"A report released today shows the U.S. lost 524,000 jobs in December, bringing 2008's total job loss to 2.6 million, CNNMoney reports. Last year's steep drop in employment marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945."

Bush is sending his surrogates out there to talk about all of his accomplishments while in office.

The reality is, Bush has NO accomplishments. Seriously, I can't think of any other President in recent memory who accomplished absolutely nothing. Let's do a quick review:

Clinton - Huge budget surplus. Resolved the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo with limited loss of life. Peace Accord in Northern Ireland. Welfare reform.

Bush 41 - Gulf War. Invasion of Panama.

Reagan - End of Cold War. Economic expansion. Social Security reform.

Carter - Camp David Peace Accord

Ford - (Okay, no real accomplishments here, primarily because he wasn't in office very long and was dealt a shitty hand by Nixon).

Nixon - Opening up China.

LBJ - Medicare. Civil Rights Act.

Kennedy - Resolving Cuban Missile Crisis.

Eisenhower - Economic expansion. Resolving Korea conflict. Interstate Highway System.

Truman - Truman Doctrine. Berlin air lift.

FDR - Everything.

Hoover - Well, the Great Depression.

So basically, Bush has the worst legacy since Hoover. And, unlike Hoover, Bush also managed to start a Vietnam-type conflict on his watch while letting the country go to hell with little or no investment in basic services while running up ridiculous deficits.

I do believe Bush is the worst "modern" President (defining modern as 20th and 21st century).

At first I thought this thread was gonna be about the band Bush.

Something like, "Hey man, post here if you really like that song "MACHINE HEAD"!

"Mouth" is my favorite song. It's also the only song I can think of where I like the remix better than the original.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At first I thought this thread was gonna be about
> the band Bush.
>
> Something like, "Hey man, post here if you really
> like that song "MACHINE HEAD"!


That Bush Legacy hasn't been the same since Gavin Rossdale became Mr. Gwen Stefani.

Back to the other Bush Legacy...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The unemployment rate surged to its highest level in nearly 16 years in December as a deepening economic slump forced companies to slash payrolls by more than half a million jobs.

The Labor Department said on Friday the national unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent in December, the highest level since January 1993, beating analysts forecast for a reading of 7.0 percent. The jobless rate was 6.8 percent in November.

In December, U.S. employers cut payrolls by 524,000, somewhat less than analysts' prediction for a 550,000 reduction in jobs. Total job losses for 2008 were 2.6 million, the largest decline since a 2.75 million drop in 1945.

"This is a very dismal report. This paints a much worse picture in 2008 than we had thought. This doesn't bode well for first-quarter unemployment. This is one of most significant downward quarters for jobs in post World War history," said Lindsey Piegza, market analyst at FTN Financial in New York.

Bush's Biggest Accomplishment:


Bush visited ground zero, hugged a fireman, shouted through a bullhorn, and got the crowd to chant "USA! USA! USA!". Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush's Biggest Accomplishment:
>
>
> Bush visited ground zero, hugged a fireman,
> shouted through a bullhorn, and got the crowd to
> chant "USA! USA! USA!". Then he raised that
> American flag and rallied a nation.

So Bush thinks that he's Hulk Hogan?

It all makes sense now.

"Whatcha gonna do, when Bush America, runs wild on you, brother!"

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush's Biggest Accomplishment:
>
>
> Bush visited ground zero, hugged a fireman,
> shouted through a bullhorn, and got the crowd to
> chant "USA! USA! USA!". Then he raised that
> American flag and rallied a nation.


That's not an accomplishment. That is a photo-op.

Here is his accomplishment....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27913794

I give Gerald Ford MUCH credit for having the balls to put the Nixon fiasco behind us to the best of his ability, despite the heavy criticism he received; a Nixon trial wouldn't have done much more than provide shallow justice and a massive distraction during a very turbulent time. And the Helsinki accords were not so grandiose, but they did do some good in partly preventing any kind of armed "final conflict" during the cold war.

