Skip to comments.George W. Bush.....the other side.
Posted on 08/13/2009 7:36:58 AM PDT by big black dog
First was the 2000 election. In a tightly contested battle that came down to the electoral votes in Florida, Bush won by the slimmest of margins. And although he lost the popular vote, he won enough electoral votes and won the election. While it doesnt happen often, its not like its never happened before. In fact, it was the fourth time in history that a Presidential candidate won the popular vote and lost the election. The others: John Quincy Adams, who lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 and tied in the electoral college, yet was voted into office by the House of Representatives, Rutherford B. Hayes, who lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876 but won the electoral college, and Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 but won the electoral vote and the election. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is an old, out-dated system that is an insult to Americans and their perceived ability to choose a President, thats fine. But until its changed in the Constitution, its the system we have. News outlets everywhere were calling President-Select George Bush, as if he was placed there by some conspiracy. Many even pointed to the fact that his brother, Jeb Bush, who was Governor of Florida, as if he somehow cheated to get his brother in office (Im not sure, but I dont think Governors count votes).
Next was the criticism that Bush gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton for work in Iraq. Halliburton was run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995-2000. Looks like some good ol favoritism by those Republicans and their corporate friends, right? What the news generally forgot to mention was that Halliburton was a great choice for this job because during the Clinton years Halliburton was given a no-bid contract for work in Kosovo. Vice President Al Gore even wrote a glowing report of how well they worked. Woops.
Well of course that didnt matter anyways. The war wasnt necessary. Bush lied to us all, because he wanted to get Saddam because his father never finished the job, right? Well I know a couple things about the war.
First, during the 2004 election, which was a tight race between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, those who were currently serving in the military supported Bush almost 4-to-1 according to a poll done by the USA Today. Thats when the war was much more popular though. Currently they are probably opposed to a Republican and another four years, right? Well in the 2008 election, a poll by the Military Times showed service members favored McCain by a 3-to-1 margin, even with 79 percent of the black military votes favoring Obama. Clearly they must believe in the war and their mission. Who am I to argue?
Second, weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq. It is assumed that because they werent there by the time the U.N. were done dragging their feet and we invaded, that Bush lied to push his own agenda. Well you or I do not have access to privileged information that might be available to our President, so we can only speculate. However, I would take the word of someone who had first-hand knowledge. And weve all heard of General Georges Sada, right? Former Iraqi General Sada wrote Saddam's Secrets. In it he states that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. He also states that Hussein ordered the WMD out of the country on several refitted commercial jets that flew to Syria. "Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Sada said about the former dictator in an interview with The New York Sun. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians." He also explains how close we may have been to World War III, as Hussein contemplated using these weapons against Israel. And he describes in detail the bribing and corruption of the U.N. officials who were pocketing millions themselves. Well of course most havent heard about this book. Because if the media shared his story, it would put a hole in all their theories about George Bush and the Republicans.
Thirdly, the war liberated the Iraqi people. It is not known exactly how many were murdered and tortured in Iraq during Saddams reign. But it is widely agreed that it was hundreds of thousands and likely more than one million. Those who claim that we are losing lives over there for no reason need a reality check. Too many people seem outraged when we lose American lives, yet dont blink at the millions who are dying all over the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa. Living in a bubble and not worrying about the lives of others around the world is not so righteous, is it? The soldiers weve sent over there voluntarily signed up. And while no one wants to see anyone die, they are not dying in vain. They have freed the Iraqi people from tyranny. If you believe the lives of Americans have more value than the lives of other people around the world, then it is you with the problem.
Finally, during President George W. Bushs Presidency, we have been safe. Under Bill Clinton the economy was great. But if you look at international terrorism, he was a complete and utter failure. The United States were repeated targets of Al-Qaeda during Clintons Presidency, attacking the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on two U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attacks on the U.S. soldiers in Somalia. Al-Qaeda, and specifically Osama Bin Laden, declared a jihad, or holy war, against the U.S. in an interview in May of 1997. Larry Johnson, formerly with the CIA and the State Department, said he believes Clinton's weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. "The Clinton administration paid lip service to the notion of combating terrorism through some money added, but generally kept it as a very low priority," Johnson said.
Bush got aggressive. He knew that we had to fight back. He did what Clinton should have. Show the terrorists that America will fight back, and we will come and find you. Since September 11, 2001, while Bush was in office, there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks made against the United States. What about the economy you say? During Bushs final year in office, the housing market burst, forcing the values of homes to drop significantly and many homes to be foreclosed. While many blame Bush and the Republicans for this, lets look at why this mess happened in the first place.
During the Clinton years, Clinton thought that every person should own a home. Like most liberal ideas, that sounds nice in theory. Sounds like the right thing to do. But like most of their economic ideas, it is a short-term solution that causes long-term problems. In 1995, Clinton added provisions to the Community Reinvestment Act (passed during the Carter years) that forced mortgage companies to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime loans. These were second-chance loans, or loans that went to people who were less than prime candidates. So many people who didnt have the money or stability to purchase a home were now doing so. And others were taking advantage of these loans to purchase homes that were more expensive than they would normally be able to afford. See the trouble this might cause?
Vernon L. Smith is a professor of law and economics at George Mason University and the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics. In an article in the December 17 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Smith says Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action, applauded by the banks, the realtors and all citizens in search of half-millionaire status from an investment they could understand and self deceptively believe to be low risk; thank you for fueling the mother of all housing bubbles. And in an article in BusinessWeek, Peter Coy writes about Clinton that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. Its clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place. While you can argue that Bush didnt do enough to stop the crash from happening, its clear that Clinton must shoulder some, if not most, of the blame.
If these last few paragraphs were the only information you had, you would probably think that Bush was a great President and Clinton was a horrible President. But really what Im showing you is how bias works. This isnt the portrait I expect the media to portray either. Clinton wasnt all bad, but he did make what many consider some pretty sizable mistakes. I dont think he did them with bad intentions. So why cant we look at Bush the same way? Why cant we hear about Bushs successes, as clearly there were some. Bush is a two-term President who is constantly ridiculed for just about everything. From the way he handled the war in Iraq, to the economy, and even being mocked for the way he delivered speeches. Im not claiming that Bush was the greatest President ever. He tripled the national debt, cutting taxes, but not reducing government spending. A terrible idea. But the man left the White House with a 38% approval rating. And that was up from 19% in February 2008. He was booed as he left Barack Obamas Inauguration. The former President of the United States! Was Jimmy Carter booed by the conservatives at Reagans Inauguration? He was a pretty horrible President by most accounts, but I doubt it. Absolutely despicable, and an example of what can happen when people do not think for themselves, conduct their own research, and come to their own conclusions but instead rely on the newspaper and T.V. for all of their information
You used too many words.
Most of The Sheep will never believe it anyway.
Thanks for the ping. It is indeed a good read
Why do you have to be so pessimistic?
Also, Halliburton was already working in Iraq thru a UN contract so it was logical that hiring a company that was there, set-up and ready to provide support services to the troops, made sense. But to the people who destroy companies to bring down Republicans, though.
Yes, it is! Thanks for the ping, Deb!
Thanks for the ping! Have been gone a lot...just got back from taking our two oldest to college (different ones). I will enjoy reading the article!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.