Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 9th, 2005, 12:12 PM        Will the Bush Presidency be a Katrina Fatality
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Katrina has drowned the Bush Presidency. In it's wake, the man who in debate against Al Gore said that how you reacted to a natural isaster showed what kind of leader you were will be fully exposed as the kind of Leader he's always been. His tin ear and emotional emptiness are on display as never before, and the managment style of the CEO president will finally be exposed for the corrupt sham it's been all along. The emeror has never had any clothes. The tragedy is that it takes a tragedy of this magnituide to wash the scales from our collective eyes.

Consider this, from Time Magazine, never exactly noted for it's liberal bias:

It isn't easy picking George Bush's worst moment last week. Was it his first go at addressing the crisis Wednesday, when he came across as cool to the point of uncaring? Was it when he said that he didn't "think anybody expected" the New Orleans levees to give way, though that very possibility had been forecast for years? Was it when he arrived in Mobile, Ala., a full four days after the storm made landfall, and praised his hapless Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director, Michael D. Brown, whose disaster credentials seemed to consist of once being the commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association? "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," said the President. Or was it that odd moment when he promised to rebuild Mississippi Senator Trent Lott's house--a gesture that must have sounded astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans. "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house--he's lost his entire house," cracked Bush, "there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."


They forgot to add the photo of him noodling on a guitar backstage at a fundraiser while people were dying in New Orleans. I think that too will hang around hus neck along with all of the above as more and more bodies are pulled out of the mud.

George W didn't cause the hurricane. But under his leadership poverty increased dramatically, budgets were cut dramatcially, and the vulnerability of the people of the Gulf coast was increased. And when these people fell victim to natural disaster, his leadership style and his incompetent crony appointees left them stranded. As his own wife says, 'it's a wake up call'.

I don't think King George can wriggle out of this one.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2005, 12:50 PM       
a friend of mine raised a point that the reason of bush's slow responses and ineptitude to the distaster was to wait until a certain amount of people being killed during the hurricane and the aftermath chaos has been reached to a time deadline so the bush administartion can put aside the worries of taking care for large amount of people in need of help and to lessen the suport for those in poverty...which means they save money for reconstruction of new orleans

i called him a retard at first but then this is bush we're talking about, it almost seems likely. who the fuck knows
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2005, 01:31 PM       
Max, I don't think it'll have the effect you anticipate.

History tends to be very abstract when it comes to our presidents. Can you tell me, off the top of your head, what was the most damning thing for the Van Buren administration....?

presidents are remembered in moments, images, elections, and deeds. You're right, katrina has been a blunder, but I don't think it'll change too many minds. The most important and popular presidents we've ever had (with perhaps the exception of Washington) have been incredibly polarizing figures. You either loved them or you hated them. There was rarely an inbetween.

I think that has already taken place in the case of Dubya. He will be remembered for 9/11, fightin' terrorism, and protecting America through the worst attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. Also, the man won re-election. That puts him into an even more exclusive club among the presidents, another thing history tends to give a cursory glance at and say "hey, he did pretty well, eh?"

I may be wrong, I even hope I'm wrong, but I dunno.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 9th, 2005, 03:44 PM       
I think you're wrong. I think there's going to be a time a few years down the road when his talking over a bullhorn at ground zero will be replaced by the awful endless war he sidetracked us into. It won't truly look like Vietnam until after W is out of office, but I think that's where it's headed. And bit by bit, though maybe not until I have grandchildren, official secrets will come out of how they approved of torture, how in a million small ways they encouraged and engaged in election fraud, (especially how they worked to disenfranchise blacks).

I also think there's going to be a groundswell of anger and revulsion as the bodies are uncovered and the stories of survivors begin to come out. As a true timeline is established, how and when people died at the very moment Homeland security was saying the didn't need the Red Cross for instance...

