WT: Bush warns of threats to freedom, economic growth

[sacase]

He's BAAAAACK....with a brand new public policy institute.....looks like he still plans to play a significant role in politics.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/bush-warns-threats-freedom-economic-growth/

Former President George W. Bush, outlining plans for a new public policy institute, on Thursday said America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector, declaring that too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.

With the Obama administration establishing far-reaching controls in the auto, real estate and financial sectors, Mr. Bush said that "the role of government is not to create wealth, but to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive."

"As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control. History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much," said Mr. Bush, who has remained largely out of the limelight since leaving office and rarely criticizes his successor.

Delivering a speech on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, future home to the George W. Bush Presidential Center, the former president sought to explain his decision to have the federal government intervene at the beginning of the economic downturn last fall.

"I believe in the power of the free enterprise system, which made the decision I faced last fall one of the most difficult of my presidency. I went against my free market instincts and approved a temporary government intervention to unfreeze credit and prevent a global financial catastrophe," he said.

click the link for the rest of the article.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Lets look at Bush's record on handling national economies....hmmmm. Forgive me if I ignore him, he had his 8 years.

[SnyderShrugged]

Mr. Military Commissions and Patriot Act is now preaching about "threats to Freedoms"?

That takes the cake.

[Burgold]

His speech runs contrary to his actions. He believed in expanding gov't, no bids, bailouts, stimuli, etc. His credibility therefore is very low.

[Thiebear]

hes making fat cash while doing it too

[twa]

He believed in expanding gov't, no bids, bailouts, stimuli, etc. His credibility therefore is very low.

He is Obama?;)

[AsburySkinsFan]

He is Obama?;)
His credibility as a "Free Market Conservative" is very low, seems to be what he meant.;)

[Larry]

Well, now, W did actually successfully transform Bill Clinton into an Elder Statesman. Maybe Obama will do the same thing to W.

(I think Obama inherited a tougher job.)

[twa]

Well, now, W did actually successfully transform Bill Clinton into an Elder Statesman. Maybe Obama will do the same thing to W.

(I think Obama inherited a tougher job.)

It seems to be working so far,heck even the Reps are being transformed faster than I ever thought possible.

I've actually seen libs apologizing to W :)

[JMS]

Former President George W. Bush, outlining plans for a new public policy institute, on Thursday said America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector, declaring that too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.


Remind me who bailed out the banking sector?

The old way ex-President's feathered their nests was with Libraries. They got their supporters to donate millions to build these things and then turned them over to the federal government to maintain. The President in quesiton would then hire himself as a policy wonk and get paid a huge consulting fee.

After Clinton they ended this practice and curtailed the public funds which would go to these monumnets of personal achievement. So now bush isn't going after a library, but a Public Policy Institute..

[twa]

W isn't getting a library?....since when?

[Destino]

He supported bail outs at one point and allowed Enron to put California in danger to increase profits.... not to mention this little economic cliff the US drove off of, happened entirely under his watch. He came in during a boom and left in a crisis. Time for Bush to go back to clearing brush on his ranch and leaving the politics alone.

Besides if we wanted Bush's opinion, we'd get it from Cheney.

[Kilmer17]

W isn't getting a library?....since when?


He is.


http://smu.edu/bushlibrary/

Mr. and Mrs. Bush continue with plans for the George W. Bush Presidential Center at SMU and periodically visit the University to take part in events and to meet with students, faculty and administrators.

[Zguy28]

Mr. Military Commissions and Patriot Act is now preaching about "threats to Freedoms"?

That takes the cake.Dubya likes cake.

[mjah]

Besides if we wanted Bush's opinion, we'd get it from Cheney.
You have displeased Richard.

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/05/cheney4-7241043.jpg

Torture, rendition, Guantanamo: There's no chance America will listen to Bush Jr. on preserving "freedoms."

Of course, a quick read reveals that throughout the meaty first half of the article Bush is talking about the freedoms of businesses, and not so much the freedoms of people. (One would think they're ultimately the same thing, but clearly in W's view they were not.) So to be fair, he isn't contradicting his earlier pro-torture, pro-rendition, pro-Guantanamo stance.

The rest of the article and its "extending the reach of freedom" angle? Well, that's just a difference of opinion between Mr. Bush and himself. ;)

[DeanCollins]

Dubya, trying to detoxify his legacy in the hopes of getting a few airports and aircraft carriers named after him. I'm sure the nit wits in TX are plastering his name on large man made objects already. :doh:

[Mickalino]

On video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikk1kyVzd8I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptjefb_JQ9Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loVNTBG9Ea4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iv7OVhj5X8

[Wrong Direction]

He supported bail outs at one point and allowed Enron to put California in danger to increase profits.... not to mention this little economic cliff the US drove off of, happened entirely under his watch. He came in during a boom and left in a crisis. Time for Bush to go back to clearing brush on his ranch and leaving the politics alone.

Besides if we wanted Bush's opinion, we'd get it from Cheney.

Actually, he came in during a recession, shortly after the .com bubble burst causing the loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, with the fundamentals of the housing bubble well in place (low fed rates, recently passed mortgage interest deduction), in the midst of the Palestinian Intifada which occurred when Clinton's buddy Arafat pulled out of peace talks and facing a quiet threat which was planning to manifest itself on 9/11.

Otherwise, everything was peachy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually, he came in during a recession, shortly after the .com bubble burst causing the loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, with the fundamentals of the housing bubble well in place (low fed rates, recently passed mortgage interest deduction), in the midst of the Palestinian Intifada which occurred when Clinton's buddy Arafat pulled out of peace talks and facing a quiet threat which was planning to manifest itself on 9/11.

Otherwise, everything was peachy.

Nice spin, Glen and Sean would be proud.

[Baculus]

Mr. Military Commissions and Patriot Act is now preaching about "threats to Freedoms"?

That takes the cake.

That, and the crony capitalism that was pushed during his administration.

[SnyderShrugged]

That, and the crony capitalism that was pushed during his administration.


agreed. (though it still is happenning under the new admin too)

[herrmag]

His speech runs contrary to his actions. He believed in expanding gov't, no bids, bailouts, stimuli, etc. His credibility therefore is very low.

While I will certainly join the side calling him a hypocrite, I'm also certainly not going to post in this thread saying "I won't listen to a word he says because he's Dubya and the anti-christ". From what I read in the article, I think he's dead on. It's a shame many will dismiss the message because of the messenger.

[SkinsHokieFan]

He supported bail outs at one point and allowed Enron to put California in danger to increase profits.... not to mention this little economic cliff the US drove off of, happened entirely under his watch. He came in during a boom and left in a crisis. Time for Bush to go back to clearing brush on his ranch and leaving the politics alone.

Besides if we wanted Bush's opinion, we'd get it from Cheney.

I agree with most of your items except "and allowed Enron to put California in danger to increase profits"

I don't know how many times I gotta tell you, the California energy crises began in 2000. Before the election and before W was sworn in :)

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

[Wrong Direction]

Nice spin, Glen and Sean would be proud.

I get it. Facts are spin when they don't support your hero. Whatever dude.

Bush didn't exactly inherit a perfect world. Most presidents don't. I'm simply saying that the challenges he inherited were VERY significant.

[Wrong Direction]

While I will certainly join the side calling him a hypocrite, I'm also certainly not going to post in this thread saying "I won't listen to a word he says because he's Dubya and the anti-christ". From what I read in the article, I think he's dead on. It's a shame many will dismiss the message because of the messenger.

Yup. Nobody's saying Bush was the best president ever, or even a very good one (at least I'm not). That doesn't invalidate any particular opinion of his though.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I agree we should be wary of sacrificing Freedom because of our fear. I don't think that's whats happened, at all, with our finances.

I do think that 8 years ago Bush did exactly that to us, but hey.

[Destino]

Actually, he came in during a recession, shortly after the .com bubble burst causing the loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, with the fundamentals of the housing bubble well in place (low fed rates, recently passed mortgage interest deduction), in the midst of the Palestinian Intifada which occurred when Clinton's buddy Arafat pulled out of peace talks and facing a quiet threat which was planning to manifest itself on 9/11.

Otherwise, everything was peachy.

The recession you're mentioning was gone almost as fast as people claimed it existed. The housing market crash effected the entire economy because so much private money was poorly invested in it, not because of low rates and deductions. When mortgage backed securities became a favorite of every financial house in the US the entire economy was put at risk. His strong anti regulation stance certainly prevented any chance slowing down the runaway greed train before it went off the rails. Speaking of regulation, he also watched as energy markets were manipulated (starting with his friends at Enron) and ending in gas prices permanently doubling.

[jpillian]

I had no idea that they were going ahead with the library at SMU. All I heard was the opposition a few years back from SMU faculty members to a GWB Library there.

Guess it's on track: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_Presidential_Center

As to the politics, I think he should probably just go ahead an enjoy his retirement.

[Wrong Direction]

The recession you're mentioning was gone almost as fast as people claimed it existed. The housing market crash effected the entire economy because so much private money was poorly invested in it, not because of low rates and deductions. When mortgage backed securities became a favorite of every financial house in the US the entire economy was put at risk. His strong anti regulation stance certainly prevented any chance slowing down the runaway greed train before it went off the rails. Speaking of regulation, he also watched as energy markets were manipulated (starting with his friends at Enron) and ending in gas prices permanently doubling.

You just hate it when people point out that the world wasn't perfect when Clinton left office, don't you?

For the record, I strongly believe the housing problem was caused by many factors. If you think government and fed intervention had nothing to do with the bubble, I think you're wrong. This is one example of the Austrians being 100% right, and the political establishment being wrong.

I agree that banks had a large role as well, as well as many investors.

I also think Bush, the fed and Congress (dem and Rep) should have seen what was happening and put a stop to it. Unfortunately, neither party did, regardless of what the candidates tried to claim during the debates. Heck, in his book, Greenspan even acknowledged that he knew he was creating a bubble but he saw the downside of a bubble burst as worth it because he wanted to expand home ownership to lower income individuals. There's no doubt in my mind that Clinton, Bush and most Democrats were 100% on board with that philosophy.

Also, gas prices doubling was also caused by numerous factors. Check your history again and you'll see that gas prices actually started spiking during the last 2 Clinton summers. It continued, and obviously got worse, during the Bush administration, at least partially because of the instability in the middle east and the lack of new domestic energy production.

I wish things were as simple as "Bush didn't regulate." They're not.

[Baculus]

Actually, he came in during a recession, shortly after the .com bubble burst causing the loss of trillions of dollars in wealth, with the fundamentals of the housing bubble well in place (low fed rates, recently passed mortgage interest deduction), in the midst of the Palestinian Intifada which occurred when Clinton's buddy Arafat pulled out of peace talks and facing a quiet threat which was planning to manifest itself on 9/11.

Otherwise, everything was peachy.

Yeah, Bush faced that "quiet threat" so much that he did nothing about the reports that Al-Qaeda intended to attack the U.S. You know, the attacked headed by a member of a family -- the Bin Ladens -- which were friendly with Bush.

The Palestinian Intifada started several years earlier, during the 90s, after several other Intifadas. Clinton tried to resolve the situation, but it isn't as if he had control over Arafat, who should have taken the deal as offered by Israel. Arafat wasn't exactly a "pal" of Clinton -- just a hopeful negotiating partner.

Everything wasn't perfect when Bush came into power, but we have to look at the end result of his two terms in office as well.

[Baculus]

Also, gas prices doubling was also caused by numerous factors. Check your history again and you'll see that gas prices actually started spiking during the last 2 Clinton summers. It continued, and obviously got worse, during the Bush administration, at least partially because of the instability in the middle east and the lack of new domestic energy production.

I wish things were as simple as "Bush didn't regulate." They're not.

Nothing that happened in the 80s and 90s compared to the gas prices that peaked a few years ago. To a degree, some of the factors responsible for the mid-2000s crises were out of the hands of Bush, but it is also disingenuous to somehow blame it on Clinton. No "spikes," which are normal for energy prices (dating back to the Reagan years) compared to 2005/2006, when prices went crazy.

It seems like you are trying to blame everything on Clinton and absolving Bush of any events during his Presidency.

[Wrong Direction]

Yeah, Bush faced that "quiet threat" so much that he did nothing about the reports that Al-Qaeda intended to attack the U.S. You know, the attacked headed by a member of a family -- the Bin Ladens -- which were friendly with Bush.

The Palestinian Intifada started several years earlier, during the 90s, after several other Intifadas. Clinton tried to resolve the situation, but it isn't as if he had control over Arafat, who should have taken the deal as offered by Israel. Arafat wasn't exactly a "pal" of Clinton -- just a hopeful negotiating partner.

Everything wasn't perfect when Bush came into power, but we have to look at the end result of his two terms in office as well.

Well, Clinton elevated Arafat from a position of an international terrorist to a Palestinian statesman. I actually applaud Clinton for his peace efforts, but his decision to work with Arafat - something that was heavily criticized at the time - came back to bite him in the ass. It's tough to negotiate in good faith when one of the "partners" isn't doing so.

I wish Bush did more before 9/11 like everyone else. However, I find it disengenuous to act like the entire reason 9/11 occured was because of what Bush and his new national security team missed in the first 8 months of his presedency. Again, he didn't inherit a perfect world. There's plenty of fault to go around, and yes, Clinton deserves some of that fault.

[Wrong Direction]

Nothing that happened in the 80s and 90s compared to the gas prices that peaked a few years ago. To a degree, some of the factors responsible for the mid-2000s crises were out of the hands of Bush, but it is also disingenuous to somehow blame it on Clinton. No "spikes," which are normal for energy prices (dating back to the Reagan years) compared to 2005/2006, when prices went crazy.

It seems like you are trying to blame everything on Clinton and absolving Bush of any events during his Presidency.

There wasn't war in Iraq in the 1990's. Clinton's war of choice had much less of an effect on prices, admittedly.

Of course, if Democrats supported domestic energy production over the last 40 years, we'd have been much less susceptable to energy spikes of that nature.

Again...plenty of fault to go around. I'm not blaming him for everything. I'm simply point out pretty obvious historical evidence that not all of the world's problems can be blamed on Bush, which many people want to do.

[LaxBuddy21]

All this shows is how much easier it is to state your beliefs and say what is right and wrong to do when you are not the one under the gun making decisions. Bush had some tough decisions to make and had to do what he felt was best for the nation at the time not necessarily what he ideally thought was best. Obama is learning the same thing. All the promises he made and all the ideas he had about change and he is steady carrying over so many of Bush's policies because they are what he feels is the right thing to do given the current situation. I dont think Bush would be acting much different than Obama if he were in office right now except on the healthcare bill. So far, that is the big distinction between the two presidencies but Im sure that will change over the next couple years.

[LaxBuddy21]

There wasn't war in Iraq in the 1990's. Clinton's war of choice had much less of an effect on prices, admittedly.

Of course, if Democrats supported domestic energy production over the last 40 years, we'd have been much less susceptable to energy spikes of that nature.

Again...plenty of fault to go around. I'm not blaming him for everything. I'm simply point out pretty obvious historical evidence that not all of the world's problems can be blamed on Bush, which many people want to do.

People always blame the guy holding the hammer when the building falls down no matter how many people worked on it. We just need to take our partisan blinders off and realize how many people helped build this mess and work together to try to fix it rather than spend most of our time trying to blame whoever we can!

[Predicto]

I agree with most of your items except "and allowed Enron to put California in danger to increase profits"

I don't know how many times I gotta tell you, the California energy crises began in 2000. Before the election and before W was sworn in :)

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

Yes, ths is true. The creation of the California energy crisis can be tied to both Democrats and Republicans in the California Legislature, who were bamboozled by rapacious energy providers into handing them a huge windfall. They thought they were creating a competitive market similar to the telephone industry, where prices would drop and service would go up. The intentions were good. But the actual market was designed by energy lobbyists, who understood the inelasticity of demand for energy. They set it up so that individual companies and consortiums would gain monopoly control of geographic areas and energy bottlenecks so that they could manipulate supply and make prices soar.

Unfortunately, once the crisis was in full bloom, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was the only entity that could do anything about it, due to federal preemption of state refugation. And the FEC absolutely refused to intervene, no matter how bad the crisis got. I don;t know if the refusal was because of pure ideology, or because so many of the companies in the market had political ties to the Bush Administration. But it was a damn disgrace, either way.

Believe me when I say that I know more about this particular subject than anyone you are ever likely to meet.

[Baculus]

Well, Clinton elevated Arafat from a position of an international terrorist to a Palestinian statesman. I actually applaud Clinton for his peace efforts, but his decision to work with Arafat - something that was heavily criticized at the time - came back to bite him in the ass. It's tough to negotiate in good faith when one of the "partners" isn't doing so.

We have to remember that Arafat had spoken in front of the United Nations years before Clinton interacted with him, so he was already elevated to a pseudo-statesman role before the 90s. Really, there were no other major figures in the Palestinian movement with whom Clinton could negotiate. For good or bad, if a peace deal was to be brokered between Israel and the Palestinians, Arafat had to be involved.


I wish Bush did more before 9/11 like everyone else. However, I find it disengenuous to act like the entire reason 9/11 occured was because of what Bush and his new national security team missed in the first 8 months of his presedency. Again, he didn't inherit a perfect world. There's plenty of fault to go around, and yes, Clinton deserves some of that fault.

I don't think 9-11 is entirely Bush's fault and I never said that -- responsibility should be shared. But I do think his administration failed to aggressively heed all of the warning signs leading up to the 9-11 attack. At the same time, you seem to be attempting to frame everything as Clinton's responsibility, which is totally ignoring the events of 2001.

You wouldn't be the first person to suggest that 9-11 was Clinton's fault, as if Bush wasn't in office at the time of the attacks.

[twa]

All this shows is how much easier it is to state your beliefs and say what is right and wrong to do when you are not the one under the gun making decisions. Bush had some tough decisions to make and had to do what he felt was best for the nation at the time not necessarily what he ideally thought was best. Obama is learning the same thing. All the promises he made and all the ideas he had about change and he is steady carrying over so many of Bush's policies because they are what he feels is the right thing to do given the current situation. I dont think Bush would be acting much different than Obama if he were in office right now except on the healthcare bill. So far, that is the big distinction between the two presidencies but Im sure that will change over the next couple years.

Indeed...Talk is cheap w/o responsibility

W changed directions on many things because of circumstances...just as O has and will.

[Wrong Direction]

People always blame the guy holding the hammer when the building falls down no matter how many people worked on it. We just need to take our partisan blinders off and realize how many people helped build this mess and work together to try to fix it rather than spend most of our time trying to blame whoever we can!

Where can I vote for you next November?

[twa]

Believe me when I say that I know more about this particular subject than anyone you are ever likely to meet.

I've always wondered what drove them to put their head in the noose.

Self destructive behavior is always fascinating to me.

[Wrong Direction]

We have to remember that Arafat had spoken in front of the United Nations years before Clinton interacted with him, so he was already elevated to a pseudo-statesman role before the 90s. Really, there were no other major figures in the Palestinian movement with whom Clinton could negotiate. For good or bad, if a peace deal was to be brokered between Israel and the Palestinians, Arafat had to be involved.

Yeah, he just happened to pick the wrong partner. It was worth a shot...it just didn't work and the fallout was pretty serious.


I don't think 9-11 is entirely Bush's fault and I never said that -- responsibility should be shared. But I do think his administration failed to aggressively heed all of the warning signs leading up to the 9-11 attack. At the same time, you seem to be attempting to frame everything as Clinton's responsibility, which is totally ignoring the events of 2001.

You wouldn't be the first person to suggest that 9-11 was Clinton's fault, as if Bush wasn't in office at the time of the attacks.

Actually, I've tried to point out something Bush did wrong in most of these posts. I'm no Bush homer. Like Predicto with the Cali energy crisis, I have an "inside" view on both healthcare and the Katrina response. On the former, Bush actually did some good things. Indeed, Obamacare is modeled after the Bush/Republican Part D bill. It's has it's flaws, but generally speaking satisfaction is high and costs are lower than expected.

On Katrina, the state screwed up big time, but I saw first hand how bad the feds can be when they try to respond. Unfortunately, they're repeating many of the same mistakes with the H1N1 response.

[ACW]

Well, if ANYONE would know about threats to freedom and economic growth, it's Mr. Bailout himself.

[Baculus]

There wasn't war in Iraq in the 1990's. Clinton's war of choice had much less of an effect on prices, admittedly.

And the war of choice by the Bush administration was Iraq. Yes, foreign policy choices can lead to blow back, including the affect on energy prices.


Of course, if Democrats supported domestic energy production over the last 40 years, we'd have been much less susceptable to energy spikes of that nature.

And if Republican Presidential administrations hadn't opposed alternative energy development during the last forty years, then we wouldn't have to worry about fossil fuel production.

This wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. We are decades behind in renewable energy development due past Republican efforts, and now we are having to play catchup.


Again...plenty of fault to go around. I'm not blaming him for everything. I'm simply point out pretty obvious historical evidence that not all of the world's problems can be blamed on Bush, which many people want to do.

Well, you did seem to be looking backwards at Clinton for every major issue. I also don't think everything is Bush's fault, either, but I have heard too many efforts to blame everything on Obama or Clinton, while absolving Bush of any responsibility for the nations woes.

[LaxBuddy21]

Where can I vote for you next November?

In many ways I wish I could run but the political parties have polarized Americas view point so much that people do not want to look outside the two. It has gotten ridiculous and it will take a very strong very popular (also very wealthy) non-partisan candidate to enact any real change. Otherwise, we will continue voting for the guys that tow the party lines. Its more fun to blame the other side when things go wrong than it is to realize none of us actually fit either party and most of us are actually in the middle. Working together is not as much fun as saying liberals or conservatives suck and are ruining our country!

[Predicto]

I've always wondered what drove them to put their head in the noose.

Self destructive behavior is always fascinating to me.

The legislators saw what happened with the breakup of Ma Bell and the deregulation of telecommunications (better service, cheaper service, more options for the consumer, etc,), and they wanted to replicate it in the electrical market. The intentions were very free market, and very noble.

It didn't work, for lots of reasons.

[Destino]

I agree with most of your items except "and allowed Enron to put California in danger to increase profits"

I don't know how many times I gotta tell you, the California energy crises began in 2000. Before the election and before W was sworn in :)

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

There is a difference between when this began and when people gained an understanding of what was happening. When California asked for help Bush chose to help his friends at Enron and even let them choose the FEC chairman.

[Baculus]

Yeah, he just happened to pick the wrong partner. It was worth a shot...it just didn't work and the fallout was pretty serious.

For Clinton, there really was no other partner in the PLO available: It was Arafat or no one else. Also, Clinton undertook a more serious effort to resolve the situation in that region more than either George H.W. Bush or Reagan.

Clinton couldn't control the fighting between the two sides in that region. He attempted to mediate the situation, but the two sides could not get along.


Actually, I've tried to point out something Bush did wrong in most of these posts. I'm no Bush homer. Like Predicto with the Cali energy crisis, I have an "inside" view on both healthcare and the Katrina response. On the former, Bush actually did some good things. Indeed, Obamacare is modeled after the Bush/Republican Part D bill. It's has it's flaws, but generally speaking satisfaction is high and costs are lower than expected.

Sorry, but you came across as a Bush homer. That is partially what inspired my initial responses. But hey, I have defended Clinton, so I guess it is a push. :)


On Katrina, the state screwed up big time, but I saw first hand how bad the feds can be when they try to respond. Unfortunately, they're repeating many of the same mistakes with the H1N1 response.

That is what you get when you put someone such as Michael Brown, a totally political appointee, in charge of FEMA

As far as H1N1, I believe vaccinations can only be produced so fast, if they are necessary in the first place.

[Baculus]

There is a difference between when this began and when people gained an understanding of what was happening. When California asked for help Bush chose to help his friends at Enron and even let them choose the FEC chairman.

Bush wasn't even truthful about his relationship with Ken Lay, when President Bush denied he was ever close or friends with this man.

Letters such as the one at the following URL would demonstrate otherwise. Calling Lay an "old friend" is probably a demonstration of familiarity.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0708042lay1.html

http://www.truthout.org/article/george-w-bush-and-kenneth-lay

[Destino]

Bush wasn't even truthful about his relationship with Ken Lay, when President Bush denied he was ever close or friends with this man.

Letters such as the one at the following URL would demonstrate otherwise. Calling Lay an "old friend" is probably a demonstration of familiarity.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0708042lay1.html

http://www.truthout.org/article/george-w-bush-and-kenneth-lay

Why do you think keeping the people that attending white house energy policy meetings secret was so important to Cheney? They had targetted all the nations anger at the top people at Enron and successfully escaped out the back door.

[Baculus]

Why do you think keeping the people that attending white house energy policy meetings secret was so important to Cheney? They had targetted all the nations anger at the top people at Enron and successfully escaped out the back door.

Yep, very likely. There was definitely a bit of CYA taking place with that.

[Wrong Direction]

For Clinton, there really was no other partner in the PLO available: It was Arafat or no one else. Also, Clinton undertook a more serious effort to resolve the situation in that region more than either George H.W. Bush or Reagan.

Clinton couldn't control the fighting between the two sides in that region. He attempted to mediate the situation, but the two sides could not get along.

Well, that's his side of things. The other side of things is that you can't force, or trust, a terrorist to be a willing partner, and doing so will only set things back. This is why there's so much hand-wringing with Obama's willingness to talk with Ahmedinijad.


That is what you get when you put someone such as Michael Brown, a totally political appointee, in charge of FEMA

As far as H1N1, I believe vaccinations can only be produced so fast, if they are necessary in the first place.

I'm certainly not arguing in favor of Michael Brown, but there's a systemic structural problem with emergency response from the federal level in this country. There's a reason that Wall St. firms have vaccines but pregnant women have to hope to find them. There's also a reason that many nursing homes can't even get the seasonal flu vaccine this year.

I'll stop there, but the incompetence is disappointing.

[Destino]

Well, that's his side of things. The other side of things is that you can't force, or trust, a terrorist to be a willing partner, and doing so will only set things back. This is why there's so much hand-wringing with Obama's willingness to talk with Ahmedinijad.What difference did it make? There was fighting there before Clinton and there is fighting after. He tried to make peace in a part of the world that historically has known very little of it. That area of the world will continue to see flare ups for the perceivable because neither side is acting in a way that will produce peace.

[Wrong Direction]

What difference did it make? There was fighting there before Clinton and there is fighting after. He tried to make peace in a part of the world that historically has known very little of it. That area of the world will continue to see flare ups for the perceivable because neither side is acting in a way that will produce peace.

As I said earlier, I applauded the effort. I just think it proved to be fruitless.

The result is more of the same, only Isreal's negotiating position has been somewhat weakened. In the grand scheme of things, I'll go down as just another failed attempt to make peace.

Good try, I guess.

[Destino]

As I said earlier, I applauded the effort. I just think it proved to be fruitless.
I agree with you. Completely fruitless and a huge waste of time.

[Seabee1973]

He supported bail outs at one point and allowed Enron to put California in danger to increase profits.... not to mention this little economic cliff the US drove off of, happened entirely under his watch. He came in during a boom and left in a crisis. Time for Bush to go back to clearing brush on his ranch and leaving the politics alone.

Besides if we wanted Bush's opinion, we'd get it from Cheney.

To bad those started in 2000 before Bush took office

[Burgold]

I'm certainly not arguing in favor of Michael Brown, but there's a systemic structural problem with emergency response from the federal level in this country. There's a reason that Wall St. firms have vaccines but pregnant women have to hope to find them. There's also a reason that many nursing homes can't even get the seasonal flu vaccine this year.

I'll stop there, but the incompetence is disappointing.

The thing that distresses me about Katrina is how backwards our response was. The Federal response to the Dustbowl disaster of the 1930's was faster, more efficient, more comprehensive and better with less sophisticated technology and poorer communication. That 70 years later we are much less able to mobilize and help or provide relief is nuts to me... and frankly, unbelievable.

[twa]

The thing that distresses me about Katrina is how backwards our response was. The Federal response to the Dustbowl disaster of the 1930's was faster, more efficient, more comprehensive and better with less sophisticated technology and poorer communication. That 70 years later we are much less able to mobilize and help or provide relief is nuts to me... and frankly, unbelievable.


Come down and try it sometime;)

There are good reasons for local required responsibility and planning in both preparation and the immediate aftermath because of the uncertainty and widespread destruction.

The dustbowl?:hysterical:

[Burgold]

If you prefer, Clinton's FEMA response time was also much quicker during Hurricane Andrew. You can put blame on every level, but there is no level that should be spared from blame for the way Katrina was dealt with. Horrible on every level. More fingerpointing and excuse making than acceptable too.

[twa]

Clinton's??

The slow response of federal aid to storm victims in southern Florida led Dade County emergency management director Kate Hale to famously exclaim at a nationally televised news conference, "Where in the hell is the cavalry on this one? They keep saying we're going to get supplies. For God's sake, where are they?" Almost immediately, President George H. W. Bush promised, "Help is on the way," and mobile kitchens and tents, along with units from the 82nd Airborne Division, began pouring in.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Andrew

[jnhay]

Hasn't China's economy grown tremendously because of their government involvement? I'm not saying I agree with it, just that the economic growth part isn't necessarily true.

[Midnight Judges]

During the Bush administration, Republicans constantly told me Jimmy Carter was a disgrace because past Presidents are supposed to stay out of politics. They said this was a sacred American tradition, and Carter was the first President to break with it (nevermind that they were completely wrong and Presidents from John Quincy Adams to Teddy Roosevelt stayed very active in politics after their terms).

So what happened to that particular Republican principle? Did they finally take an American history class or are they simply hypocrites?

[twa]

During the Bush administration, Republicans constantly told me Jimmy Carter was a disgrace because past Presidents are supposed to stay out of politics. They said this was a sacred American tradition, and Carter was the first President to break with it (nevermind that they were completely wrong and Presidents from John Quincy Adams to Teddy Roosevelt stayed very active in politics after their terms).

So what happened to that particular Republican principle? Did they finally take an American history class or are they simply hypocrites?

??

Don't you mean Foreign policy?
I don't even see where W went beyond general principles here

Carter:chair:

[youngestson]

So what happened to that particular Republican principle? Did they finally take an American history class or are they simply hypocrites?

Anyone who touts a party line (Dem or GOP) come hell or high water needs a very high tolerance for self imposed hypocrisy.