George W Bush: The Last Post

What you choose to believe has nothing to do with actual facts. Believe what you want, it doesn't change the facts at all.

wow your name says it all so this is as far as I go to responding to your post

many of us never believed

We can go round and round on this.  The CIA told him it was a slam dunk.  British and French intelligence believed they were there.  My question is what happened to them?

there was "never support" in the US for signing Kyoto

There never was.  The treaty was defeated in the Senate 98-0.

health

Passed largest perscription bill in history of US.

education

Passed NCLB.  Congress chose not to fund it properly.

Hurricane Katrina

Probably should have made speech, however, it is up to local officials to ask for help.  In our system, can not intervene unless the state asks it to.  Funny how Miss. and Ala. followed this and did not have the problems.

Mason, that is true, but Sheridan argues that "it is not legitimate to say he lied his way into war, as Bush critics have to acknowledge that the WMD beliefs were nearly universally held". That's the thing. It is legitimate to argue he took us to war on a lie because Bush critics tend to believe that Bush and Powell never believed there were WMDs. We could go round and round debating the evidence, but it is not the neutral, apolitical, uncontroversial issue that Sheridan is trying to claim it is. There is a legitimate point of debate over whether he took us to war on a lie.

Wow watertown what stunning debating skills you must have where you can't even mount an argument against someone, they are just dismissed based on their political leanings. I suppose to you there is no point in political debate at all. We may as well just ask people "Are you left wing or right wing?" and then agree with them or disagree with them based on their answer.

Gore did not submit the protocol, but clearly supports it. The EPA's Climate Action Report arguably supports it. A number of polls suggest that a large number of non-politicians in America support it.

Hardly takes away the point that these areas are major failures.

Well, as many said here, belief and actual facts are not the same. You may want to believe Bush took us into a war thru lies but according to the Costitution Congress had to approve the war and ignorance as not an excuse. I would have to say if a single man was able to fool an entire Congress, then not only should our President be removed but every member of Congress who voted to Declare war should be removed as well. If we gonna blame people for thier mistakes and wrong doings, lets blame all of them.

No they do not.  The treaty was created under clinton and did nothing during his tenure.  Why is that Bush's fault?  Only a hater would see it that way.  Clearly it was CLinton's fault (or actually his failure which is our benefit).

Clearly Sheridan is being analytical in his analysis, and you still have only your burning hate.  IN 4 years, after the failure of Obama, I am sure you will still be debating it was Bush's fault.  There was no history before 2001, and apparently there will be none after 2008. 

We found them. We found bio labs, we found chemical labs... the "degraded warheads" were of a chemical agent that degrades in 2 weeks. What they had were full warheards of degraded chemicals (well duh, it took more than two weeks to find them) and a bunch of technicians and equipment used to manufacture more on demand, who testified they were trained to do so.

And the UN is also complaining that the united states is taking all the partially enriched yellow cake if found in iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake

I recall bush saying weapons of mass destruction (which includes nuclear, chemical and biological), I do not recall him saying "they got nukes". Besides which, everyone in the government voted to go to war with iraq, not just bush... all the liberals did to. And not just that, iraq ... you know what, why even bother.

I am certainly no fan of Bush but history will be much kinder to him than the current media is.  Afterall Ford was villified for pardoning Nixon when he did it, but today it is seen as an action that was necessary for the betterment of the nation.

For one thing in 10-20 years the intelligence that Bush had access to during his administration will become declassified and that will shed lot of light on his decisions.  Perhaps it will vindicate him, perhaps it will vilify him, we will have to wait to find out but that intelligence is key to whether Iraq was based on lies or on what was thought to be solid verifiable intelligence.

Katrina was certainly a major failure.  Blame the state if you want but you have to admit that there were major failures all around for Katrina.  The idea that the federal government can't act until asked in a state where communication was all but shut down is a bit ridiculous.  The news reports alone that came within hours of the hurricane passing should have been more than enough for Bush to start sending people in.

Its up to the states... you start letting the Feds do what they see fit.... its a slippery slop

Don't get me wrong, I understand that.  But when Bush, or anyone in the administration, turned on the TV after Katrina and saw the situation there they should have initiated phone calls to the state and offered help.  If they couldn't get thru they should have found a way to communicate with the state. 

That being said the state should have asked for help before the hurricane hit so that help was on the way before things got really bad.  I think there was more that could have been done by all parties involved.

well one of the problems is being fixed... that is if they stop moving it.... you know why we are switching the waves on TV? If not do a little reading up on why... this was one of the problems with katrena.