Generally I agree he didn't do much else due to Nixon's ruination of the job (but the Vietnam war officially ended during his term right? Does he get anything for that?)

I find the band to be much more interesting to talk about than the president.

At this point, saying "Bush sucks and fucked up our country" is a slightly less obvious statement than saying, "water is wet."

Bush is well known for being pilloried nightly on Late night with David letterman "Great Moments in Presidential speeches"

Dave is the MAN

I always liked that song Bush did, "speed kills".. it would actually cause me to race better when it would come on during "need for speed"

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At first I thought this thread was gonna be about
> the band Bush.
>
> Something like, "Hey man, post here if you really
> like that song "MACHINE HEAD"!


I love this song. Thats my number #1 JAM!

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Generally I agree he didn't do much else due to
> Nixon's ruination of the job (but the Vietnam war
> officially ended during his term right? Does he
> get anything for that?)


Helicopters pulling people off the top of the U.S. Embassy doesn't quite strike the tone of a success.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:

> Helicopters pulling people off the top of the U.S.
> Embassy doesn't quite strike the tone of a
> success.

I was careful not to use the word success... but the war did end, it was mostly a pointless war and Ford did not do anything to escalate it, thus causing it to end, even if we looked really bad while we left.

Listen, Gerald Ford literally never asked to be president. He was thrust into a thankless job and given little or no support. He was called to serve his country for the vice presidential nod, then became president because it is the law, and he followed it, and he did so with dignity. I hold him as a man who, if nothing else, did bring HONOR to the job if you put his term in context (not counting all his golfing gallery victims). America was already fucked when he got there... hard to say he truly fucked us harder. the economy would have tanked no matter who was in charge. the war in vietnam was already a disaster. For being a placeholder for a thankless job, and for that alone, I will give him credit.

I hope there is time and interest in the US Congress to pursue serious investigations into the constitutional wrong doings of members of the Bush Adm.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope there is time and interest in the US
> Congress to pursue serious investigations into the
> constitutional wrong doings of members of the Bush
> Adm.

I heartily applaud the bush administration for doing a fabulous job destroying the US economy capitalists running dog ways, Completely incompetence in the wake of allahs wrath against New Orleans and hurricane Katrina and invading the holy lands of afghanistan and Iraq as well as being instrumental in the reformation of the Spice girls and New kids on the block reunion tours! Excellent work Infidels!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope there is time and interest in the US
> Congress to pursue serious investigations into the
> constitutional wrong doings of members of the Bush
> Adm.


I think that is going to be handled by the Justice Department. I think they are going to go after the Extreme Renditions. That's why Panetta, who has had nothing at all to do with the CIA, is being made the Director. That way the Obama Justice Department won't run into potential conflicts as they pursue the cases.

Ain't happening. Much as I dislike Shrub and what he has done to this country he had clear support from the voters in 2004. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid all understand there isn't much to be gained from spending much time looking backward at a failed presidency--there will be history books for that. It's time to get to work repairing the damage.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope there is time and interest in the US
> Congress to pursue serious investigations into the
> constitutional wrong doings of members of the Bush
> Adm.

Hey, how come that douchebag Registered Voter hasn't been coming around defending Shrub and Palin and accusing me of posting using aliases?

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, how come that douchebag Registered Voter
> hasn't been coming around defending Shrub and
> Palin and accusing me of posting using aliases?


Yeah, for years I've been accused of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" for pointing out that Bush was a fuck up. Between the war, Katrina and this economic debacle, it should be apparent that his supporters were the ones with "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

+1

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope there is time and interest in the US
> Congress to pursue serious investigations into the
> constitutional wrong doings of members of the Bush
> Adm.

to take away attention from their single digit approval rating? :)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Get back to work. -Human Resources

____________________________________________
You're pro-attention seeking, not productive.

I agree...better the DoJ handle the investigations then Congress. They should start with one of their own...I forget the little bastards name...but there was a mid level manager in the DoJ who worked behind John Ashcroft's back to deal directly with the White House to give the president unlimted powers as commander in chief. The little bastard ended up getting a cushy professorship somewhere. Im gonna try and research the name of the little prick.