Ah screw it, Kev. I don't really think any of these things. I only hope them. I think America will turn away again, tired of the story, especially the ongoing story of Homelless New Orlenians with nowhere to go. I think the Republicans will start there "What went right and what went wrong" investigation and conveniently end up abandoning it after the 'what went right' part, just before midterms. Corrupt incumbents will get re-elected and the whole fucking cycle will go on. I don't know why. I don't know why such a huge number of Americans vote against their interests and swallow lies like candy coated raisins. It depresses the fuck out of me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2005, 06:24 PM       
I like chocolate covered raisins beter than the yogurt covered ones. More than a couple of the yogurt ones make me nausious.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 12:32 AM       
This was in today's Winnipg Free Press. I thought it was pretty interesting and hits the nail on the head.

Quote:
Duff's vision lacking in U.S.
Americans deserve much better leadership than they are receiving

Fri Sep 9 2005

William Neville



UNDER the single headline We've lost our city, the front page of the Free Press on Aug. 31 consisted of a single picture. It showed a city in which freeways, overpasses and underpasses snaked in and out of the water, appearing here, disappearing there, reappearing farther on.

Everywhere were broad, water-filled canals -- which once were streets. Everywhere -- in yards, around houses, around massive commercial buildings -- was water. Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.

Despite the newspaper's name and domicile, the city depicted was not, of course, Winnipeg. But it could have been. Indeed, picking up the paper that morning, my first thought was: this could have been Winnipeg in 1997.

In 1997 it was estimated that, without the Red River Floodway, 60 per cent of Winnipeg would have been flooded. Residents of Winnipeg, now comparing their situation with that of the devastated New Orleans, might well reflect that there, but for the grace of God, go we.

If it is true, however, that God helps those that help themselves, there are some significant differences in the human-made circumstances of Winnipeg prior to 1997 and those of New Orleans prior to hurricane Katrina. Broadly speaking, the 1997 Winnipeg experience represented a triumph of political leadership, notably that of Duff Roblin, while New Orleans reflects a near-complete failure of leadership which has, no less remarkably, carried forward into the relief effort. Though the built fabric of New Orleans was spared the absolute worst of Katrina's destructiveness, the city was subsequently lost to breaches in the levees which had hitherto kept the ocean at bay. What the wind did not destroy directly it achieved by leaving New Orleans open to the sea. The part most difficult to bear, however, is the realization that the city's vulnerability to hurricane-induced high seas was long recognized and the strengthening of the levees long a subject of political debate.

On that front, one of the most arresting news stories to appear in the last 10 days was in an Associated Press story published in this paper last week. The writer, Ron Fournier, offers an unhappy chronicle of political failure in the face of a disaster just waiting to happen. According to Fournier, the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both "lowballed" the costs when presenting budgets to strengthen the levees.

In 2004, a request was made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans. The Bush White House slashed the request to $40 million, just slightly less than the $42.2 million ultimately approved by Congress. When one reflects that the Red River Floodway cost roughly $63 million in 1962, $42.2 million more than 40 years later, with its vastly reduced purchasing power, is absolutely picayune.

But it gets worse. As Fournier writes: "Yet the legislators and Bush agreed to a $286.4-billion pork-laden highway bill that included more than 6,000 pet projects for legislators. Congress spent money on dust control for Arkansas roads, a warehouse on the Erie canal and a $231-million bridge to a small, uninhabited Alaskan island."

If the division of powers in American government is, as some claim, a hedge against too much concentrated power in any one institution, this sorry episode weighs on the other side of the scale. So far as the executive and the legislature acting in consort, it was more in the evasion of responsibility than in its discharge: this, at the apex of power, in the world's greatest power.

That pattern has carried over into acrimonious debates over the inadequacies of the relief effort. It is now clear, for example, that evacuation plans failed utterly to take account of the fact that the poorest residents of New Orleans had neither the means to evacuate nor a safe haven to which they might go if they had possessed the means. Bush's jocular pledge that he would yet have a drink at a rebuilt home of Republican Senator Trent Lott, or his praise for Michael Brown, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."), when the agency's director was clearly floundering, have reinforced a perception that Bush's Washington just doesn't get it. In this crisis, Bush has consistently failed to rise to the occasion or to the public's reasonable expectations. That he realizes this is suggested by his deriding those who want to play the "blame game," a tactic which might, to use Bush language, be regarded as a kind of personal pre-emptive war.

