Rolling Stone: Bush Worst President Ever?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Get my point. Both parties seem to not give a **** about the debt or deficit. Clinton ran a surplus, but Bush ran into 9/11.

I don't really understand why we're blaming 9/11 for a deficit that

a) Bush was well on his way to creating in August of 2001 and
b) is still growing, 5 years later.

Long story short--9/11 didn't cause the deficit. If it had, it would be at least getting better by now, instead of worse. Here's a thought--maybe the deficit had something to do with Bush giving 300 dollars to every taxpayer along with a giant tax cut the following April?

To pretend that 9/11 caused the deficit is just historical revisionism. Even if it were true, why would the problem still be getting worse? The truth is, Bush has no plan for balancing the budget, and never did--which already makes him on one easy benchmark, a far worse president than Clinton.

[sadora]

My only question with articles like this has to be timing. Why weren't articles like this one published before the last election, when it would have actually mattered?

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment the article is implying. I do think that Bush will be remembered as the most incompetent and hands down worst president in history.

Why now though? As dumb and incompetent as Bush is you can only blame the people who elected him for the state of things.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by sadora

My only question with articles like this has to be timing. Why weren't articles like this one published before the last election, when it would have actually mattered?

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment the article is implying. I do think that Bush will be remembered as the most incompetent and hands down worst president in history.

Why now though? As dumb and incompetent as Bush is you can only blame the people who elected him for the state of things.

Good point. I'm guessing you are referring to the media who bought into Bush's ra ra war and let the American public down. They went along with Bush's lies and hardly stopped to question his regime. I don't know if it was cowardice or laziness or if Bush had such control over the media that the facts never reached the surface. I complained on this board that the imbeds assigned to the Iraq war could only give a one sided view but I was generally shot down as being paranoid.The imbeds may have not been that terrible because the war was one sided but it was a reflection of the medias willingness to not function as an independent entity. The press and TV became a propoganda shill for Bush and his cronies.

edited because I can never get it right the first time.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by sadora

My only question with articles like this has to be timing. Why weren't articles like this one published before the last election, when it would have actually mattered?

Two reasons.

1) Fear... it was still considered unpatriotic to speak out against the Bush administration and no one wanted to be branded as unpatriotic. No one wanted to get into Karl Rove's black list either. Rove has this amazing ability to make people's career's disappear and no one want to cross him. Dan Rather tried to take a run at the President, on a very important issue, and got buried in a **** storm because of his failure to do the homework on the evidence dropped in his lap. No one else wanted to take on the White House after Rather was publicly castrated.

2) Corporate control... the news rooms are now run by the bottom line. It is no longer investigative journalism that is important to the networks and their news bodies, it is info-tainment that is important. Getting the truth out is not as important as garnering a market share and ratings. The news organs of the networks no longer have the ability to do the investigative journalism they once did because their budgets are so tight. Its much easier to just take the stories that are fed to you and run them in as entertaining a format as possible.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Two reasons.

1) Fear... it was still considered unpatriotic to speak out against the Bush administration and no one wanted to be branded as unpatriotic. No one wanted to get into Karl Rove's black list either. Rove has this amazing ability to make people's career's disappear and no one want to cross him. Dan Rather tried to take a run at the President, on a very important issue, and got buried in a **** storm because of his failure to do the homework on the evidence dropped in his lap. No one else wanted to take on the White House after Rather was publicly castrated.

I still find this funny. It's unpatriotic to take a run at the president, but it is patriotic to publish slanderous ads about an ex-Vietnam War Vet and medal winner?

But I agree with your post. The neo-cons did a great job of scaring the media from going after them. Everytime a bad report would come up about Bush or the war they'd waive their arms and scream "LIBERAL BIAS!!!"

[CaramonLS]

Hey Lanny, a little off topic, but why didn't Robert Novak get charged in the CIA leak scandal, after all he was the one writing the article which leaked the actual information.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Hey Lanny, a little off topic, but why didn't Robert Novak get charged in the CIA leak scandal, after all he was the one writing the article which leaked the actual information.

Ahhh, Novak. What a misinformed ######bag.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Hey Lanny, a little off topic, but why didn't Robert Novak get charged in the CIA leak scandal, after all he was the one writing the article which leaked the actual information.

Well, in this case there's no doubt Novak should have known better, but in my opinion you can't put the onus on the media to recognize which information they're being given is "classified"--for two reasons. One is that a member of the media in many cases would have no way of knowing if information is classified. Number two is that if enforcement falls on the heads of the media, that's pretty close to impinging on speech, the way I see it.

Not to defend Novak--it's pretty clear that he acted irresponsibly. But that's nothing compared to "Scooter" Libby, who allowed someone else to rot in jail for 90 days in order to protect his confidence--an incarceration that he could have ended on day 1 by coming forward. How does that guy sleep at night?

[transplant99]

Not to defend Novak--it's pretty clear that he acted irresponsibly. But that's nothing compared to "Scooter" Libby, who allowed someone else to rot in jail for 90 days in order to protect his confidence--an incarceration that he could have ended on day 1 by coming forward. How does that guy sleep at night?

Agreed.

There is only one (possibly two) people that this whole scandal should be shouldered by, and it starts with Libby.

Dude is a chump.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by sadora

My only question with articles like this has to be timing. Why weren't articles like this one published before the last election, when it would have actually mattered?