Here he is....he needs to be numero uno!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2009 11:45PM by Vince(1).

The Bush Legacy...

I like the one legacy they cling to with all their might...

"We haven't been attacked since 9/11"

It justifies all their secrecy, distortions of international laws and our constitution, extraordinary renditions, domestic eavesdropping, torture, indefinite improsinment, etc.

Only thing is, they forget to mention that we WERE attacked under their watch, after repeated warnings from everyone involved in National security.

In the immortal words of Condoleeza Rice:

Excellent summary Bob! People forget just how culpable these bastards are for so much of what has gone wrong in the last 8 years.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2009 08:38AM by Vince(1).

CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started
in December 2007, will last until the second half of
2009, making it the longest recession since World War II.
(The longest such recessions otherwise, the 1973–1974
and 1981–1982 recessions, both lasted 16 months. If the
current recession were to continue beyond midyear, it
would last at least 19 months.) It could also be the
deepest recession during the postwar period: By CBO’s
estimates, economic output over the next two years will
average 6.8 percent below its potential—that is, the level
of output that would be produced if the economy’s
resources were fully employed (see Figure 1). This recession,
however, may not result in the highest unemployment
rate. That rate, in CBO’s forecast, rises to 9.2 percent
by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the
end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen
near the end of the 1981–1982 recession.


This is Bush's legacy

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is Bush's legacy


You mean, this is ALSO Bush's legacy.

He set out to show up his father, and he certainly leaves office with a much longer list of "accomplishments" than HW did. Too bad they're all negatives.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent summary Bob! People forget just how
> cupable these bastards are for so much of what has
> gone wrong in the last 8 years.


everything is cupable but the question is, where will we get a cup that large?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Excellent summary Bob! People forget just how
> > cupable these bastards are for so much of what
> has
> > gone wrong in the last 8 years.
>
>
> everything is cupable but the question is, where
> will we get a cup that large?


Duly noted and editied...now that was a misspelled...not just a typo.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duly noted and editied...now that was a
> misspelled...not just a typo.

im glad you editied it. now if only people were held cupable they too would have editied their posts.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 08:23PM by Alias.

And Conservatives are such effective and intelligent leaders? Nope.

They've certainly led by example, though. Example of what NOT TO DO.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Too bad liberals tied the hands of the CIA. And,
> Bob, too bad that Clinton was such a soft dick.
> While he was busy getting blow jobs in the oval
> office (probably couldn't get it up even then) the
> bad guys were plotting away. Liberals are such
> fools.


Maybe the Republican-controlled Congress should have spent less time worrying about Bill Clinton's soft dick and more time worrying about Osama bin Laden. I seem to remember that the Republicans had a good laugh at Bill Clinton when he tried to take out Osama bin Laden's operations in Sudan and wiped out the rest of Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities with Operation Desert Fox.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Too bad liberals tied the hands of the CIA.
> And,
> > Bob, too bad that Clinton was such a soft
> dick.
> > While he was busy getting blow jobs in the oval
> > office (probably couldn't get it up even then)
> the
> > bad guys were plotting away. Liberals are
> such
> > fools.
>
>
> Maybe the Republican-controlled Congress should
> have spent less time worrying about Bill Clinton's
> soft dick and more time worrying about Osama bin
> Laden. I seem to remember that the Republicans had
> a good laugh at Bill Clinton when he tried to take
> out Osama bin Laden's operations in Sudan and
> wiped out the rest of Saddam Hussein's WMD
> capabilities with Operation Desert Fox.


Not only that..they stopped Clinton's efforts to expand the intelligence gathering capabilities of the CIA...just to keep those powers away from him. They put politics ahead of the country.

Yesterday I heard Limbaugh describing some of the details of his lunch this week with Shrub this week. Shrub had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. He instructed the server to make sure he got red jelly. He added "I don't want any purple jelly."

Is it any wonder we're in the fucking mess we're in?