In commenting on these things, one should not minimize the fact that in liberal democratic societies it is often very difficult to animate public and political opinion to deal with a crisis that is more readily described or imagined than actually imminent or experienced. Yet, if it is difficult, it is not necessarily impossible. Manitoba, having experienced a serious, if not devastating flood in 1950, had in the 1960s, a determined premier and government with solid legislative support, who were able to advocate, negotiate and, ultimately, celebrate the building of a floodway which has repaid many times over both the financial and political costs incurred in achieving it.

Winnipeg -- and Manitobans -- were very fortunate in the quality and vision of that leadership in the 1960s. Americans, and particularly those in the flood-stricken south, deserve much better than they are receiving. And because the human costs are so high and will be so enduring, the financial and political costs are likely to be high and enduring as well. So much for omnipotence.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Guitar Woman Guitar Woman is offline
Drugs+drugs+rock+roll
Guitar Woman's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Guitar Woman is probably a real personGuitar Woman is probably a real person
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 02:35 AM       
I find it ironic that all of the states hit by Katrina were red states.
Mabye it's god's way of telling them something...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Skulhedface is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 03:09 AM       
yeah, 'move out of the hurricane path!"

I live in this very same red state and I didn't vote for him
Reply With Quote
  #9  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 06:43 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I think you're wrong. I think there's going to be a time a few years down the road when his talking over a bullhorn at ground zero will be replaced by the awful endless war he sidetracked us into. It won't truly look like Vietnam until after W is out of office, but I think that's where it's headed. And bit by bit, though maybe not until I have grandchildren, official secrets will come out of how they approved of torture, how in a million small ways they encouraged and engaged in election fraud, (especially how they worked to disenfranchise blacks).

I also think there's going to be a groundswell of anger and revulsion as the bodies are uncovered and the stories of survivors begin to come out. As a true timeline is established, how and when people died at the very moment Homeland security was saying the didn't need the Red Cross for instance...

Ah screw it, Kev. I don't really think any of these things. I only hope them. I think America will turn away again, tired of the story, especially the ongoing story of Homelless New Orlenians with nowhere to go. I think the Republicans will start there "What went right and what went wrong" investigation and conveniently end up abandoning it after the 'what went right' part, just before midterms. Corrupt incumbents will get re-elected and the whole fucking cycle will go on. I don't know why. I don't know why such a huge number of Americans vote against their interests and swallow lies like candy coated raisins. It depresses the fuck out of me.
Max, it is more and more apparent everyday that liberals view Iraq to be like Vietnam, they WANT it to be like Vietnam. Why do you have a problem with American forces winning a war? It seems like you would rather be right about your Vietnam views then you would about our country doing the proper job over in Iraq.

I would like to also see all your claims about election fraud. It's pretty convinent that you avoid the obvious Democrat fraud areas (the recount debacle and the St. Louis debacle in 2000), but listen to any half-ass internet rumor made up by the tin-foil-hate birgade. Also, what is your take on the bastion of voting freedoms, Chicago?

I also wouldn't be too depressed about the way people voted. Get the fuck over it, Max. BUSH WON. Quit your vaginal leaking and go on with your life. If I were you *shudder*, I would be more depressed when I looked in the mirror without a shirt, but that's just me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Immortal Goat is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 01:26 PM       
Liberals do not want it to be like Vietnam. They know it IS like Vietnam. It was a war we could not win, just like a war against Terrorism. It isn't fucking possible. Terrorism will always survive, no matter what we as a country decide to do or who we decide to bomb next. I don't think Max wants to be right about Iraq, I am sure he hopes with all his heart that he is wrong, but it is his fear that compels him to write these things. But you don't know anything about fear, do you Vince? You have never felt any emotion other than pure loathing for those who feel differently than you, haven't you?

Voter fraud DID happen, Vince. I am sure it happened on both sides, and that is horrible, but the thing is that it happened at all. I would be just as angry at Democrats for fraud as I am at Republicans, and the only reason I am not at the moment is because Democratic fraud didn't do anything. And it didn't happen as much as the Republicans did.