Actually, Rolling Stone (and others I'm sure) warned us about Bush in 1999:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._hat_no_cattle

George W. Bush was head cheerleader in prep school, a hard-partying frat rat and mediocre student at Yale. After skirting the draft in 1968, he failed at business three times, got bailed out by powerful friends, made a fortune at taxpayer expense and became the popular but weak governor of Texas, an evangelical Christian who preaches morality but ducks questions about his own past. And now he might be president?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by troutman

Actually, Rolling Stone (and others I'm sure) warned us about Bush in 1999:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._hat_no_cattle

George W. Bush was head cheerleader in prep school, a hard-partying frat rat and mediocre student at Yale. After skirting the draft in 1968, he failed at business three times, got bailed out by powerful friends, made a fortune at taxpayer expense and became the popular but weak governor of Texas, an evangelical Christian who preaches morality but ducks questions about his own past. And now he might be president?

Funny thing, I read that article in a dental clinic - last year! They really need new magazines.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Funny thing, I read that article in a dental clinic - last year! They really need new magazines.

Yeah--I've been there. Sitting in a doctor's office, and turning to my wife, going "what's all this Iran-Contra stuff about?"

These offices are where magazines go to die.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Hey Lanny, a little off topic, but why didn't Robert Novak get charged in the CIA leak scandal, after all he was the one writing the article which leaked the actual information.

I have no idea. What he did is classified as treason. How he got through this whole thing unscathed is beyond belief.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, in this case there's no doubt Novak should have known better, but in my opinion you can't put the onus on the media to recognize which information they're being given is "classified"--for two reasons. One is that a member of the media in many cases would have no way of knowing if information is classified. Number two is that if enforcement falls on the heads of the media, that's pretty close to impinging on speech, the way I see it.

Not to defend Novak--it's pretty clear that he acted irresponsibly. But that's nothing compared to "Scooter" Libby, who allowed someone else to rot in jail for 90 days in order to protect his confidence--an incarceration that he could have ended on day 1 by coming forward. How does that guy sleep at night?

See, I had thought that all CIA names, regardless if you were working covet OPs or not were considered to be classified material.

So even if she was a desk jockey not on assignment, it would have been considered illegal to release her name.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

See, I had thought that all CIA names, regardless if you were working covet OPs or not were considered to be classified material.

So even if she was a desk jockey not on assignment, it would have been considered illegal to release her name.

To be honest, I have no idea--I'm sure you're right. All I'm saying is that the onus should be on the person who releases the information to the media--not on members of the media themselves. Unless Novak is snooping through someone's desk, thumbing through files marked "classified," I can't see how he can be held responsible for knowing what is and isn't secret. Expecting the media to keep secrets is like a fox guarding the henhouse--it isn't, and shouldn't be in their nature.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't really understand why we're blaming 9/11 for a deficit that

a) Bush was well on his way to creating in August of 2001 and
b) is still growing, 5 years later.

Long story short--9/11 didn't cause the deficit. If it had, it would be at least getting better by now, instead of worse. Here's a thought--maybe the deficit had something to do with Bush giving 300 dollars to every taxpayer along with a giant tax cut the following April?

To pretend that 9/11 caused the deficit is just historical revisionism. Even if it were true, why would the problem still be getting worse? The truth is, Bush has no plan for balancing the budget, and never did--which already makes him on one easy benchmark, a far worse president than Clinton.

No, no. What I'm saying is, is that 9/11 didn't help the economy. I realize you can't blame the deficit on 9/11, just like you can't blame the debt competely on Bush.

Presidents have been making mistakes for the past 40 years regarding the debt. Bush has just magnified it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, no. What I'm saying is, is that 9/11 didn't help the economy. I realize you can't blame the deficit on 9/11, just like you can't blame the debt competely on Bush.

Presidents have been making mistakes for the past 40 years regarding the debt. Bush has just magnified it.

OK--fair enough. I apologize if I misunderstood.

I do still think that it might have crossed Bush's mind that "tax cuts for the rich" wasn't going to allow him to spend his way out of the hole he found himself in, though. He made the "tax cuts" promise during a time of prosperity, when it probably seemed logical to most people. He MADE the tax cuts during a recession, which was a massive blunder.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

OK--fair enough. I apologize if I misunderstood.

I do still think that it might have crossed Bush's mind that "tax cuts for the rich" wasn't going to allow him to spend his way out of the hole he found himself in, though. He made the "tax cuts" promise during a time of prosperity, when it probably seemed logical to most people. He MADE the tax cuts during a recession, which was a massive blunder.

But you have to admit the US economy is chugging along pretty good, dispite everything that is happening.

I will say though, outside of maybe the tax cuts, Bush has done jack to even show that he wants to start cleaning up the debt. Nothing. For that I will blame him.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

ok seriously people, Geroge W. Bush the worst president ever?!?!? I don't think so, the real question we should be asking is what Colbert asks:

George W. Bush, great president, or the greatest president?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you have to admit the US economy is chugging along pretty good, dispite everything that is happening.

As I just said in the other thread, I'm no economist. And anyway, I'm not sure how directly I think POTUS is responsible for economic prosperity or recession--there are a lot of factors beyond their control.

But no, I don't really think the US economy is doing ok. The dollar is getting hammered against all the major currencies, unemployment is high, the deficit is soaring, and housing bubbles are starting to burst all over the country because of decreased demand for new homes. How much that has to do with Bush, I don't know. Probably not much; but I have a suspicion that the US economy is in some trouble.