pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 14 Dec 2008 09:19:13
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Bush bashers over look hard facts
"Bush-bashers overlook hard facts
Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:08 AM
By victor davis hanson

When someone screams about a terrible policy of the present administration,
just pose four questions:

. Was the controversial decision taken with bipartisan support?

. Were there precedents for such action in prior Democratic administrations?

. Will such polices continue under the newly elected Obama administration?

. Have the media changed their position on the issue since the November
election?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then the acrimony was probably
about politics and style, not principle and substance.

Take the so-called war on terror. The Patriot Act passed Congress in October
2001 by majorities in both parties -- and was reauthorized in 2006. The
original versions of the FISA wiretapping accords were enacted under the
Carter administration in 1978.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were given authorization by Congress. The
pre-9/11 precursor for the removal of Saddam Hussein was the unanimous
passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, prompted by then-President Bill
Clinton's warnings about Saddam's dangerous weapons: "Some day, some way, I
guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

President-elect Barack Obama no longer believes that the controversial FISA
accords should be repealed. And the retention of George W. Bush's secretary
of defense, Robert Gates, along with the impressive appointments of Sen.
Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and former Bush Mideast envoy James L.
Jones, a retired Marine general, as national security adviser -- all of whom
were in favor of removing Saddam -- suggest that those who once supported
the Iraq war will have more foreign-policy influence in the Obama
administration than those who opposed it all along.

Talk of a shredded Constitution and the need to immediately shut down
Guantanamo Bay isno longer daily fare in the U.S. media, particularly after
the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Suddenly we have sober reflection about how
to stop such a paramilitary attack here in the U.S. -- and what to do about
monsters in custody in Guantanamo, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the
self-proclaimed architect of 9/11.

Like it or not, radical Islamic terrorism antedated Bush and will continue
after him. And while we may lament how Bush sometimes conducted or
articulated his policies, his support for beefing up homeland security,
hitting terrorists hard abroad, supporting Democratic movements in the
Middle East and replacing two odious tyrannies with consensual governments
once appealed to a broad number of Americans.

Because they are largely sound strategies, they will not change much under a
more charismatic President Obama who, for at least a while, will enjoy the
benefit of the doubt when confronting the same old nasty lose-lose choices.

On the economic front, we can apply the same type of critique to the present
meltdown.

The origins of our mess were threefold: high energy costs, reckless
borrowing and skyrocketing housing prices that squeezed family budgets.
Promiscuous lending at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae created undue risks and
increased foreclosures. The lack of proper oversight of Wall Street
speculation ensured that a ripple of worry soon became a torrent of panic.

But deregulation of Wall Street finance accelerated first under Clinton
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Radical risk-taking at Freddie and Fannie
was overseen by former Clinton officials and supported by Sen. Chris Dodd
and Rep. Barney Frank, the chief Democratic congressional watchdogs.

The controversial Bush bailout plan will be continued or expanded by Obama.
We might see Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke remain in office in
the manner that Bush extended Alan Greenspan's eight years under Clinton.

Faulting Bush for the wild climbs in oil prices to $147 a barrel would mean
also praising him for reducing gasoline costs below $1.50 a gallon as oil in
tough times crashed to less than $50 a barrel. In truth, American dependency
on foreign oil and vulnerability to wild swings in price have been chronic
since the first Arab embargoes more than three decades ago. Note that Obama
has dropped talk of a windfall-profits tax on omnipotent oil companies.
Supposed energy cabals that jacked up gas prices have now morphed into
clueless oil companies that can't stop them from crashing.

Many of our unpopular policies concerning terrorism, energy and finance are
of long duration. They resulted from collective decisions by Congress, past
administrations -- and by us, the people, in our daily lives. They were no
more the fault of Bush than they can be easily be solved by Obama.

We should remember that fact in 2009, when the once-messianic Obama will
become all too human, as he is overwhelmed by structural problems of terror,
war and money not all of his own making -- and the once-demonized Bush will
seem downright competent. "

(Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on War,
Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.)

