The Bush Legacy: The Top 5 Failures

Looks like you probably covered my "top five," so I'll toss out a few more.

1. Severely fractured and divided the nation with extremist wedge issues

2. Destroyed national credibility in the eyes of the world by lying us into Iraq

3. Destroyed the nation's position of moral authority by encouraging the practice of torture against detainees

4. Violated the trust and good will of the world by illegally removing the US from previously signed international treaties

5. Shattered the image of the office of the presidency, by engaging in constant and flagrant propoganda, misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies.

Good list, Clark. I would agree that #3 is particularly important.

Both of you covered my list.

All I can add is currently, the moron who wouldn't know diplomacy if it bit him in the ass, is declaring Israel the winner over Hezbollah in that conflict. Was that really necessary? That accomplishes what? Antagonizing the Muslim world even more?

On 1,2,4 and 5 you're right on. In respect to number 3, we've not seen a major terrorist attack since 9/11. If some of our constitutional rights have to be, in the short term, compromised to preserve the safety of the citizens, I, personally, don't have an issue. If they want to wiretap my phones or check my emails, have at it. I have nothing to hide. George Bush is not going to go down as a good president. That's a fact. And as someone that cares a great deal about our environment, his policies on this issue are short sighted and draconian. Still, we have to give the devil his due. Again, in respect to number 3, we should thank his administration, not necessarily him, for the job they have done in that regard. It's all about the issues and not the man.

As we agree on 4 out of 5, we'll have to agree to disagree on number 3. :)

But as you have stated your point of view, please allow me to explain my reasoning by making three points.

First, I have seen no evidence of major accomplishments by the Bush Administration on any issue that is totally in public view. Therefore, I hesitate to ascribe to them the credit for stopping terrorist attacks by actions that are fully hidden from public view. Why should they be any more competent in secret than they are in public?

Second, I believe in the rule of law -- particularly the Bill of Rights. The libertarian in me has trouble with giving the executive branch a free pass to sidestep Constitutional guarantees it finds inconvenient -- particularly in the absence of the checks and balances afforded by Congressional oversight and judicial review.

Third, aside from the legalities, this ultimately comes down to an issue of trust. There is an old Bob Dylan line that says "to live outside the law you must be honest." I have not found George W. Bush to be a sufficiently honest man for me to trust him living outside of the rule of law. I want leadership sufficiently competent that they can protect our security without compromising our freedom.

That's how I see it but I certainly understand how others could see it differently.

"In respect to number 3, we've not seen a major terrorist attack since 9/11."

You are aware, I'm sure, that the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 has far more to do with Bush removing our military presence in Saudi Arabia than with any specific violation of civil or consitutional rights that he's rammed down our throats, right?

Aside from that FACT, what on earth gives you any reason to believe that the usurption of our rights is going to be anything close to "short term?" These people have openly stated that this will be decades...a "generational war." After decades of "free speech zones" and illegal NSA wiretapping, who will remember that we ever had any rights in the first place?

Sorry, but I heartily disagree with anyone who will so willingly surrender their rights like this. I'll load up my weapons and take my chances against Mr. Bin Laden myself, and keep my rights, thank you very much, Mr. Bush.



"Again, in respect to number 3, we should thank his administration, not necessarily him, for the job they have done in that regard. "

They've done virtually NOTHING to enhance our national security. What are you referring to here? What specific steps have they taken that have DIRECTLY led to us being made safer, and what documentation can you provide to PROVE your case? I can provide PLENTY to prove the opposite.

I'm not sure how people say this with a straight face: we've not seen a major terrorist attack since 9/11, or clear conscience.

And now my list:
1. He has divided my country
2. He has divided my world
3. He has devastated my peace
4. He has destroyed my faith in people
5. He has depressed many lives

"What specific steps have they taken that have DIRECTLY led to us being made safer, and what documentation can you provide to PROVE your case? I can provide PLENTY to prove the opposite."

