believe in them either. If Mr Bush is smart he will look elsewhere - immigration or the environment - for a bipartisan agenda.

But is he smart? And is he bothered? The circumstances of the 2007 State of the Union carried interesting echoes of the 1999 speech. In each case, a pummelled and humiliated president faced a Congressional majority that mostly hated him and a minority that was sceptical. Eight years ago, at the height of the impeachment effort, Bill Clinton fought hard and clever, making concessions where he had to, but still summoning the authority to win some Congressional battles and to mobilise the public on his side. Mr Bush could try something similar. But he gives few signs of doing so. Perhaps he will surprise us all. Perhaps there is a Bush plan B. But Mr Bush looks increasingly like a general who has run out of ideas, troops and hope.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1997923,00.html

The_Jazz · 01-25-2007, 07:59 AM

"Failure" is a word for the historians. We're too close to the events now to have a clear picture. You'll notice that all of the "failed" presidents have released the majority of the documents of their presidencies for study.

I also agree with ratbastid that presidencies can't really "fail". The union is intact and the country exists basically as it did prior to W taking office. There is no immanent threat of disolution. Sorry, but I just can't buy into the idea that any 4 year administration can be a "success" or "failure" in political terms.

aceventura3 · 01-25-2007, 08:00 AM

I voted no.

President Bush said what he was going to do before getting elected both times and did what he said he was going to do.

Since most of you seem most upset about the US going to war in Iraq, some call it an illegal war, blame Congress for giving authorization. It is crazyness that after the fact the people who voted to give Bush authorization to use military force, now say he lied and that they didn't think he would actually use military force in Iraq. Now we are at a point where there is an opportunity to present a specific alternative plan and given the public support could force Bush through the control of funding to adopt the alternative plan. But all we get in the Democratic response is remove the troops in an orderly fashion as soon as possible, but not too soon, but before it is too late with the highest urgency, but this care and caution, man but that Bush plan really, really, sucks doesn't it? Oh and we support our troops.

roachboy · 01-25-2007, 08:11 AM

the case for war was obviously false from the outset.
that it got congressional approval is obviously problematic, but congress did not originate the plan, nor did it fabricate "evidence" to support the plan, nor did it squander its personal credibility in selling the plan. the bush people did that.
the primary condition of possibility for the selling of the iraq debacle was the climate of barely controlled hysteria (of which the administration's policies were a part, that they presupposed) following 9/11/2001--a hysteria that was in many ways unforgivable in that it represented a wholesale breakdown of any semblance of internal checks on ideological propositions, a wholesale abdication of journalistic responsibility on the part of the american press. the problem of press credibility this period generated could explain some of why the press seems now to have acquired something of a critical distance from the policies of bushworld: the press has its own legitimacy problem to manage, and the bush administration is to a very significant degree the source of that.

reconmike · 01-25-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

"Failure" is a word for the historians. We're too close to the events now to have a clear picture. You'll notice that all of the "failed" presidents have released the majority of the documents of their presidencies for study.

I also agree with ratbastid that presidencies can't really "fail". The union is intact and the country exists basically as it did prior to W taking office. There is no immanent threat of disolution. Sorry, but I just can't buy into the idea that any 4 year administration can be a "success" or "failure" in political terms.

You and RB are absoultly correct, but the "in" thing to do on this board is to try and pin as much crap on Bush as is possible, it has turned into a looney left rah-rah place where someone can cut and paste anything to prove their point and the rest will post cheers and follow right along.

From personal opinion this presidency is a great success,
the value of my home has doubled, my investments and retirement savings have grown, I bought a buisness which is thriving, and I havent had anyone try and blow me up in 5 years.

The_Jazz · 01-25-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

You and RB are absoultly correct, but the "in" thing to do on this board is to try and pin as much crap on Bush as is possible, it has turned into a looney left rah-rah place where someone can cut and paste anything to prove their point and the rest will post cheers and follow right along.

From personal opinion this presidency is a great success,
the value of my home has doubled, my investments and retirement savings have grown, I bought a buisness which is thriving, and I havent had anyone try and blow me up in 5 years.

I think you missed the point. Bush may be guilty of a lot of things, and some of those things may even be grounds for impeachment, but calling his Presidency a "success" or a "failure" is something that no one here can really do. None of us can foresee how the decisions made are going to pan out. Unless you have a crystal ball that you haven't been sharing, it's impossible to tell if the "surge" (for instance) is going to have the expected impact.

