Looking back at number 43

Keith Olbermann did a great commentary on last night's show looking at:
The Bush Legacy: Eight Years in Eight Minutes.


Worst President Ever!
.

Froomkin rising ...

Atrios posts it, the rest of us follow:

Reverse Midas

Froomkin sums up the Bush legacy pretty well.

He took the nation to a war of choice under false pretenses -- and left troops in harm's way on two fields of battle. He embraced torture as an interrogation tactic and turned the world's champion of human dignity into an outlaw nation and international pariah. He watched with detachment as a major American city went under water. He was ostensibly at the helm as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression took hold. He went from being the most popular to the most disappointing president, having squandered a unique opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after Sept. 11. He set a new precedent for avoiding the general public in favor of screened audiences and seemed to occupy an alternate reality. He took his own political party from seeming permanent majority status to where it is today. And he deliberately politicized the federal government, circumvented the traditional policymaking process, ignored expert advice and suppressed dissent, leaving behind a broken government.

Remember, 9-11 was an economic attack

A reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog notes some comments on last night's Bill Maher show:

Is Bin Laden's Strategy Working?
A reader writes:

"Last night on Bill Maher, the comedian Gary Shandling, of all people, synthesized the connection between our current economic crisis and 9/11 and the Iraq War in a way I have not heard:

On 9/11, Al Qaeda had no expectation of a traditional military victory against the United States. The point of the attack was economic -- to draw the U.S. into expensive and protracted foreign wars that would deplete our resources and destabilize our government. By invading Iraq, George Bush became the happy idiot to assist Al Qaeda in this goal. Now, Sarah Palin and John McCain take the leaders of Al Qaeda at their word when they say Iraq is the major front in the war on terror.

Neither consider the possibility that Al Qaeda wants Iraq to be the major front because it furthers their goal of weakening the U.S. while inflicting minimal damage on their operations.

Seven years after 9/11, we are seeing Al Qaeda's long-term goal being realized: the destabilization and economic collapse of the United States. Even as it's happening, the people who supported it all along want to continue facilitating our own long-term disintegration by clinging to simplistic concepts of traditional military victory and defeat. In this sense, they are possibly the most myopic, least strategic thinkers in the history of this nation.

As Gary Shandling said, with this approach, our only hope of killing Osama Bin Laden is that he'll laugh himself to death."

My fear is that the real goal is not just to entrap the West in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of our lives but to trigger an even greater conflagration by being baited into a first strike on Iran. Yes: I know Shiite Iran and Sunni al Qaeda have little in common. But both must be loving the West's self-inflicted wounds of the past seven years and greatly anticipating the hotheaded McCain taking even more bait even further. Palin? Never in their wildest dreams ...

.

What's next for Bush?

I just watched this segment of the Daily Show that I recorded last night. It is very funny. But what knocked my socks off was the last line. Check it out:



As John Oliver goes over all of the Bush/Cheney administration disasters he notes the following:

Oliver: Legacy ... we all know he will never be ranked as the best President, but he could still, if he works hard enough ...

Stewart: Be the worst?

Oliver: The last.

Sad, but I think this is actually a possibility!

The sword of Sarah Palin

This is a good comment from a reader over at Altercation:

Name: John B
Hometown: Des Moines, IA

Coverage of Sarah Palin appears to be slowly backing away from openly fawning to a little more critical of her "record", but the MSM still seems to be letting the campaign slide on what should be a major red flag.

Palin has, to put it bluntly, fired a lot of people in her short political career. The McCain camp represents this as proof of her "reformer" status, but couldn't it just as easily be something completely different?

Over and over Ms. Palin has used the reason that she wants people who will "support her more fully." There are actually two questions here, and they're both important. The first is obvious; is this really what "reform" looks like? It looks a lot more like cronyism. The second is a little more philosophical, and goes to the nature of public service.

Apparently public employees exist to serve Sarah Palin. I always thought they served the public. That's not a small distinction.

Many successful cities have a city manager form of government. The Mayor and Council set policy and leave it up to the professional manager and the staff to implement that policy. The nice thing about this system is it gives politicians limited power over personnel matters. There are some key employees they can hire or fire, but most are hired by the professional staff and there are checks and balances in place to protect employees from the whims of the elected officials.

Palin clearly likes the power and is prone to wielding the ax to chopped the heads off anyone who stands in her way. This is ego, pure and simple. And it is a dangerous trait.

The infatuation of the public and press is wearing off and the cold reality of who this woman really is is beginning to sink in with a lot of people.

Some people have been promoting her as the rightful heir to the Bush/Cheney neocon agenda for some time.
.

Warmongers Among Us!

The situation between Georgia and Russia is very serious, as you know. But much of what you may be seeing or reading in the Big Money Media is being pushed by the same neocons and wingnuts who got us into the Iraq mess ... and they apparently are partially responsible for emboldening the Georgian president to make his "bold" and stupid move against the Big Bear.

And anyone who says that McCain is showing his strength in foregn policy isn't paying attention. McCain is a bigger hawk that George Bush has ever been. McCain is much more aligned with the Dick Cheney school of diplomacy, which is speak loud and threaten with a big whiffle ball bat. Thanks to 7+ years of Bush/Cheney rule, we have no leverage to stop anything Russia is doing and the only thing left would be direct action by our military. And McCain, Cheney and others would love another war, or two, or three.

Check out this article by Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch blog:

"Meantime, a Georgian soldier tells a U.S. reporter in the same piece: "Write exactly what I say. Over the past few years, I lived in a democratic society. I was happy. And now America and the European Union are spitting on us." They are, aren't they? They had no business making the cheap promises and representations that were made. No business on practical policy grounds. No business on strategic grounds (though I guess it got Rummy another flag, near the Salvadorans, say, for the Mesopotamian "coalition of the willing"). And now our promises are unraveling and nakedly revealed for the sorry lies and crap policy they are, with the emperor revealed to have no clothes, yet again. This is what our foreign policy mandarins masquerade about as they play policy-making, in their Washington work-stations. It's, yes, worse than a crime, rather a sad, pitiable blunder."

Maybe McCain does not equal Bush. He may be much worse.
.

Bastards!

From ThinkProgress.org:

• Flashback: Seven years ago today, Bush received ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.’ memo.

Digby adds this:

Seven years ago today:
An unnamed CIA briefer ... flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."
Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied:
"All right. You've covered your ass, now."
.

Matthew Yglesias on The Lost Opportunity

"I liked Barack Obama's summation of the big strategic picture in late 2001, and the massive lost opportunity of the Bush/McCain strategy:"

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

• We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.
• We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
• We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
• We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
• We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
• We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
• We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that. Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The Cancer Eating America's Soul

After eight years of a Bush/Cheney co-presidency the new President and Congress will have some difficult choices to make. Beyond the immediate concerns, we have tremendous problems staring us right in the face over the next few years. So, the tendency for some will be to adopt the "let's move on" mantra that will push for ignoring the lawbreaking and corruption of the Bush/Cheney administration in order to be able to truly focus on the future.
This is what many people said after Watergate, and President Ford moved this meme along by issuing a pardon. But there are some who point to that pardon and the insistence that moving on was the best medicine and say that it was really just a treatment of the symptoms, not the cancer. The black disease was left behind and spread throughout the Republican Party and emerged unchecked under the guise of a Unitary Executive philosophy of governance promoted by Dick Cheney and others.
I fear that as President Barack Obama will encourage a "let's move on" course. I know a President McCain would.
But I hope, that as Obama says those things to soothe a damaged public psyche that behind the scenes his administration and Congressional leaders will begin the process of finally learning the truth behind the corruption and malfeasance of the Bush/Cheney years.
As it emerged from the darkness of apartheid South Africa formed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help the victims and the perpetrators find justice, healing and forgiveness.
America needs a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times wrote about this yesterday:

"The first step of accountability isn’t prosecutions. Rather, we need a national Truth Commission to lead a process of soul searching and national cleansing. That was what South Africa did after apartheid, with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and it is what the United States did with the Kerner Commission on race and the 1980s commission that examined the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Today, we need a similar Truth Commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the abuses in the aftermath of 9/11."

