When did you first realize a lot of it was propaganda?

Blast from the past — Geo. Bush and how he’s going to create a surplus by 2010

President Bush argued in February 2001 that his fiscal policy “returns . . . the surplus to the American taxpayers”.

In his 2001 testimony to Congress, then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan supported President Bush by offering projections of “an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion . . . in fiscal year 2010.” The National Debt would soon be retired and the Boomer’s retirements secure. Greenspan offered a projection of “an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.”

Mr Bush also said in February 2001: “After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we’re going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have.”

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/09/…

What actually happened was this: Geo. Bush inherited a national debt of 5.7 TRILLION

and left us, after two wars, massive tax cuts for the rich, money in the mail (tax “rebates”), and practically no JOB GROWTH with a debt of about 11 TRILLION.

EPIC FAIL.

BOOK IT!

With the release of President Bush’s book “Decision points” it has re-ignited a debate and questions that have been occurring for years now. Questions of integrity and honesty along with what happens behind the scene in Washington.  This of course is not the first book dealing with that period, over the years in my quest to actually understand what exactly happened and to understand what was the mindset that led this country into the actions it took, I have read many books already and they vary in the conclusions and facts.

I have been thinking whether I would want to read what he had to say?  It is a point of view in the entire subject, to help to get a grasp on the mindset.  Not sure of the honest within it and will admit that having came to conclusions before the release.  That my thoughts and conclusions would not be tainted or to have the ability to read and /or accept what would be stated within it.

But I do try to look at what is written in such books with a honest and reasonable mindset.  Over the years I have read several books, most were from the point of view that was not supportive of the administration. And a few were totally over the edge on their explanations of certain facts and realities.  Only that which I could verify as factual and truth is accepted.  The books I’ve read have ranged from totally partisan to that of totally conspiracy theory.

A point that was made in one book was truly remarkable, to charge with treason President Bush for with intent endangering the American public by calling up the National Guard.  Since many National Guard are also law enforcement officers and by calling them up it made a shortage of Police Officers on the street. This though sounding logistical is a stretch and distracting from the factual and what is truly at stake.

President Bush’s book as portrayed by both side of the opinion media has so far been just that nothing but opinion that is either supportive or condemning of him and his book. The stated facts or mindset that are in the book will be subject to fact checks. If done honestly some will be found to be delusional or an awakening as to what really happened.  I would say it will not conclude the issue by continue it.  Which is what I am suspecting is the intent, it is something that will fall into the line from a Few good men.
“You can not handle the truth!”

As to what truths there are?  It is either that Bush was not as one side saw him and he did actually perform as he should have when the reality, true and facts are known.  Or he performed as this country’s worst nightmare, that a delusional mentally ill person became the President of the United States.  An extreme ideologue who’s reality was more of his own creation not based on the reality or known facts.

I will once again say it, what he and his administrate stated was not so much a knowingly lie.  They actually believe it to be the case, it is now that after the facts are better known that it is apparent that it was not the case.

Now I will interject an example of the incident, a person hearing voices is sure it is true and a fact.
If they take a tape record and tape the voices, you will be hearing from the tape a empty sound of static.
But they will still be hearing the voices now coming from the tape.  Nothing is proven to either person hearing the tape except for confirming what they already had concluded.

I have been stating it for years now, that the final conclusion to it all is, that it will not be in the best interest of the country and its people to have a final conclusion! What would the effect be if there was a final conclusion?  A serious and honest investigation of the available facts and realities?  If that investigation concluded that the worst was the truth, it would shake the very concept of what this country is believed to be. Of what we as Americans are believed by ourselves to be.  We are not the aggressor we are the one who will stand up to the aggressors. The blow to our national soul would be devastating and could even undermine our vary Governing system.  Faith once proved as false brings the questioning of our vary existence as a people.

If the conclusion is that indeed what happened was correct, it would divide the country into a hard and firm two combating faction since one side would be affirmed in their belief that the Government is corrupted and only out for themselves.

So the answer will be that nothing will truly be answered.