Personally, I think that it's probably too early for historians be making judgements on the Clinton administration, but that's me.

dc_dux, while I'm certain that the GMU was conducted in a scientific manner, I don't see how "historians" are any better able to label this presidency a success or failure when it's still going on. Historians spend entire careers breaking down the minutia of events of a presidency to understand how it worked. That information isn't available yet, so those asked could only be working from the same information that the rest of us have. They aren't in any better position to make a judgement on this presidency than the mythical "man in the street". Also, if they asked my Russian History professors, half of those folks are going to be lucky to remember who the current president is, let alone tell you if he's doing a good job or not. Yet they're still "historians" even though both of my advisors only had minimal understandings of American history. Sorry, but you're citing something that can only be a garbage survey.

dc_dux · 01-25-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

dc_dux, while I'm certain that the GMU was conducted in a scientific manner, I don't see how "historians" are any better able to label this presidency a success or failure when it's still going on. Historians spend entire careers breaking down the minutia of events of a presidency to understand how it worked. That information isn't available yet, so those asked could only be working from the same information that the rest of us have. They aren't in any better position to make a judgement on this presidency than the mythical "man in the street". Also, if they asked my Russian History professors, half of those folks are going to be lucky to remember who the current president is, let alone tell you if he's doing a good job or not. Yet they're still "historians" even though both of my advisors only had minimal understandings of American history. Sorry, but you're citing something that can only be a garbage survey.

Jazz....If you look at my posts, you will see that I agree that the GMU survey has no more value than this TFP poll by offering comparisons to previous presidents based on biased benchmarks.

The only current, real-time measure of a president that judges success or failure at even a base level are job approval ratings/polls.....and this president's ratings reflect a national opinion that differs by a large majority from the rosy performance assessment offered by ace and mike.

The_Jazz · 01-25-2007, 09:07 AM

DC - I guess that you're agreeing that I agree with you and that the arguement that I presented is acceptable agreement. Glad that we're all on the same page here.

roachboy · 01-25-2007, 09:07 AM

i dont think that historians are a single group: they occupy a range of political positions and operate from within those political positions (with varying degrees of self-consciousness)--there are conservative historians, particularly amongst americans who do american history--and there are althusserians and herds of other folk who occupy a wide range of political positions.

i also dont think history is one thing: it is not stable, it is not reliable, it shifts and mutates continually. there is nothing reassuring about the past, and to look to accounts of the past for reassurance (as to the stability of the world, say) is a mistake. if anything, working with the derbis of the past functions to dissolve a sense of stability of the present, to relativize it, to corrode the sense of certainty.

professional historians in general develop forms of conceptual art from asemblages of textual debris. that the internal assumptions about this conceptual art tend to negate the status of the results as conceptual art changes nothing, really: well, except for one thing....the results are usually quite bad conceptual art. i think this a fine state of affairs, however, in that corroding a sense of certainty opens up space for thinking about the present as political. this, however, is a minority opinion.

at any event, i wouldn't trust a historian who decided to announce that the bush administration (or any other) was a "success" or "failure" en gros. this kind of evaluation should be left to readers.

i dont think a historians responsibility is to assign gross categories like success or failure to an administration: when they do so, they are generally simplifying their analysis, perhaps in a bid to get some tv time and by doing that some status as "public intellectual" that can be used for other purposes in the curious internal political realm within which such types of cultural capital circulate and mean something.

historians in the main look at networks of text-traces that outline situations and try to understand linkages between them. often there is an assumption that by working with these text-traces something of the complexity of "reality" can be understood--but this is naive.

these assemblages of text-traces are carved up by subdisciplines: you have diplomatic historians, you have historians of the presidency, you have americanists within history departments, you have a host of americanists tucked away in other academic departments: each would look at particular aspects of an administration's activities and each would no doubt arrive at a different assessment of that administration as a simple function of the way data is carved up and the way in which the disciplinary politics and personal politics of the historian impact upon that data (in its organization/selection as much as in its explicit conclusions)

i am a historian professionally and i really do not understand the faith in thier ex post facto judgments that folk above seem to give them. histories require critical reading in the same way as any other ideological text requires it. they *are* ideological texts. so i would expect that the politics of a historian working for aei or hoover 20 years from now would make their assessments of the bush administration as entirely predictable (and problematic) as would the politics of left trotskyite historian. the bush administration would be created in the image of the politics of the historian, and would be assessed in those terms. to be taken seriously, there would have to be a certain adherence to the conventions for handling evidence--and adherence to these conventions would function to guarantee the "reliability" of the interpretations on techincal grounds--but that would change nothing about the politics of the narrative itself. it would only indicate that the historian writing the interpretation was technically competent.

dc_dux · 01-25-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

DC - I guess that you're agreeing that I agree with you and that the arguement that I presented is acceptable agreement. Glad that we're all on the same page here.