And finally, Bush won, yes, and I think that is why he is depressed about the way people voted. He is as strong in his beliefs as you are in yours. Can you not accept the simple fact that a man can love his country and hate the people in charge at the same time? And vaginal leaking is better than cranial leaking, so he has one up on you there.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 02:06 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Max, it is more and more apparent everyday that liberals view Iraq to be like Vietnam, they WANT it to be like Vietnam. Why do you have a problem with American forces winning a war? It seems like you would rather be right about your Vietnam views then you would about our country doing the proper job over in Iraq.
Damnit, Vince, don't go fucking up an important debate with your "liberals want us to lose!" garbage. Go spread that shit at Newsfilter or something.

If you say "why shouldn't we stay and win?", some might ask "what does winning entail?" Do you know, Vince?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 03:23 PM       
Liberals eat babies and rape children too, those fuckers!
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 05:21 PM       
Didn't like people die in Mississippi?
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #14  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2005, 06:21 PM       
Note worthy quote:

"Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday told ABC News his pre-war speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of hiding weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his career. "It was painful -- it is painful now," said Powell, because it "will always be a part of my record." Powell went on to say he was "devastated" by the fact that "people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." Powell added he never believed there was any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the 9-11 Al Qaeda terrorists. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he added."

Apparently Iraq doesn't look so good for former-Sec. Powell, perhaps it will reflect poorly upon President Bush down the road.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 11th, 2005, 01:49 PM       
Kev; I have really mixed feelings about Colin Powell. He was such a good soldier he totally sacrificed his integrity and dignity for a man I assume he knows was unworthy of his loyalty. He's an American tragedy of his own making. I mostky have no interet in books by former insiders, but I'd really wecome one by him, if he could put down what things were really like for him and how he made the decisions he made.

Vinth; I know your experience with human sexuality is very, very limited, but I don't have a vangina, leaking or otherwise. And it's sweet of you to be concerned for me 'getting on with my life'. I managed, despite my disapointment over the leadership our president has provided. I guess more people are coming around to my way of thinking, since as of today the Presdients approval rating has dropped bellow 40%. You may not havce heard that, I think you need a tinfoil hat to find out about national polls. Since you were last here, I've started working as a paid freelancer for national Lampoon and a cartoonist for a magazine that I'd imagine you're the only Mocker who reads. Let me know if you see the byline. I've also written material for a nationally touring museum Exhibit on Einsten and an exhibit that will tour the world on Engineering and Star Wars, and I sold half a dozen pieces in a show of my artwork in July. What have you been up to since you were last here? have you gotten on with your life? I'm honestly interested. I'm sure you don't believe it, but you've been missed. The I-mockery forums are sadly less vibrant when you're off doing whatever mysterious things you do when you're not here. And I'm sure you don't have a vagina, or even access to one.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 13th, 2005, 06:10 PM       
I don't particularly agree with Mr. Dionne here. Not entirely, anyway. But it sort of compliments your point, Max.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...509130353/1002

E.J. Dionne
Goodbye to Bush Era


WASHINGTON -- The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country.

Recent months, and especially the recent two weeks, have brought home to a steadily growing majority of Americans that President Bush's government doesn't work. His policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached and self-indulgent, his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this.

The Bush Era did not begin when he took office, or even with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It began on Sept. 14, 2001, when Bush declared at the World Trade Center site: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

Bush was, indeed, skilled in identifying enemies and rallying a nation already disposed to action. He failed to realize after 9/11 that it was not we who were lucky to have him as leader, but he who was lucky to be the president of a great country that understood the importance of standing together in the face of a grave foreign threat. Very nearly all of us rallied behind him.

If Bush had understood that his central task was to forge national unity, as he seemed to in the months immediately after 9/11, the country would never have become so polarized. Instead, Bush put patriotism to the service of narrowly ideological policies and an extreme partisanship. He pushed for more tax cuts for his wealthiest supporters and shamelessly used a debate over relatively modest details in the bill creating a Department of Homeland Security as partisan cudgels in the 2002 elections.

He invoked our national anger over terror to win support for a war in Iraq. But he failed to pay heed to those who warned that the U.S. would need many more troops and careful planning to see the job through.