President XXXX

The thread title is a reference to another blog, where Democrats and progressives are not allowed to mention the name of the President that “served” from 2001 to 2009. Frequently, we are not even allowed to mention the years between 2001 and 2009, as if those pages have been wiped from history.

History, however, has a funny way of refusing to cleanse its self of unpleasantries. These days, in particular, the flow of information is so instantaneous and pervasive that there isn’t much that flies under the radar.

They say, “history is written by the victors” (Winston Churchill) but history is now written as it happens.

In my not so humble opinion, President XXXX, will go down in history as one of the most bumbling incompetents ever. The years between 2001 and 2009 will be viewed as a disaster for America, a disaster that President Barack Obama is valiantly trying to overcome.

How did we go from the relative peace and prosperity that was handed to President XXXX by President Clinton, to the full-blown train wreck that was handed to President Obama?

Unlike some, I do not blame 9/11 on XXXX, although he could obviously have paid more attention to the terrorism issue that he was warned about by President Clinton. The initial invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent defeat of the Taliban was necessary in light of the attacks by al Qaeda. After that, the train ran off the tracks.

The list of bad, horrible, disgusting and truly idiotic decisions that were made beginning in 2002 are well known, and there is no need for me to rehash them at this point. You know them all too well.

Despite all the evidence, there are still some that say that history will vindicate President XXXX and there are even some that say that he was a great President.

Hopefully, those folks are getting the mental health treatments that they obviously so desperately need.

My thought is that President XXXX is an American tragedy.

What are your thoughts?

(I am temporarily implementing a new rule for Pop Blog. Please limit profanity to a single curse word per sentence.)

William Stephenson Clark

What to do, what to do, oh, what to do?



Since Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009, he has received a barrage of criticism from the Right regarding his priorities. Some is well-intended and some is obviously just criticism for the sake of criticizing. I have often said that if Barack Obama cured cancer tomorrow, the Republicans would condemn him for not doing it today.

Some recent commentary from the Right has got me to thinking (yes, that is fairly rare on both counts) just what should have been Barack’s priorities coming into office and, on this date, what should his priorities be moving forward?

Obviously, when President Obama took office, he had a full plate of serious issues to handle – an economy in the tank, two wars, the Bush legacy of disaster, Gay Right’s issues, Wall Street corruption and not the least of all, filling a cabinet and appointing people to positions critical to his administration.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but all of us indulge in looking at the past. Looking at the future is a bit more difficult, but I have it on good authority that all Pop Bloggers are equipped with the ability to see into the future with uncanny accuracy.

So, my fellow low-life liberals and progressives, what should he have done and what should he do now?

(Feel free to toss in some of your patented humor for good measure!)

William Stephenson Clark

The False Equivalency of the Left vs. Right Rage

In response to the unprecedented rage that has been leveled at Obama, the Right contends that the Left’s rage against George W. Bush was just as toxic.  This has to be the best example of False Equivalency I have seen for some time.  Were there an equal number of death threats against political figues during the Bush terms?  I am not recalling them.  The whole tenor of the rancor is much worse now than at any time during the Bush junta.

Sure we said Bush looks like a chimp.  The fact is:  he does!  Even though he invaded foreign lands on false premises, did we ever refer to GWB as Hitler:  we did not.  Even though Bush did everything he could to shuffle govenment resources to his corporate friends, did we say he was out to squander our country’s resources:  we didn’t.

We should have done all of the above and more.  Where else did we fail in our criticism of POTUS 43?

iggydonnelly

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITY OF A PRESIDENT

I really hated President Bill Clinton, no really I had a hatred for him. I would have believed him capable of any ill and most certainly guilty of every allegation.  That was over a decade ago.  Now he was not that bad, looking back. My perception at the time was not supported by the reality of the time.  But that seems to happen a lot more then I realized, watching a program on the History channel really brought that home.

L.B.J., whenever I thought of him during his administration, he had Vietnam hanging around his neck.  It was the only thing I actually associated him with: the expansion of the war and the bombing.  Perhaps it was because I was coming up on 18 years of age and would face the draft.  It could have been the nightly news of the war and it being fresh in my mind.