'I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said." ~ d. rumsfeld (not to be confused with "knowing what I know")

View Poll Results: Is the Bush Presidency, a Failed Presidency?
Yes	31	77.50%
No	9	22.50%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

01-24-2007, 12:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Most definately it is. The people's trust in him, the world view, what he did after 9/11 when he had every chance to do something great..... but instead made up a war, drove allies away, gave those that hate us more reason to, divided us at home, had a cavalier attitude, used dirty politics, has hurt the economy, has set education back, used religious right propaganda to make laws, abused his office............. I could go on but your articles say it much better than I could Host. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-24-2007, 12:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Very good hard interview, I liked it ...... up until bringing Cheney's daughter into it. I think that was cheap, Cheney said he didn't want to talk about that and it should have been left at that. Otherwise, I found the questions pretty interesting and Cheney open, seemingly lost in propaganda at times, and absolutely resuing to take any responsibility for anything bad.... but expects kudoes for all the good. Extremely partisan, Cheney.... but that is to be expected, look what the good GOP soldiers in Congress allowed this Admin. to do. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 01-24-2007 at 12:52 PM..

01-24-2007, 11:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Paq's right, the last Iraqi vote I remember Saddam had a solid vote of 10,000,000 in favor of him, to none opposition. I think we over stepped our bounds here guys. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-25-2007, 12:36 AM	#23 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	What's with all the standing ovations? Anyone else find them annoying? Or is it just the editing that makes it seem like there are so many of them? __________________ "I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

01-24-2007, 02:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Respectfully, now that we have once again established all that is wrong with the Bush presidency from a Democrat's point of view, what do you propose we do to fix it? In other words, instead of rehashing the already rehashed Democrat Party talking points does anyone have any grand ideas on how to get us out of Iraq without the whole area falling into chaos, gas going to $8 or more a gallon and our whole economy collapsing because everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, are over-extended on their credit versus their earnings ratio? At some point we all have to let the bygones be bygones and move on to something new and better. So far all we have heard is what is wrong but no one knows or at least no one is offering a way to fix the alleged wrongs happening both here and abroad other than a total pullout of troops from Iraq. I offer you this, both the Democrats and Republicans are asshole deep in oil money and while we may not see the increase of troops the President wants we will have troops there "guarding the oil fields" for many decades to come. The Democrats have control of the House and Senate, roll up your sleeves and get to work, don't set around and cry about what happened in the previous years. You have approximately 18 months before the next election to make a difference, good luck and thank you for your time.

01-24-2007, 02:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	The President's approval rating seems to have fallen even below that of Congress. It is a sad state of affairs when the majority of people disapprove of almost all our elected representatives. It makes one wonder why we keep voting them into office. I wonder if it is even possible for them to get our overall approval. I also wonder if a President or Congress should be considered a failure if the majority of people consistantly disapprove of them.

01-24-2007, 02:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ideas? Sure: 1) Impeach the president and vice president. 2) Raise taxes on all non clean burning fuels and lower taxes for clean fuels and energy sources. 3) Remove all US and Coalition troops from Iraq over the next 8 months, and include extensive training for the Iraq security forces. 4) Allow Iraqi companies to be the organizations that rebuild Iraq instead of American companies, in order to recactivate the ecomony. 5) Send a formal apology to all the Iraq people who were hurt or who lost someone in the invasion and resulting civil war. 6) Suggest to the UN to offer humanitarian aid to Iraq. 7) Cry.

01-24-2007, 03:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
dogzilla Junkie Location: New York	Maybe failed only in the sense that we should have done a better job of cleaning house and establishing an interim government with a stronger hand back in 2003. That failure I associate with those who thought we should not have acted in Iraq unless we were attacked first by terrorists from Iraq.

01-24-2007, 08:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Thanks for the info, DJ.

01-25-2007, 05:00 AM	#25 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	No Host this is what a failed president looks like.... not even close.. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

01-25-2007, 05:47 AM	#27 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	It must be a rough day, instead of brining up "slick willie" we had to go all the way back to carter. I would have said kennedy myself, but that's only because he technically didn't live through it.

01-25-2007, 07:09 AM	#28 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	I said Carter because he is the bench mark of failure, Interest rates, oil shortages, Iran, wages, oh my the list goes on and on. dc_dux is your OP piece alittle biased? I guess George Mason U doesn't think there ever was a failed democratic presidency? __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

01-25-2007, 07:23 AM	#29 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm not sure it follows that there even is such a thing as a "failed president". There are presidencies in which mistakes get made, and those mistakes have impacts. But I think the term "failed president" is meaninglessly political.