---

Clark may be right, but #3 should not be a fault line issue. Tom has indicated his agreement on 80% of my list. While I disagree with him on this one issue, he needs to be listened to closely because a lot of otherwise progressive people share his view on this one. The potential fault line on this issue is the thin reed that Rove's entire fall election strategy depends. He doesn't have anything else! Rather than debate this amongst ourselves, our common focus should be on getting new leadership for the nation that can protect both are liberty and our security without unnecessary tradeoffs.

Sandy said:

"And now my list:
1. He has divided my country
2. He has divided my world
3. He has devastated my peace
4. He has destroyed my faith in people
5. He has depressed many lives"

---

Succinct and to the point! But could you tell us a little more about #4? That is a very broad and stinging indictment.

Mark said:

"Reagrding number 3:

The Bush Admin and the Republican controlled legislature have set an abysmal legal precedent that makes it too possible for and even worse leader to do even more damage if not entirely destroy our representative democracy."

---

As soon as the fall '06 elections are over, I think you will see a lot of Republicans begin to raise serious questions about these issues. As it begins to look possible that a Democratic president may succeed Bush, they will be concerned that such an "abysmal legal precedent" will give a Democratic president far more power than they are comfortable.

I'll take a stab at this -- right to the heart. Let's take a look at what Bush has done to our traditions.
1. We used to have a "no first strike" policy when it came to war, i.e. we wouldn't attack a country that didn't attack us or someone else first.
2. Congress used to pass laws, and the President would sign the law, not sign the law, or veto it. Bush signs "intent" documents in which he defines how he will interpret the law.
3. U.S. presidents used to be part of the peace process in Arab-Israeli conflicts, or at least tried to seem so. Bush now scores rounds like he's judging a boxing match.
4. We once had a tradition of respecting the considered learning of our professionals in the military, the diplomatic corps and the scientific community. That's gone.
5. The Republicans had a tradition of being against big government. Now, government is so big it listens in on domestic phone conversations, x-rays your shoes at airports, keeps certain people on life support against reasonable wishes of immediate family, kidnaps foreigners in foreign lands so they can be tortured, imprisons people without right to habeas corpus and a host of other ridiculous things.

That's a great list, Tom. By focusing on how Bush has undermined our traditions, you have demonstrated that he isn't a conservative in the traditional sense. The way he has departed from norms of goverance that have enjoyed decades of bipartisan support demonstrates that the neocon agenda is in fact radical -- not conservative.

Or in layman's term, absolutley nuts.

"Or in layman's term, absolutley nuts."

That too. :)

The sad thing is that those are supposed to be his accomplishments...

This is total fun. The leftists in the Democrat Party say the same things every election, and voters giggle at them.

Let's look at these "truths":

1. Weakening defense. The irony in this whopper is that it's just a smokescreen the Democrats use hoping that voters won't notice their desire to wave white flags at the Islamist terror crowd and encourage them by our retreat. Rather than ignore stuff like first attack on the towers, dumping an American in a wheelchair into the ocean, the attack on the USS Cole, etc., Republicans prefer to deal as though terrorists exist.
We know have US agents looking for domestic terror cells, instead of repeatedly advancing on buildings with little kids inside. The free world is now mobilized and cooperating in tracking down the terror weasels Democrats just want to "understand." Voters just look at Democrats and giggle as they count how many times we've been attacked since 9/11.

2. The soaring national debt. The funniest part of this one is that Democrats want you to think that somehow saying it means they are suddenly against spending. Is there ANYBODY who think Democrats are suddenly against spending? The media tried to add up the cost of all of Kerry's promises...nobody could. Tax cuts are causing a flood of money to come into the treasury. 5.6% growth in the economy in the first quarter just frustrates Democrats who realize their best issue can't be monetary issues. The main reason they keep saying this is because Democrats can't understand war time spending...unless of course they are doing it. Voters won't be fooled that the way to reduce spending is to vote Democrat.

3. Threatening our consitutional rights. Democrats think that if we intercept a phone call from Al-Qaeda to a phone number in the US, we should hang up. Do Democrats not realize how ridiculous they look? When challenged on this, Democrats said...well...let's just do some legislation to make sure Bush has exactly this power. Voters are laughing at the Democrats. Imagine...not intercepting the phone calls before the latest plot...and planes dropping into the ocean.