But there was far more going on involving Lyndon B. Johnson.  The Civil Rights bill, the Fair Housing bill and the Voting Rights bill, along with Medicare.   Years later after finally realizing all he had done, he [Johnson] was a far greater President than I would have imagined, or realized at the time.  Bad on me, for what he did far and away outweighed his association with a war he had inherited.  It took a toll on him too, as he put it, to “give the South to the Republicans ” which also meant it took a toll on the Democratic Party. But at the time I did not notice it or think about it.

FDR, foresaw the threat of the Nazis to the point he pulled a G. W. Bush or perhaps Bush pulled an FDR. Roosevelt wanted the American Nazis and those expressing either sympathies or anti war ideologies to be wire-tapped. This was at a time when we were not at war and did not look to be going to war against the Nazis.  The Supreme Court refused to allow FDR’s wiretap,  so FDR simply told his A.G. to go ahead and order the wire-tapping on the authority of the Office of the President.

Who does not think of FDR as a great President or knew at the time he willfully violated the orders of the Supreme Court and the Constitution? As it turned out, he was right in his suspicion of the Nazis and otherwise was justified in his actions. But still it is alarming to find out he did not hold up to the law.

As of yet I am not so willing to give G.W. Bush the benefit of the doubt as to his presidency.  But it does give me pause, to wonder what will come out in ten or more years that will give far more insight then I had during his administration?

Perception and reality of a Presidency often are not the same, it would seem.

Politics Can Do Some Good

I happened to have watched the interview with David Gregory and I hate to admit it, but I  felt kinda sorry for GWB.  He sounded like a man with regrets when asked about Katrina.   But I do have to give Bush credit where it’s due – he did say that working with Bill Clinton was an honor.  He also said something about his mother calls Bill Clinton her 4th son.  Have you ever heard that before?

Lilac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/17/bush-pushes-back-against_n_426248.html

bush the lesser kept America safe??

Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the foremost preachers of radical Islam, who influenced at least three of the 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood shooter, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the underwear bomber), was once in U.S. custody, but was released, according to newly released documents.

“America’s Osama bin Laden,” has been a longtime FBI target and was detained at New York’s JFK Airport in 2002 on a felony arrest warrant but quickly released to Saudi custody, which insiders believe is a result of his high-level connections in the Saudi Arabian embassy.

Al-Awlaki has long since fled to Yemen where he continues to train new “martyrs.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/fiend_easy_escape_no4I3fUgiSmzc7WxrV2LLN#ixzz0cDwNqRBj

fnord

POTUS 43 Lied About Missing Emails.

The 43rd President of the United States according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washinton (CREW), “knowingly continued to use a broken system for preserving electronic records.”   The former White House will restore these 94 days of missing emails.

From this link:  “‘Documents produced so far show the Bush White House was lying when officials claimed no emails were ever missing,’ a CREW release said. ‘The record now proves incontrovertibly that Bush administration officials deliberately ignored the problem and, in fact, knowingly allowed it to worsen.'”

Please.  Say it isn’t so…

iggydonnelly

Bin Laden in Our Sights, But We Failed to Nab Him?

Do you suppose it is really true that if the first pictured Mullah had been on his toes, the second one might not have escaped from Afghanistan in 2001?  And further, Senator Levin contends, we might not now be fighting the war in Afghanistan if bin Laden had been captured in 2001.

Predicting the future is always a risky business, but will the number of books on the failed presidency of POTUS #43 be more than fifty by the year 2012?  Seems possible to me…  What do your divining rods say out there in the internets (you know, those bunch of tubes)?

Bush Biography Paints Unflattering Portrait of POTUS 43

“Why did I sign on to this proposal, if i don’t understand what it does?” George W. Bush is quoted by Matt Latimer in his new tell-all book, Speech-less: Tales of a White House Survivor.  Allegedly, Bush asked this question when it almost dawned on him what the bank bail out proposal was supposed to do.

Bush’s stupidity, sounds more astounding than even I had ever imagined.  See a brief review here.  Thanks to Lilac for this post idea.

iggydonnelly