And so the Bush Era ended definitively on Friday, Sept. 2, the day Bush first toured the Gulf States after Hurricane Katrina. The utter failure of federal relief efforts had, by then, penetrated the country's consciousness. Leadership, strength and security were Bush's calling cards. Over the last two weeks, they were lost in the surging waters of New Orleans.

But the first intimations of the end of the Bush Era came months ago. The president's post-election fixation with privatizing part of Social Security showed how out of touch he was. The more Bush discussed this boutique idea cooked up in conservative think tanks and Wall Street imaginations, the less the public liked it. The situation in Iraq deteriorated. The glorious economy Bush kept touting turned out not to be glorious for many Americans. The Census Bureau's annual economic report, released in the midst of the Gulf disaster, found that an additional 4.1 million Americans had slipped into poverty between 2001 and 2004.

The breaking of the Bush spell opens the way for leaders of both parties to declare their independence from the recent past. It gives forces outside the White House the opportunity to shape a more appropriate national agenda -- for competence and innovation in rebuilding the Gulf region and for new approaches to the problems created over the last 41/2years.

And what of Bush, who has more than three years left in his term? Paradoxically, his best hope lies in recognizing that the Bush Era really is gone. He can decide to help us in the transition to what comes next. Or he can stubbornly cling to his past and thereby doom himself to frustrating irrelevance.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 14th, 2005, 10:12 AM       
I thought that was an excellent article, especially the part about him being lucky to have such a strong country instead of us being lucky to have a strong leader. I think that is the greatest tragedy of Sept. 11. W had a moment most presidents never had. The country and the world had his back. Even people like me (even me, for God's sake) gave him at very least the benefit of the doubt and in most cases whole hearted support. Hell, comedians gave the guy, like, a years grace period, that's unprecedented! And look where he took us. We are so polarized now we may not see a moment of national (and international) unity like that again in my lifetime.

No matter how and where you apportion the blame, even if you think us nasty liberals 'wept' the whole situation out our 'vaginas' despite the fact we have never held less national power, W was still our leader at this critical junction in history. The ball was his to fumble, and I believe the long view of history will see him as a fumbler.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 14th, 2005, 10:36 AM       
I agree on the wasted capital he had (side note-- all of the talk about capital is really funny, since he had more capital than any president just about ever after 9/11, and squandered it) following 9/11.

However, I'll say it again, the men we look back on as our greatest and most dynamic presidents tended to be polarizing figures. Even FDR, who essentially built the 20th Century Democratic Majority, was despised by Republican intellectuals and elected officials. Often, Republicans in the House and Senate wouldn't even refer to him by name, they simply said "that man." (Imagine if they did that to W, we've seen how he reacts to folks who don't address hm properly?).

I just think that yes, you're right that he's polarizing, but so what? There were Republicans who thought he cooked up Pearl Harbor to push his agenda. Sound familiar?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 14th, 2005, 11:02 AM       
I think the hostoric view of polarizers is where they stand at the end of their work.

FDR? Polarizer. Led us out of the great depression and through WWII victorious. Doesn't matter if you think he did all that or even got in the wway of it. He was in the driver's seat.

Nixon? Polarizer. revisionists will talk all about China and Detente, but he'll always be the guy who had to resign.

If three years from now there's any indication of democracy in the middle east, we're less in the trhall of oil than we are now and the citizens of New Orleans are still living in stadiums, Bush may well be hailed as a great leader. If the country looks the way it does today I think he will be seen as the President who squandered the most good will any president ever had.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 14th, 2005, 02:30 PM       
And now, Bill Maher's take on it:


>>>BILL MAHER's CLOSE ON HIS SHOW:



>>>"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more
>>>money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war
>>>because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has
>>>become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The
>>>cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you.
>>>Mission accomplished.
>>>
>>>"Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk
>>>away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and
>>>the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job.
>>>How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many
>>>other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't. I
>>>know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela.
>>>Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to
>>>the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.
>>>
>>>"But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern
>>>like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that
>>>you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a
>>>man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an
>>>entire city to rising water and snakes.
>>>
>>>"On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four
>>>airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the city of New
>>>Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this
>>>country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

>>>"So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' "
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:43 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.