I agree with him that red tastes better than purple.

Eastsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with him that red tastes better than
> purple.

Only a liberal would like the taste of purple.

A true american loves the taste of red. Anyone who doesn't is emboldening the terrorists.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Too bad liberals tied the hands of the CIA. And,
> Bob, too bad that Clinton was such a soft dick.
> While he was busy getting blow jobs in the oval
> office (probably couldn't get it up even then) the
> bad guys were plotting away. Liberals are such
> fools.

I'll agree, liberals are fools. But hard-right neoconservatives ain't much better, either. All extremes in ideology are pretty foolish.

I guess it just depends on how far back you want to walk the cat.

We can stop at Clinton, who did at one point outright ignore requests for approval on a missile strike on Bin Laden because he didn't want to interrupt his golf game. I never could figure out what the motivation on that one was, they had actionable intelligence about his location and were nearly certain of succeeding in taking him out, and Clinton just ignored the aide who asked him repeatedly for like an hour whether they could go ahead with the tomahawk strike.

We could go back to when the Saudis refused Bin Laden's offer to use his mujahideen fighters to expel Saddam's forces from Kuwait, and instead allowed "infidels" into "the land of the two holy cities" to do the job instead (I know it's silly, but that is one of Bin Laden's grudges.)

We could go even further back, to when we funded the Mujahideen with matching funds from the Saudis, channeled through the ISI, concentrating the arming, training and funding on the most extremist islamists to the detriment of more moderate groups like the northern alliance, to fight the soviets, and then just walked away and left them armed to the teeth after the soviets withdrew.

We could go back to our massive materiel support for Israel during the Yom Kippur war which prompted the Saudis to use their "Oil Bomb" on us.

Or, the Balfour agreement, or the crusades, or any other moment in history.

But the immediate blame for the failure to prevent the attacks of September 11th, 2001 goes to the people who were warned about it and did nothing to stop it at the time. Everyone else has a part in the storyline up to that point, and of course Bin Laden is the guilty party for the act itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2009 10:23PM by Bob.

I saw a 1.20.2013 bumper sticker recently. I don't get people.

mariokart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw a 1.20.2013 bumper sticker recently. I don't
> get people.

Yeah, don't they realize the world's going to end on 12/20/12?

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 08:17PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> What is a neoconservative? And, what is a
> hard-right one?

I added "hard-right" to differentiate neoconservatives from traditional conservatives, who are right of center but not on the extreme end of the continuum.

I know a lot of people like to believe that neoconservative is a "liberal myth" or "conspiracy theory", but considering people like Norman Podhoretz and Irving and William Kristol are self-described neoconservatives, people that attempt to dismiss the term neoconservative are merely trying to deny an uncomfortable realization that they've been cheerleaders for a bunch of former liberals who moved to the extreme right and hijacked american foreign policy in pursuit of "American Hegemony".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative


Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[1]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[2][3] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[4] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[5]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, and considered its founder, is Irving Kristol, (father of William Kristol, who founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century), and wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[2] Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[7][8] The term has been the subject of increasing media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.[9][10] In particular, discussion has focussed on the neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine, (see "Administration of George W. Bush," below).

...

Neoconservatives are opposed to realist (and especially neorealist) theories and policies of international relations[citation needed], often associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Though Republican and anti-communist, Nixon and Kissinger made pragmatic accommodation with dictators and sought peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control. They pursued détente with the Soviet Union, rather than rollback, and established relations with the Communist People's Republic of China. On the other hand, American neoconservatives are often held up as exemplars of idealism (often, paradoxically, called liberalism) in international relations, on account of their state-centered and ideological (as opposed to systematic and security-centered) interpretation of world politics.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 08:17PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
>
> Is neoconservative just another name for Nazi?


No. Not unless you use the term Nazi very loosely.

I suppose if you wanted to, you could find similarities. But you could find similarities between any two political ideologies if you tried hard enough.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 08:16PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you, Bob.
>
> I thought the term was just made up by the
> radical left.


Well, in a way, it was. Since the neoconservatives were former liberals who shifted right.

Plus, neoconservatives have been trying to distance themselves from the term in the past couple years since they tarnished it so badly with the mess they made in Iraq in the early days after the "liberation." They've even renamed and shuffled around a lot of their think tanks. The Project for a New American Century is all but closed down.

The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[8]

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[9]

In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[10]. On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[11][12][13][14]

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[15][4]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1] According to Tom Barry, "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed but the website is still functioning and was updated as of Feb 8, 2007.[16][17]

As quoted in Paul Reynolds' BBC News report, David Rothkopf states:

Their [The Project for the New American Century's] signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.[17]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2009 02:24AM by Bob.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2012 08:14PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Bob. Do you know how to dance?


No.

Jon Stewart described pretty accurately how Shrub always seems to miss the greater point when he admits the rare mistake. As Stewart puts it (paraphrasing):

You're like the guy whose wife walks in on him while he's boning her sister, and thinks the reason she is mad at him is because he's home from work early.

Bob,
never quote wikipedia unless it's absolutely 100% unquestionable fact. wikipedia is full of lies. think about it, do you trust people like vince to post the truth in wikipedia?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
> never quote wikipedia unless it's absolutely
> 100% unquestionable fact. wikipedia is full of
> lies. think about it, do you trust people like
> vince to post the truth in wikipedia?


Bob...and never ever stay on topic! Use Gravis as an example..and despite whatever the topic is...post only cute cartoons and pictures of animals being tortured...correct spelling (it'll make you feel smarter then you really are)...and get all excited when someone posts in the wrong section...and always question another persons sources! Never ever...state what you think on a topic!

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
> never quote wikipedia unless it's absolutely
> 100% unquestionable fact. wikipedia is full of
> lies. think about it, do you trust people like
> vince to post the truth in wikipedia?

I know what you're saying. However, the stuff about the neoconservatives is probably 95 - 98% unquestionable fact. It's all stuff I've read about in books and other sources online, but wikipedia is probably the only place where I could find all the information I wanted to reference in one concise source.

Plus, since it is such a hotly debated topic (many people still refuse to believe the neoconservatives are even a real group or ideology) that it's been hashed and rehashed on wikipedia so often that any unverifiable or dubious information has been vetted out by now.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Stewart described pretty accurately how Shrub
> always seems to miss the greater point when he
> admits the rare mistake. As Stewart puts it
> (paraphrasing):
>
> You're like the guy whose wife walks in on him
> while he's boning her sister, and thinks the
> reason she is mad at him is because he's home from
> work early.

This is sort of along those lines....

Reblikans really have perfected the art of the big lie....the latest version is the "He kept us safe" lie. On his watch...over 3,00 people died on 9/11...since then over 4,000 soldiers have been killed in Iraq and over 30,000 have been killed. But I guess they dont count in republikan eyes.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2009 06:32AM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Use Gravis as
> an example..and despite whatever the topic
> is...post only cute cartoons and pictures of
> animals being tortured...

behold the infinite torture!

> correct spelling (it'll make you feel smarter then you really are)

it's "than" not "then"


> and always question another persons sources!

so you subscribe to blind faith? it does explain a lot of what you say.


vince, you never cease to amuse me.

(^^ more torture!!! ^^)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

George Bush's legacy
The frat boy ships out
Jan 15th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Few people will mourn the departure of the 43rd president

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660

some highlights from the article...

HE LEAVES the White House as one of the least popular and most divisive presidents in American history. At home, his approval rating has been stuck in the 20s for months; abroad, George Bush has presided over the most catastrophic collapse in America’s reputation since the second world war. The American economy is in deep recession, brought on by a crisis that forced Mr Bush to preside over huge and unpopular bail-outs.

America is embroiled in two wars, one of which Mr Bush launched against the tide of world opinion. The Bush family name, once among the most illustrious in American political life, is now so tainted that Jeb, George’s younger brother, recently decided not to run for the Senate from Florida. A Bush relative describes family gatherings as “funeral wakes”.