This country will remain polarized as long as it refuses to fight and treat the cancers that are eating it up from within. We have to move forward and deal with the difficulties ahead, but we also have the resources and the time to take an honest look back at our failures and face our shame that is in our recent past.

Read it and weep.

Please read this post over at ThinkProgress.org and try not to get sick:

• Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144

Nothing new here.

Check out Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post:

"But the significance of McClellan's book is that his detailed recounting of what he saw from the inside vindicates pretty much all the central pillars of the Bush critique that have been chronicled here and elsewhere for many years now."

George and John BFF

Yes. He did say it. Repeatedly.

SHORT VERSION -- AD ONLY

LONG VERSION -- CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS THANKS TO TALKINGPOINTSMEMO.COM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

McSame, McBush, McWar, McNasty, McWhatever!

Remember ...
Bush = McCain

McCain = Bush

Silly Time Wasters

I think it was the great Atrios of Philly who coined the blogosphere term "Friedman Unit" for the six month wait-and-see period in Iraq that the wise men (and women) of Washington are always calling for. Six months here, six months there, and so on, and so on ... watch this short vid ...

Thank you, MoveOn.org.

Bush fiddles while the Army burns ...

Why won't the media listen to and report on what the Generals are saying? From Crooks and Liars here is Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Army support systems ... are straining under the accumulation of stress from six years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it.

They are breaking the Army. Remember that.

Blood on their hands.

Artist Nico Pitney created a photo mosaic using photos of the soldiers who have died in Iraq.

In remembrance of the 4,000 brave men and women who sacrificed everything for us -- and the two men who would continue this great tragedy, despite the cost to our soldiers, our military, and our nation.

Click on the image to see the larger version.

More Dick-speak

Devilstower over at DailyKos blogs:

Deaths. Injuries. Long tense days never knowing what might happen next. The Iraq Invasion sure is hard... on George W. Bush.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney was asked what effect the grim milestone of at least 4,000 U.S. deaths in the five-year Iraq war might have on the nation. Noting the burden placed on military families, the vice president said the biggest burden is carried by President George W. Bush, who made the decision to commit US troops to war, and reminded the public that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for duty.

If any one sentence could hold all the contempt that the Republicans feel for the military and for military families, this is the one. Who is this war hardest on? Poor ol' George. What about the 4,000+ who have died? Hey, they volunteered.

"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's
the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of
us."

So?

Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post writes about Vice President Cheney's recent response to a reporter's observation that most Americans oppose the war in Iraq. "So?", was his smug retort.

Former Republican congressman Mickey Edwards writes in a Washington Post op-ed that he's finally had it with Cheney: "Cheney told Raddatz that American war policy should not be affected by the views of the people. But that is precisely whose views should matter: It is the people who should decide whether the nation shall go to war. That is not a radical, or liberal, or unpatriotic idea. It is the very heart of America's constitutional system. . . .

"If Dick Cheney believes, as he obviously does, that the war in Iraq is vital to American interests, it is his job, and that of President Bush, to make the case with
sufficient proof to win the necessary public support.

"That is the difference between a strong president (one who leads) and a strong presidency (one in which ultimate power resides in the hands of a single person). Bush is officially America's 'head of state,' but he is not the head of government; he
is the head of one branch of our government, and it's not the branch that decides on war and peace.

"When the vice president dismisses public opposition to war with a simple 'So?' he violates the single most important element in the American system of government: Here, the people rule."

FISA fight proves Bush is a Fascist

Another Special Comment last night from Keith Olbermann:

We will not fear any longer.
We will not fear the international terrorists -- we will thwart them.
We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety.
We will not fear calling out the vulgar hypocrites in our government.
We will not fear George W. Bush, nor fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

Watch it at Crooks and Liars.