4. Fiddling while our planet warms. It was the middle of last century when the university catastrophe grant crowd told us that the result of their research was....gasp...a coming ice age. They had studied millions of years of trends. Only 25 years later all of sudden those millions and millions of years of research showed a coming catastrophic warming. As the university grants started drying up for this, they flirted with a world-ending magnetic pole catastrophe that would need retirement-sized grants for the university crowd. They even tested the waters on asteroids hitting us.
What voters are increasingly seeing is that all of the "solutions" proposed by leftist Democrats just happen to overlap with the anti-capitalist agenda. Imagine Kyoto including the dirtiest countries, but they're not capitalist enough yet. Think about it. Humanist kooks just hope Christian voters figure man is somehow in charge of the future of the earth.

5. Katrina, etc. Bush-hating has now become such a desperate reach that hurricanes are now Bush's fault. Fortunately Governor Blanco didn't need more than 24 hours to respond to Bush's offer to mobilize help. Blanco and Nagin nowadays praise Bush every time the subject of rebuilding LA comes up....but nobody would expect folks who make lists like this to even notice. Voters do, however.

Then Kent's list gets even funnier:

1. Severely fractured and divided the nation with extremist wedge issues

Fringe minorities try this mantra whenever they don't get their way. One of the "wedge" issues has been when Mass kooks legalized homosexual "marriage." The fringers peed on themselves when politicians noticed. How dare there be another opinion than allowing homosexuals to define marriage for the rest of society.
Bush builds bipartisan majorities on most issues...Education Bill, Patients Bill of Rights, Tax Cuts, Force with Iraq. Just because the fringe minority gets noisy doesn't mean that it's others who are "divisive."

2. Destroyed national credibility in the eyes of the world by lying us into Iraq.

This is one of the funniest. They never say which country won't work with us any more against terror. Voters look at this ridiculous statement and wonder if we have some Islamist kook whining. Voters also wonder if these kooks saying this stuff actually think that Iran, Syria, N Korea, Cuba, etc., were rational and loving us before Bush.

3. Destroyed the nation's position of moral authority by encouraging the practice of torture against detainees

Every Democrat will be asked this election season why they stayed silent when top Democrat Dick Durbin compared our soldiers to Pol Pot. It turned out to be baseless after Democrats flew to Gitmo and tried knowing what they were talking about. This mantra is just a cover for the Democrat hatred of our military. They tried in 2000 to exclude military ballots in Florida just because the troops were overseas at the time of the election. When that didn't work, they tried saying that no military people are capable of doing a fair trial/tribunal. (translation: we need retirement plans for the trial lawyer lobby at taxpayer expense to defend these poor dears). Then they tried saying that leftover Baathist thugs in Iraq are simply too tough for the United States military. Nowadays they figure the only choice is to "support" our troops by telling them they're only competent enough to wave white flags at Islamist terror enemies. Voters know Democrats hate our military. And they know that Democrats will tolerate letting misbehavior by a handful of soldiers tar and feather all several million in uniform. Democrats especially hate the National Guard folks.

4. Violated the trust and good will of the world by illegally removing the US from previously signed international treaties

This is so ridiculous, it won't be mentioned in any campaign commercials in this election season, or in 2008.

5. Shattered the image of the office of the presidency, by engaging in constant and flagrant propoganda, misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies.

The fun part of this one is that leftist Democrats say with a straight face that a president lying to them causes them outrage. Voters try to tell Democrats that they remember Clinton's lack of respect of the office. Democrats just sold their soul defending Clinton, so the rationalization process means that everybody has to be a liar nowadays. Reagan and both Bushes never appeared in our Oval Office without a coat and tie. Quite a contrast from the pants-optional approach of Clinton that Democrats defended.

Bottom line....if sore losing is going to keep you guys clueless on why you keep losing elections...fine by me. Just don't pretend to be surprised when early summer polls, like the last several election years, reverse to GOP wins in November once voters focus on your silly arguments.

Gary: "This is total fun."