...

Bumbling towards Baghdad
The Iraq war was a case study of what happens when politicisation is mixed with incompetence. A long-standing convention holds that politics stops at the ocean’s edge. But Mr Bush and his inner circle labelled the Democrats “Defeaticrats” whenever they were reluctant to support extending the war from Afghanistan to Iraq. They manipulated intelligence to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had close relations with al-Qaeda. This not only divided a country that had been brought together by September 11th; it also undermined popular support for what Mr Bush regarded as the central theme of his presidency, the war on terror.

Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton, remarks how unusual it is for a president to have politicised such a national catastrophe: “No other president—Lincoln in the civil war, FDR in world war two, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the cold war—faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances, failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonised the Democrats.”

...

The costs of ambition
The neoconservatives who had such influence over Mr Bush argued that unintended consequences were usually more important than the intended ones. The Bush presidency has proved them right in this, if in little else.

A president who laboured to produce Republican hegemony ended up dramatically weakening the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is now in a more powerful position than it has been at any time since the second world war. In the Senate, the Democrats have a majority of 59 seats to 41 (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats); in the House, they hold 256 seats to the Republicans’ 178. Americans who came of age during the Bush years identify with the Democrats by the largest majority recorded for any age cohort since the second world war.

A president who believed that America’s global supremacy was guaranteed by America’s unrivalled military power ended up demonstrating the limits of both. Many of America’s closest allies in Europe refused to co-operate with the Iraq war. Many of America’s rivals used America’s travails in Iraq to extend their power: Iran is more powerful than it was in 2000, and closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb; Russia and China have extended their web of alliances and strengthened their regional influence. Mr Bush’s recalibration of his policies in his second term suggests that even he recognises that America’s loss of soft power has cost it dear.

The American military machine is under intense strain. The demands of tackling the Iraq insurgency have forced America to short-change Afghanistan. Deployments have grown longer and redeployments more frequent. Recruitment standards are going down. The neoconservative dream of a muscle-bound America knocking down the “axis of evil” and planting democracies from North Korea to Iran looks, more than ever, like an overheated fantasy cooked up in a think-tank.

And this from a very conservative publication.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And this from a very conservative publication.


In the article, they admit to endorsing Bush in 2000.

And the then governor of Texas presented himself as a centrist—a new kind of “compassionate conservative”, a “uniter rather than a divider”, an advocate of a “humble” and restrained foreign policy. The Economist liked this mixture enough to endorse him in 2000.

LOL....PWNED!

Very bizarre and funny article from today's The Onion

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_dies_peacefully_in_his

Bush Dies Peacefully In His Sleep
January 20, 2009 | Issue 45•04

WASHINGTON—George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States of America, passed away painlessly in his sleep Monday night, White House sources confirmed. The 62-year-old Bush was reportedly discovered lying unresponsive in his bed by first lady Laura Bush, a gentle smile still on his lips. "It was as though he knew it was his time to go," said longtime family physician Dr. Harold Ditmas, who pronounced the president dead of natural causes at 7:24 a.m. Plans for Bush's funeral have been postponed indefinitely following an unexpected incident in which the president's corpse was sucked through an Air Force One jet engine.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very bizarre and funny article from today's The
> Onion
>
> http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_d
> ies_peacefully_in_his
>
> Bush Dies Peacefully In His Sleep
> January 20, 2009 | Issue 45•04
>
> WASHINGTON—George W. Bush, 43rd president of the
> United States of America, passed away painlessly
> in his sleep Monday night, White House sources
> confirmed. The 62-year-old Bush was reportedly
> discovered lying unresponsive in his bed by first
> lady Laura Bush, a gentle smile still on his lips.
> "It was as though he knew it was his time to go,"
> said longtime family physician Dr. Harold Ditmas,
> who pronounced the president dead of natural
> causes at 7:24 a.m. Plans for Bush's funeral have
> been postponed indefinitely following an
> unexpected incident in which the president's
> corpse was sucked through an Air Force One jet
> engine.


Sometime The Onion crosses that line from funny to dark to the inexplicable.

Read it and weep, bitches....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
>>> Sometime The Onion crosses that line from funny to dark to the inexplicable.


Over the past few months they have been running all kinds of very dark, violent stories about Bush- really fucked up stuff about him in all kinds of bizarre accidents, losing limbs, being subjected to extreme amounts of pain and illness, etc. The whole absurdity of it was sorta hilarious. I guess this last one was a fitting ending.

For example


Bush Dragged Behind Presidential Motorcade For 26 Blocks
December 4, 2008 | Issue 44•49

KANSAS CITY, MO—President Bush sustained serious head injuries, massive internal bleeding, and a broken left leg Monday morning after being accidentally dragged behind the presidential motorcade for a period of 15 minutes. According to Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, Bush's necktie became caught in the trunk of the motorcade's second vehicle at 4:13 p.m., shortly before the driver accelerated. The president was dragged down 175th Street for 26 blocks and through four stoplights, leaving a trail of blood more than a mile long. Upon hearing shouts emanating from behind his vehicle, the driver abruptly applied the brakes, causing the third car in the motorcade to run over the president's left leg at a speed of approximately 25 miles per hour. President Bush is resting comfortably in Bethesda Naval Hospital.


It's just been fucked up like this for the past few months...

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read it and weep, bitches....
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the only part that makes me weep is the fact that the front page is 504KB! i could have save 300KB with code alone because the site is absurdly complex and bloated.

oh... there is also some nice change for the updated site.,, they are spying on you in plain sight. ;)

Quote
webtrends.js
// WebTrends SmartSource Data Collector Tag
// Version: 8.6.0
// Tag Builder Version: 2.1.0
// Created: 1/6/2009 22:54:04

the site seems to be built around jquery and it includes the css for altering the page: (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/includes/eop/admin.css)

this page is insulting. they obviously didnt have a programmer optimize anything and i can only hope no security holes have been left open... but there is a good chance there have been considering the amateur nature of the site.


whitehouse.gov's code makes fairfaxcounty.gov look like a work of art.

whitehouse.gov is pathetic.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the only part that makes me weep is the fact that
> the front page is 504KB! i could have save 300KB
> with code alone because the site is absurdly
> complex and bloated.
>
> oh... there is also some nice change for the
> updated site.,, they are spying on you in plain
> sight. ;)
>
> // WebTrends SmartSource Data Collector Tag
> // Version: 8.6.0
> // Tag Builder Version: 2.1.0
> // Created: 1/6/2009 22:54:04
>
>

Webtrends is not really spying. Most commercial sites use webtrends. It creates detailed site traffic reports. Page views, hits, "paths" followed through the site, most visited pages, time spent between accesses (a rough estimate of how long people spend on each page), top referrers, top referred pages. Plus things like types of browsers users visiting the site used, rough guess to country, region, city, etc, and other things.

Webtrends doesn't track personal information. It doesn't link to login information to connect traffic to specific people or anything like that.


>
> the site seems to be built around jquery and it
> includes the css for altering the page: (see
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/includes/eop/admin.css)
>

jquery is just a lazy way of trying to do what some people believe is "AJAX" but is really just DOM manipulation (like the 1,2,3,4 buttons changing the DIV where the photo is.) Actually, jquery can be an easy way to actually implement some AJAX on a site, but they aren't using it for AJAX here. Everything is already preloaded and visibility is turned on and off, so it's just javascript and CSS manipulating the DOM.

> this page is insulting. they obviously didnt have
> a programmer optimize anything and i can only hope
> no security holes have been left open... but there
> is a good chance there have been considering the
> amateur nature of the site.
>

Someone tried to format the HTML, at least. They didn't do a great job, but it's better than some sites where everything is just jumbled together and haphazardly coded. It's not amateur, but it is very beginner "professional". Well, what I mean is, it's on par, coding-wise, with what a lot of not-so-good web developers do.

>
> whitehouse.gov's code makes fairfaxcounty.gov look
> like a work of art.
>

True. But the design of the site, the appearance, isn't that bad. The design is clean, except I hate multi-column dropdown menus. Put them all in one column, dammit.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Webtrends is not really spying. Most commercial
> sites use webtrends. It creates detailed site
> traffic reports.
>
> [...]
>
> Webtrends doesn't track personal information. It
> doesn't link to login information to connect
> traffic to specific people or anything like that.

i already know exactly what webtrends is. some people would consider it spying considering you can associate IPs to recorded data. personally, im not a fan of it.


> jquery is just a lazy way of trying to do what
> some people believe is "AJAX" but is really just
> DOM manipulation (like the 1,2,3,4 buttons
> changing the DIV where the photo is.) Actually,
> jquery can be an easy way to actually implement
> some AJAX on a site, but they aren't using it for
> AJAX here. Everything is already preloaded and
> visibility is turned on and off, so it's just
> javascript and CSS manipulating the DOM.

hence why i call it amateur. if you cant write the page by hand, then you suck.


> Someone tried to format the HTML, at least. They
> didn't do a great job, but it's better than some
> sites where everything is just jumbled together
> and haphazardly coded. It's not amateur, but it
> is very beginner "professional". Well, what I
> mean is, it's on par, coding-wise, with what a lot
> of not-so-good web developers do.

pff, it's not even on par with any reputable company's site. i would expect the whitehouse.gov's page to be on par with google's level of coding. this page is worse than "college student with dreamweaver" level of quality.


> True. But the design of the site, the appearance,
> isn't that bad. The design is clean

i know, it was clearly designed by an artist.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> i already know exactly what webtrends is. some
> people would consider it spying considering you
> can associate IPs to recorded data. personally,
> im not a fan of it.
>

Well, everywhere I've ever worked has used webtrends. I don't like it, as a product, and I don't have any use for the statistics, but ad sales and upper management love having all that traffic data that they barely understand. It does come in handy when selling ads, at least. It does give salespeople good numbers they can use to convince people to buy ads on a site.

All I need is access_log and error_log, but I'm not selling anything, just monitoring the response times, amount of load and looking for problems.

I don't know why anyone would worry about Webtrends associating IPs to recorded data. I can already do that using access_log. I mean, whether I use webtrends or write a bash script to do it, I already have the information. As far as I know, Webtrends, the company, cannot use its client's data, so the only people who can use the information already have it just like any other website does. I've always used the enterprise version running on our own servers, so I'm not 100% sure of that. But I don't think the hosted clients are giving that information away to Webtrends.


>
> hence why i call it amateur. if you cant write
> the page by hand, then you suck.
>

There are fewer and fewer new developers who can code a page in vi or emacs, or even notepad. Although, Zend can be pretty fun to use, even if it ends up giving you so many shortcuts that you end up forgetting a lot of stuff that was second-nature when coding in a plain text editor. That's why I only use it for debugging or when I just want to get a large project done quickly.

>
> pff, it's not even on par with any reputable
> company's site. i would expect the
> whitehouse.gov's page to be on par with google's
> level of coding. this page is worse than "college
> student with dreamweaver" level of quality.
>

College student with dreamweaver is what a lot of "professional" web developers are, any more. Of course, those are the same ones that always forget how to rsync their stuff from staging servers to production servers, and need to be shown how, again, every couple weeks.

I hired one guy a year ago who kept his completed, deployed scripts pointing to a sandbox db so that it would pull up "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet blah blah." test data on a live site. He never fully grasped the concepts of how the different servers handled different data, or what the difference was between a sandbox, a staging server and a production server. My guess is that he was only used to editing stuff in place on a live server, which at least in the news publishing world, is a no-no.

>
> > True. But the design of the site, the
> appearance,
> > isn't that bad. The design is clean
>
> i know, it was clearly designed by an artist.

And coded by someone in the office who "knows how to make a website", or by someone in the office's kid who "made a website once".