Irish Mike






 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 16:32:42
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Bush bashers over look hard facts
On Dec 14 2008 9:19 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "Bush-bashers overlook hard facts
> Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:08 AM
> By victor davis hanson

Yes, long-time Bush apologist, Victor Davis Hanson. What a tool.

> When someone screams about a terrible policy of the present administration,
> just pose four questions:

Ooh, I sense a strawman being built...

> .. Was the controversial decision taken with bipartisan support?

Most were, largely because the Bush Admin. lied and manufactured evidence
to support many of their policies, particularly the most loathsome of them
(Iraq, Guantanamo). But even so, support of the Democrats does not imply
that Bush's policies weren't "terrible" this is a complete logical
fallacy. A policy can be a total disaster even with unanimous bipartisan
support. Duh.

> .. Were there precedents for such action in prior Democratic administrations?

Nice, the "they did it too" defense. Try that one out in court, or next
time you get pulled over.

> .. Will such polices continue under the newly elected Obama administration?

Of course they will. That does not mean they're good policies. Another
logical fallacy.

> .. Have the media changed their position on the issue since the November
> election?

The media no longer serves as a balance to executive power, they are
merely mouthpieces for the ruling class and spout endless government
propaganda. Its "positions" are completely irrelevant.

> If the answer to these questions is yes, then the acrimony was probably
> about politics and style, not principle and substance.

Well, if this is the case, then this little bit of revisionist history is
just more proof that Bush ran the country bereft of both principle and
substance. And the Democrats went along willingly, because surprise!
they support the same morally bankrupt policies, even if they'll
occasionally bicker about exactly HOW these policies are carried out. But
it's all window dressing.

You don't judge the quality or morality of a President by how often the
other team agrees with his policies. You judge him by his actions, which
in Bush's case includes lying a country into an unnecessary war,
institutionalizing torture, suspending habeus corpus and the Posse
Commitatus Act, politicizing science and medicine, and generally shredding
the Constitution, rule of law, and Congressional oversight at every
opportunity. Oh, and did I mention that his support of deregulation,
combined with his wild spending policies and the trillions in borrowed
money used to fund the War on Terror, led (in part) to the current global
economic disaster?

While Bush's Presidency was an abject failure for the general public, it
was a rousing success for his true constituents the mega corporations
and the ruling class. So I guess it just depends on your perspective.

<snip rest of silly revisionist garbage >

______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 14:05:09
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Bush bashers over look hard facts

Worst.

President.

Evar.




 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 12:27:00
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Bush bashers over look hard facts
On Dec 14 2008 8:19 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "Bush-bashers overlook hard facts
> Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:08 AM
> By victor davis hanson
>
> When someone screams about a terrible policy of the present administration,
> just pose four questions:
>
> .. Was the controversial decision taken with bipartisan support?

'can we share the blame ?
>
> .. Were there precedents for such action in prior Democratic administrations?

'we have to be able to lay the blame somewhere else !"
>
> .. Will such polices continue under the newly elected Obama administration?

what would this have to do with initial mistake ? in other words . can
Obama clean it up
>
> .. Have the media changed their position on the issue since the November
> election?