There is also the fact alot of people still didnt heed warnings. I think it got blown out of the water because it was a majority of minorities. Could have things been done difrent? who knows... it was bad.... still..... to blame bush or any party is just lame.... when in fact Gov period failed and theres no party or whatnot to blame

And this is why I really hope the Republicans continue to be successful in defeating the repeated calls to delay the dtv switch over.  They've done it once but the Dems have promised to bring the bill back up again.

Some saw it at the time as that as well.

They did.  The governor and Mayor dropped the ball.  The feds cannot do anything until the governor asks for it, and she did not, until it was too late.  After it was asked, it was a comedy of errors, but then every response can be seen that way due to just the ineptness of a monstrous government like the feds.  Foreigners do not understand that, and so like willing dupes, all they want to hear is what the willing liberals feed them.  But the fault with Katrina was the states intially, not the feds.

This is getting sillier and sillier.

The smallest "millions" is two million. Two million dead in a country of 30 million. This would have been quite noticeable.

Two million dead in six years makes about 330,000 dead per year. This makes aproximately 30,000 bodies per month, every month, in a country where most clarge cities have about 3 million inhabitants. It would have totally overwhelmed the undertaking industry. Bodies would be found everywhere.

But when I was there, the streets were clean. There were no bodies. Whatever number of deaths the war caused, they were certainly not 1000 per day. (Heck, it took Israel three weeks of reckless war crimes to reach that number. Is Bush eviler than the Zionists?)

The people of Iraq, largely aware of the fact that they are still alive, do not hate George Bush as much as your average ill-informed liberal does. (The infamous show thrower is currently trying to flee to Switzerland, fearing repercussions in a country with little sympathy for his outburst.)

I extend my invitation again to the liberals of JU: I will return to Iraq within the next three years. You can come with me and have a look. All you need is a visa (maybe), a few thousand dollars, and complete trust in the idea that everything you think you know about Iraq is wrong. I absolutely relied on the second two and I was right.

leauki, put sarcasm tags around your sarcasm, some people will take it seriously, and quote it as fact later on ("i heard the zionist war criminals killed 1000 every 3 weeks).

Show thrower?  Babs Streisand was over there?

They already say that.

And if they say and compare it to the numbers they made up for the Iraq war, Israel will look very good indeed.

oh, some people surely already do. I meant some people who weren't saying it will be inspired by your sarcasm to start.

The thing is Powell never fooled many of us from the beginning. I saw Powell's presentation to the UN and I thought he was lying then. So did everyone I've ever spoken to about it and the I recall the media informing us that people with far more clout than me also thinking the same way. This is not a view I have come to simply because Iraq was a failure, but because I was never convinced in the first place and I never had the impression that Colin Powell's heart was in it. We could go round in circles debating the reasons for other people voting with him, but I don't think we'd get anywhere. Bush was the Commander in Chief. If he'd have succeeded I'd have given him full credit, not the Congress. Same goes for failure in finding WMDs and in accompishing the original mission.

The point is these are contentious issues. Agreeing with you Dr Guy does not make Sheridan analytical. My mother knows the guy personally and "analytical" is far from the word tat occurs to mind. He regularly goes in half cocked on foreign issues that he simply hasn't read up on and now is making a living out of being right wing. YOU have usually struck me as being more intelligent than that. That said, I never agree with you. I just think you're more honest and less full of yourself.

Well, I was in Iraq and didn't get the impression that it was a failure.

As for the theories about Saddam's WMDs becoming a "lie" once they were used by Bush and Powell, that's for a liberal to explain.

Being partisan does not preclude one from being analytical.  But then being partisan can make you blind to facts, figures and truths if you automatically dismiss anything said by anyone that ever once disagreed with you.  I can agree or at least recognize an analysis, and may not agree with any or everything the writer has to offer.  But that does not invalidate the work at hand.  You on the other hand dismiss it out of hand because you dont like the man's politics.  No one is stopping you from doing so, but then you do tend to look the fool when proof shows you that in one instance, he was right (hypothetically speaking).

I am so glad you are omniscience.  I can see Bush indeed failed in his pick of Powell, and it should have been you instead since you do know it all.  Sadly, you are in a very small minority as most (with present company of the author of this blog excepted) of humanity are mere mortals taht do not know it all, and the vast majority of them do not even claim to.

Actually, being analytical results in one being partisan.

Lie is to say something you think to be false... All the intelligence agencies were sure of their existance, thus it was not a lie, it was at most a mistake (it wasn't). For powell and bush to lie they had to be privvy to information which others in congress did not have, and willfully hid it.

People seem to fixate on WMD's but fail to recall that Iraq was in violation of a few UN resolutions, any of which would justify the invasion. The US did what the UN should have done. This is why the UN has no cred. It's the League of Nation all over again, only more expensive to operate.