Yes, Gary, that might be the one thing on which we can agree!

Thank you. You have clearly demonstrated why "voters" will severely repudiate Bush and the Republicans in November.

You have demonstrated why…

…George Bush has negative job approval ratings in 46 of 50 states…
…Bush even has a 34% approval rating in the south…
…19% of Bush 2004 voters intend to vote Democratic in November…
…55% of voters intend to vote Democratic in November, while only 37% intend to vote Republican.

How did you make everything so clear?

I remind you that this article is about the Bush Legacy; what accomplishments/failures our current president will leave to the future. I listed five policy areas where Bush has been a near-total failure. But you didn't provide a reasoned policy response on any of them. As the excerpts of your own words below demonstrate, in every case your response referenced the "voters," accompanied by some very tired political sloganeering.

What does this prove?

You demonstrated that Bush and his supporters don't give a damn about policy or government and what it can accomplish for the American people. You folks despise government! You don't think government can do anything positive for America. As your repeated references to "the voters" demonstrates, all you care about is winning elections because winning means power. After you get power the only thing you want to accomplish is to hold onto power. And you will engage in any kind of Rovian distortion or smear necessary to remain in power.

But your string has run out, Gary. The elections in November will show that your divisive hot-button slogans designed to incite fear in the voters don't work anymore. It's not enough to scare voters every two years; people want to see positive accomplishments between elections.

And after six years, the wreckage of the failed presidency of George W. Bush has been laid bare for all to see. Your president has no clothes. He stands before us adorned only in his numerous failures. Please cover the eyes of the children.

------

Here are your words, Gary:

1. Weakening defense. "...just a smokescreen the Democrats use hoping that voters won't notice their desire to wave white flags at the Islamist terror crowd..."

2. The soaring national debt. "Voters won't be fooled that the way to reduce spending is to vote Democrat."

3. Threatening our consitutional rights. "Voters are laughing at the Democrats. Imagine...not intercepting the phone calls before the latest plot...and planes dropping into the ocean."

4. Fiddling while our planet warms. "What voters are increasingly seeing is that all of the "solutions" proposed by leftist Democrats just happen to overlap with the anti-capitalist agenda."

5. Katrina, etc. "....but nobody would expect folks who make lists like this to even notice. Voters do, however."

As I explained....the polls early in the last several election seasons were showing that the Democrats would win. Then the last couple of months before the election happened. Generalized wishful thinking won't make voters suddenly fall in love with taxes, gay marriage and waving white flags at the terror crowd.

"Generalized wishful thinking won't make voters suddenly fall in love with taxes, gay marriage and waving white flags at the terror crowd."

-----

Gary, If falling back on that gay marriage/white flag stuff provides you comfort, please continue in your self-delusional thinking. But you will find in November that your product line of fear and division no longer sells. The stench of failure is too pervasive to sweep under that rug in the Oval Office.

Imagine if the leftist wing of the Democrat party actually had a reason for voters to vote FOR them..instead of just being against stuff.

Probably immaterial in 06, Gary. Democrats will be pushing a very positive agenda in the fall. But Bush and Congressional Republicans have created so much politically effective stuff to be against that being for something probably won't be required for victory in November.

"will be"....lol....so you figure that fairly soon Democrats will stop saying stuff the Islamist terror crowd agrees with, huh.

Two points, Gary.

First, bin Laden has been wearing a Bush button for years. Everything Bush has done in the so-called "War on Terror" has played into the hands of America's enemies. bin Laden is laughing his ass off that Bush has spent $300 billion in Iraq chasing phantom WMD while bin Laden remains free to plot further attacks.

Second, the stuff the Democrats will be saying is the same stuff that the American people overwhelming agree with: polls show voters are 15% more likely to support a candidate if that candidate opposes Bush's "stay and lose" strategy in Iraq.

So no, huh

Well, there's this budget cut he wants to pass...

I had just enough time to read your article so I can't really post my own top five, not that it would differ much.

I just wanted to let you know that this was an excellent summary, and very well written.

Historians have begun making the case for Bush as the worst president ever, so maybe we should expand to at least top 20 reasons..