In other words , have they stopped printing pesky shit ..like the TRUTH
>
> If the answer to these questions is yes, then the acrimony was probably
> about politics and style, not principle and substance.
>
> Take the so-called war on terror. The Patriot Act passed Congress in October
> 2001 by majorities in both parties -- and was reauthorized in 2006. The
> original versions of the FISA wiretapping accords were enacted under the
> Carter administration in 1978.
>
> The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were given authorization by Congress. The
> pre-9/11 precursor for the removal of Saddam Hussein was the unanimous
> passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, prompted by then-President Bill
> Clinton's warnings about Saddam's dangerous weapons: "Some day, some way, I
> guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
>
> President-elect Barack Obama no longer believes that the controversial FISA
> accords should be repealed. And the retention of George W. Bush's secretary
> of defense, Robert Gates, along with the impressive appointments of Sen.
> Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and former Bush Mideast envoy James L.
> Jones, a retired Marine general, as national security adviser -- all of whom
> were in favor of removing Saddam -- suggest that those who once supported
> the Iraq war will have more foreign-policy influence in the Obama
> administration than those who opposed it all along.
>
> Talk of a shredded Constitution and the need to immediately shut down
> Guantanamo Bay isno longer daily fare in the U.S. media, particularly after
> the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Suddenly we have sober reflection about how
> to stop such a paramilitary attack here in the U.S. -- and what to do about
> monsters in custody in Guantanamo, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the
> self-proclaimed architect of 9/11.
>
> Like it or not, radical Islamic terrorism antedated Bush and will continue
> after him. And while we may lament how Bush sometimes conducted or
> articulated his policies, his support for beefing up homeland security,
> hitting terrorists hard abroad, supporting Democratic movements in the
> Middle East and replacing two odious tyrannies with consensual governments
> once appealed to a broad number of Americans.
>
> Because they are largely sound strategies, they will not change much under a
> more charismatic President Obama who, for at least a while, will enjoy the
> benefit of the doubt when confronting the same old nasty lose-lose choices.
>
> On the economic front, we can apply the same type of critique to the present
> meltdown.
>
> The origins of our mess were threefold: high energy costs, reckless
> borrowing and skyrocketing housing prices that squeezed family budgets.
> Promiscuous lending at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae created undue risks and
> increased foreclosures. The lack of proper oversight of Wall Street
> speculation ensured that a ripple of worry soon became a torrent of panic.
>
> But deregulation of Wall Street finance accelerated first under Clinton
> Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Radical risk-taking at Freddie and Fannie
> was overseen by former Clinton officials and supported by Sen. Chris Dodd
> and Rep. Barney Frank, the chief Democratic congressional watchdogs.
>
> The controversial Bush bailout plan will be continued or expanded by Obama.
> We might see Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke remain in office in
> the manner that Bush extended Alan Greenspan's eight years under Clinton.
>
> Faulting Bush for the wild climbs in oil prices to $147 a barrel would mean
> also praising him for reducing gasoline costs below $1.50 a gallon as oil in
> tough times crashed to less than $50 a barrel. In truth, American dependency
> on foreign oil and vulnerability to wild swings in price have been chronic
> since the first Arab embargoes more than three decades ago. Note that Obama
> has dropped talk of a windfall-profits tax on omnipotent oil companies.
> Supposed energy cabals that jacked up gas prices have now morphed into
> clueless oil companies that can't stop them from crashing.
>
> Many of our unpopular policies concerning terrorism, energy and finance are
> of long duration. They resulted from collective decisions by Congress, past
> administrations -- and by us, the people, in our daily lives. They were no
> more the fault of Bush than they can be easily be solved by Obama.
>
> We should remember that fact in 2009, when the once-messianic Obama will
> become all too human, as he is overwhelmed by structural problems of terror,
> war and money not all of his own making -- and the once-demonized Bush will
> seem downright competent. "
>
> (Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on War,
> Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.)
>
> Irish Mike