01-25-2007, 07:59 AM	#32 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	"Failure" is a word for the historians. We're too close to the events now to have a clear picture. You'll notice that all of the "failed" presidents have released the majority of the documents of their presidencies for study. I also agree with ratbastid that presidencies can't really "fail". The union is intact and the country exists basically as it did prior to W taking office. There is no immanent threat of disolution. Sorry, but I just can't buy into the idea that any 4 year administration can be a "success" or "failure" in political terms. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-25-2007, 08:00 AM	#33 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I voted no. President Bush said what he was going to do before getting elected both times and did what he said he was going to do. Since most of you seem most upset about the US going to war in Iraq, some call it an illegal war, blame Congress for giving authorization. It is crazyness that after the fact the people who voted to give Bush authorization to use military force, now say he lied and that they didn't think he would actually use military force in Iraq. Now we are at a point where there is an opportunity to present a specific alternative plan and given the public support could force Bush through the control of funding to adopt the alternative plan. But all we get in the Democratic response is remove the troops in an orderly fashion as soon as possible, but not too soon, but before it is too late with the highest urgency, but this care and caution, man but that Bush plan really, really, sucks doesn't it? Oh and we support our troops. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-25-2007, 08:11 AM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the case for war was obviously false from the outset. that it got congressional approval is obviously problematic, but congress did not originate the plan, nor did it fabricate "evidence" to support the plan, nor did it squander its personal credibility in selling the plan. the bush people did that. the primary condition of possibility for the selling of the iraq debacle was the climate of barely controlled hysteria (of which the administration's policies were a part, that they presupposed) following 9/11/2001--a hysteria that was in many ways unforgivable in that it represented a wholesale breakdown of any semblance of internal checks on ideological propositions, a wholesale abdication of journalistic responsibility on the part of the american press. the problem of press credibility this period generated could explain some of why the press seems now to have acquired something of a critical distance from the policies of bushworld: the press has its own legitimacy problem to manage, and the bush administration is to a very significant degree the source of that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-25-2007, 09:07 AM	#38 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	DC - I guess that you're agreeing that I agree with you and that the arguement that I presented is acceptable agreement. Glad that we're all on the same page here. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-25-2007, 09:07 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont think that historians are a single group: they occupy a range of political positions and operate from within those political positions (with varying degrees of self-consciousness)--there are conservative historians, particularly amongst americans who do american history--and there are althusserians and herds of other folk who occupy a wide range of political positions. i also dont think history is one thing: it is not stable, it is not reliable, it shifts and mutates continually. there is nothing reassuring about the past, and to look to accounts of the past for reassurance (as to the stability of the world, say) is a mistake. if anything, working with the derbis of the past functions to dissolve a sense of stability of the present, to relativize it, to corrode the sense of certainty. professional historians in general develop forms of conceptual art from asemblages of textual debris. that the internal assumptions about this conceptual art tend to negate the status of the results as conceptual art changes nothing, really: well, except for one thing....the results are usually quite bad conceptual art. i think this a fine state of affairs, however, in that corroding a sense of certainty opens up space for thinking about the present as political. this, however, is a minority opinion. at any event, i wouldn't trust a historian who decided to announce that the bush administration (or any other) was a "success" or "failure" en gros. this kind of evaluation should be left to readers. i dont think a historians responsibility is to assign gross categories like success or failure to an administration: when they do so, they are generally simplifying their analysis, perhaps in a bid to get some tv time and by doing that some status as "public intellectual" that can be used for other purposes in the curious internal political realm within which such types of cultural capital circulate and mean something. historians in the main look at networks of text-traces that outline situations and try to understand linkages between them. often there is an assumption that by working with these text-traces something of the complexity of "reality" can be understood--but this is naive. these assemblages of text-traces are carved up by subdisciplines: you have diplomatic historians, you have historians of the presidency, you have americanists within history departments, you have a host of americanists tucked away in other academic departments: each would look at particular aspects of an administration's activities and each would no doubt arrive at a different assessment of that administration as a simple function of the way data is carved up and the way in which the disciplinary politics and personal politics of the historian impact upon that data (in its organization/selection as much as in its explicit conclusions) i am a historian professionally and i really do not understand the faith in thier ex post facto judgments that folk above seem to give them. histories require critical reading in the same way as any other ideological text requires it. they are ideological texts. so i would expect that the politics of a historian working for aei or hoover 20 years from now would make their assessments of the bush administration as entirely predictable (and problematic) as would the politics of left trotskyite historian. the bush administration would be created in the image of the politics of the historian, and would be assessed in those terms. to be taken seriously, there would have to be a certain adherence to the conventions for handling evidence--and adherence to these conventions would function to guarantee the "reliability" of the interpretations on techincal grounds--but that would change nothing about the politics of the narrative itself. it would only indicate that the historian writing the interpretation was technically competent. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite