(Insert Title Here)
Omega133 said:
Well I would consider a rumor something that is meant to slander.
That's a bit loose a definition. Slander includes definitive falsehood. Rumor involves unsubstantiated assertions that might be true. Indeed, slander can be built up out of rumor, but a rumor, ultimately can be true. Slander, ultimately, cannot.
The economy wasn't his fault, it's been like this for quite some tme now.
That the economy was bound to have certain trouble is easy enough to establish. Whether that certain trouble is where we have ended up is another question entirely. What was Bush's role in spending more than we had? Quite deliberate, actually. The phrase "Bush tax cuts" might still ring a bell in your memory. Those were a fine electoral gambit, and an attractive populist maneuver, but a bad prescription for the economy over the long term.
Being an idiot is more or less an opinion, and a radical one at that.
I wouldn't say it's so radical. The guy had a hard time speaking properly. That is, I'm not picking on his "folksy charm" so much as the fact that he couldn't even do
that correctly. In truth, one of his best moments in the press came at the end of his presidency, when he gave a final press conference and seemed, well,
drunk. I have to admit, had we seen more of that Bush instead of the woefully prepared, stilted, stammering, tongue-tied moron who couldn't even recite "fool me once" correctly, people might be more merciful in their assessments of his intelligence. My all-time favorite Bushism, even better than "fool me once", or "now watch this drive", is:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
People call him an idiot because he was something of an embarrassment to the United States and its international prestige.
Or, as
Jacob Weisberg put it:
People often assume that because I've spent the past nine years collecting Bushisms, I must despise George W. Bush. To the contrary, Bushisms fill me with affection for the man—and not just because of the income stream they've generated. I find the Bush who flails with words, unlike the Bush who flails with policy, to be an endearing character. Instead of a villain, he makes himself into an irresistible buffoon, like Mrs. Malaprop, Archie Bunker, or Homer Simpson. Bush treats words the way he treated recalcitrant European leaders: When they won't do what he wants them to, he tries to bully them into submission. Through his willful, improvisational, and incompetent use of language, he tempers (very slightly) his willful, improvisational, and incompetent use of government. You can't, in the end, despise someone who regrets that, because of the rising cost of malpractice insurance, "[t]oo many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."
In the end, Bush's idiocy actually speaks in his favor. Without it, he's just a criminal. That is, people can accept that he just didn't understand the implications of some of what he was doing. But if he actually understood, the outcomes are simply unacceptable.
Rascist is strong. was in IMO biast, that much is true.
Indeed it is a strong word. But it's also a word weakened by its vast application in lieu of other words. "Racist" is an easier word than "ethnocentric", and more powerful. "Racist" is an easier concept to understand of the dispute between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims than "creedist", or "religious supremacist". It is more correct to say that Bush was some manner of bigot that American values purport to find unacceptable, except for the fact that American values often depend on that sort of bigotry.
A warmonger for attacking Iraq definately, but there was just cause to attack Iraq.
And what
was that just cause? Let me pre-empt one route, though, please: Was Saddam a bad guy? Sure. But there are lots of bad guys around the world, and we're very unlikely to take down the Saud. Bush had to be ridiculed into getting involved in Liberia. His choice to invade Iraq played into the fact that we opened in Afghanistan with less than five thousand troops, and maxed out during his presidency just over thirty-thousand. We could have sent more, and maybe been the first in history to ever win in Afghanistan. But we'll never know, because we needed all those troops for Iraq.
That much is true. I absolutely agree. But while somebody says Bush Jr was terrible, the same could be said about Carter.
Prior to George W. Bush, Jr., it was widely accused that James E. Carter was the worst American president in history. That title became Bush's on January 20, 2009. There is nothing that says Bush can't follow in Carter's footsteps, and become the best
ex-president ever. But it's a tough path to trod, with large shoes to fill.
In 2008, I hoped that Carter would live at least to January 20, 2009, so that he could witness the stigma lifted from his name. Now I hope he lives another couple years at least, because he is on the verge of leading the world to defeat a nasty parasitic disease: Guinea worm faces eradication as a human affliction. Carter has worked so hard for that; I really want him to be able to see the day.
He may have been a weak president, but he has been an incredible example for ex-presidents. If only Clinton and Bush could rise to that standard.
I don't think that way though. It's not a "He did something so the other guy must be." I call it the way it is. Nobody is perfect.
Perhaps it is not part of
your thinking, but I would suggest it is a vital part of what separates you and Joe in this discussion.
I am merely pointing out that if you can find a so called screw-up for one person, you can find one for another. Whether or not one was worse is a different matter.
It's a different matter that matters greatly. Humans are imperfect creatures. This we know. But to what degree does that indict or excuse a person?
You noted, previously, that "both parties should spend more time solving things rather than claiming the other side is the bad guy". There is what I would think obvious merit to that. However, at some point, we must also look to ourselves, the voters. It's amazing what people will buy, and thus demand the politicians sell. You know, that whole marketplace notion, whether it's ideas or money or whatever. Much like chicken and rice is healthier, but
damn I want a bacon cheeseburger right about now. If my arteries ever clog and my heart fail, there is only so much blame I can put on the bacon and cigarettes and such. At some point, I have to accept that I bought it, I wanted it, and I sure as hell enjoyed it as I put it in my body.
So it is with our American body politic.
____________________
Notes:
Weisberg, Jacob. "W.'s Greatest Hits". Slate. January 12, 2009. Slate.com. May 22, 2010. http://www.slate.com/id/2208132
Really, both parties should spend more time solving things rather than claiming the other side is the bad guy.