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 09:36:58
From: hanks
Subject: Re: Bush bashers over look hard facts
On Dec 14 2008 6:19 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "Bush-bashers overlook hard facts
> Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:08 AM
> By victor davis hanson
>
> When someone screams about a terrible policy of the present administration,
> just pose four questions:
>
> .. Was the controversial decision taken with bipartisan support?
>
> .. Were there precedents for such action in prior Democratic administrations?
>
> .. Will such polices continue under the newly elected Obama administration?
>
> .. Have the media changed their position on the issue since the November
> election?
>
> If the answer to these questions is yes, then the acrimony was probably
> about politics and style, not principle and substance.
>
> Take the so-called war on terror. The Patriot Act passed Congress in October
> 2001 by majorities in both parties -- and was reauthorized in 2006. The
> original versions of the FISA wiretapping accords were enacted under the
> Carter administration in 1978.
>
> The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were given authorization by Congress. The
> pre-9/11 precursor for the removal of Saddam Hussein was the unanimous
> passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, prompted by then-President Bill
> Clinton's warnings about Saddam's dangerous weapons: "Some day, some way, I
> guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
>
> President-elect Barack Obama no longer believes that the controversial FISA
> accords should be repealed. And the retention of George W. Bush's secretary
> of defense, Robert Gates, along with the impressive appointments of Sen.
> Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and former Bush Mideast envoy James L.
> Jones, a retired Marine general, as national security adviser -- all of whom
> were in favor of removing Saddam -- suggest that those who once supported
> the Iraq war will have more foreign-policy influence in the Obama
> administration than those who opposed it all along.
>
> Talk of a shredded Constitution and the need to immediately shut down
> Guantanamo Bay isno longer daily fare in the U.S. media, particularly after
> the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Suddenly we have sober reflection about how
> to stop such a paramilitary attack here in the U.S. -- and what to do about
> monsters in custody in Guantanamo, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the
> self-proclaimed architect of 9/11.
>
> Like it or not, radical Islamic terrorism antedated Bush and will continue
> after him. And while we may lament how Bush sometimes conducted or
> articulated his policies, his support for beefing up homeland security,
> hitting terrorists hard abroad, supporting Democratic movements in the
> Middle East and replacing two odious tyrannies with consensual governments
> once appealed to a broad number of Americans.
>
> Because they are largely sound strategies, they will not change much under a
> more charismatic President Obama who, for at least a while, will enjoy the
> benefit of the doubt when confronting the same old nasty lose-lose choices.
>
> On the economic front, we can apply the same type of critique to the present
> meltdown.
>
> The origins of our mess were threefold: high energy costs, reckless
> borrowing and skyrocketing housing prices that squeezed family budgets.
> Promiscuous lending at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae created undue risks and
> increased foreclosures. The lack of proper oversight of Wall Street
> speculation ensured that a ripple of worry soon became a torrent of panic.
>
> But deregulation of Wall Street finance accelerated first under Clinton
> Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Radical risk-taking at Freddie and Fannie
> was overseen by former Clinton officials and supported by Sen. Chris Dodd
> and Rep. Barney Frank, the chief Democratic congressional watchdogs.
>
> The controversial Bush bailout plan will be continued or expanded by Obama.
> We might see Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke remain in office in
> the manner that Bush extended Alan Greenspan's eight years under Clinton.
>
> Faulting Bush for the wild climbs in oil prices to $147 a barrel would mean
> also praising him for reducing gasoline costs below $1.50 a gallon as oil in
> tough times crashed to less than $50 a barrel. In truth, American dependency
> on foreign oil and vulnerability to wild swings in price have been chronic
> since the first Arab embargoes more than three decades ago. Note that Obama
> has dropped talk of a windfall-profits tax on omnipotent oil companies.
> Supposed energy cabals that jacked up gas prices have now morphed into
> clueless oil companies that can't stop them from crashing.
>
> Many of our unpopular policies concerning terrorism, energy and finance are
> of long duration. They resulted from collective decisions by Congress, past
> administrations -- and by us, the people, in our daily lives. They were no
> more the fault of Bush than they can be easily be solved by Obama.
>
> We should remember that fact in 2009, when the once-messianic Obama will
> become all too human, as he is overwhelmed by structural problems of terror,
> war and money not all of his own making -- and the once-demonized Bush will
> seem downright competent. "
>
> (Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on War,
> Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.)
>
> Irish Mike

You silly BOOB!
If people were interested in reading current articles from other
publications they can read "The Drudge report" or "Huffington Post" or
"Truth Out" or any of a myriad of reputable blogs.
This is NOT the forum for that type of reporting.
It is a place to express one's own ideas though I doubt you ever had an
original thought. You hapless bigot!!!

hanks



















hanks

--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 14:43:46
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Bush bashers over look hard facts
On Dec 14 2008 12:36 PM, hanks wrote:


> You silly BOOB!
> If people were interested in reading current articles from other
> publications they can read "The Drudge report" or "Huffington Post" or
> "Truth Out" or any of a myriad of reputable blogs.
> This is NOT the forum for that type of reporting.
> It is a place to express one's own ideas though I doubt you ever had an
> original thought. You hapless bigot!!!
>
> hanks
>


I HAD TO READ THIS A LOT BEFORE I REALIZED HANKIE WAS SERIOUS.

Calling Mike a bigot is a great example of you having an original thought
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hanks

--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com