Will US Survive Last 15 Months of Bush Presidency?
Rarely has a man made more of a fool of himself, than has Lou Dobbs with most of his recent post on his webpage on CNN.com. Rarely does one catch such a glimpse of self-importance, arrogance and assumptions of omniscience. It is so bad that Dobbs imagines himself enough of a soothsayer, enough of a scryer,* that he knows what Bush’s legacy will be even before Bush leaves office… if, according to Dobbs, the country is still even here when Bush steps down. Talk about wild-eyed, hyperbole. With people like Dobbs and Olberman, it is no wonder that no one believes what the MSM says. Their “act” is so outrageous, there is no way to take them seriously.
“Beware the lame duck,” Dobbs ominously warns with his headline in this piece, most of which is just a silly screed, where he worries that the country won’t last another 15 months.
Frankly, I spend more time worrying about whether or not the United States can survive the remaining 15 months of his ebbing presidency.
Oh, brother.
And in his arrogance, Dobbs assumes he somehow knows what Bush’s legacy will be with “historians” of the future.
There is little mystery about what future historians will consider to be the legacy of the 43rd president of the United States. Those historians are certain to describe the first presidential administration of the 21st century with terms such as dissipation and perversion.
No self-respecting historian would claim to know any such thing. Truman, for instance, was widely considered an utter failure as he was leaving office. Reagan was thought by many to have been a doddering fool who did little while in the White House. In both cases those president’s legacies were greatly enhanced by the passage of time and the ability to more properly assess their work in office that passage of time afforded. And these two executives are not the only ones whose legacy changed as historians found more evidence of their efforts and of the results from them. So, anyone who claims he already knows Bush’s legacy is a either an idiot, or a liar.
Dobbs next launches into what he claims “conservatives” refuse to accept about Bush.
Although many conservatives refuse to accept the reality, George W. Bush is a one-world neo-liberal who drove budget and trade deficits to record heights while embracing faith-based economic policies that perversely require only blind allegiance to free markets and free trade, without regard for consequence.
Very few conservatives ever thought of Bush as one of them. He was known as a big government Republican since day one. So, Dobbs is way off base imagining that conservatives “refuse to accept the reality” that Bush is no conservative. In fact, it’s hard to even find a conservative that ever claimed Bush was conservative. Many, in fact, think him a liberal in spending and his tenure in office has proved them correct.
Then Dobbs launches into a litany of supposed calamities caused by president Bush but the most ridiculous comment was this one:
This president pursues a war without demanding of his generals either success or victory and accepts the sacrifice of our brave young men and women in uniform while asking nothing of our people or the nation at a time of war.
This whole sentence is simply meaningless babble. Bush has replaced several generals who were not performing up to his desires (just like Lincoln did, by the way), so the claim that he expects nothing from them is absurd on its face. Bush may have had mistaken policies but to claim he has never expected anything from his generals just makes no sense. Further, what “sacrifice” is Dobbs expecting from the “people or the nation,” anyway? Is he expecting some quaint WWII effort? Is he expecting scrap drives and ration stamps? Perhaps Dobbs hasn’t noticed the fact that such efforts are not needed now in the same way they were in WWII? We are not in a depression, we are not fighting the millions of men we faced from Germany, Italy and Japan, and we are not gearing up from no military to a world ranging force like we had to in the 1940s. Also, we have an all volunteer army without a draft. How could we expect MORE sacrifice from the people (with compulsory government programs like we had in WWII) than we do from the people who would fight the war, an age class not compelled through a draft to serve in the military?
Dobbs laments, “Sadly, this president has diminished a great nation and may diminish it further.”
What tosh. If you want to see a diminished nation, then check out the USA in the waning hours of the Clinton presidency. Al Qaeda ranged with no impediment from Clinton freely planning 9/11 while the president and his family roamed through the White House stealing furniture and silverware, their staffs childishly wandered about vandalizing government offices in Washington, and felons by the droves paid the Clintons off for last second pardons. And that’s not to even mention the many years of one “gate” scandal after another previous to those last days.
But, my guess is that despite all the criminality of the wasted Clinton years, Dobbs felt quite good about that time. I’d also bet Dobbs was arrogant enough to have fully assessed how “great” Clinton was by that period of time, as well. No doubt Dobbs felt just a’OK about the administration that helped our enemies across the world set up the dangerous conditions that Bush found himself in on 9/11.
Now, to end his piece, Dobbs goes after the LOST treaty. And here he finally makes some sense. The LOST treaty should remain lost in the hole that Ronald Reagan tossed it into before he left office in the 1980s. Dobbs’ criticism against this disastrous treaty is spot on, so he does redeem himself from utter insanity just in the nick of time even as he cannot avoid childish hyperbole to describe it.
All in all, Dobbs comes off far more as a ranting nut than he does a serious commentator with this latest rambling example of BDS. Dobbs seems to imagine himself some sort of historian but should he imagine a true “historian” would chose the sort of frothing rhetoric Dobbs chose, he is sadly mistaken. Unfortunately for our times and discourse, Dobbs is just yet another example of why people like him cannot be taken seriously.
*A “scryer” is someone who reads a crystal ball to see the future.
| More from Warner Todd Huston
Stumble It!
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:55 am
So, anyone who claims he already knows Bush’s legacy is a either an idiot, or a liar.
Maybe I can’t know about GWB, but I can pretty much assure you I know Clinton’s “legacy”. It’s not always impossible to predict the future.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 am
…But here is the thing. Clinton has been out of office for nearly 8 years already. We at least have SOME info to make a rough determination over with clinton. Bush hasn’t even LEFT office yet and this Dobbs dolt thinks he knows all already!
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 am
Warner Todd Juston
What do you think of rival site that Mike LaSalle reportedly planned surpass one day, now reporting a puff piece from NYT how the site initially exposed Monica Lewisnky scandal, now claims needing Clinton?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/politics/22drudge.html?ei=5065&en=8e8c56803a2a987c&ex=1193630400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 am
Relevant quote from NYT
At the same time, Democrats said they noticed an occasional Clinton-friendly tone from Mr. Drudge, whom New York magazine quoted as saying on his program: “I need Hillary Clinton. You don’t get it. I need to be part of her world. That’s my bank.”
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Makes me wonder how much the RNC paid to get this attack on Lou Dobbs on line. Dobbs is one of the few, perhaps the only on national TV, to speak the truth on issues of vital national importance. And one of the few, other than Democrat Party hacks, to speak out on the Bush administration’s many failures.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 am
Maybe if Bush vetoes the Commerce Justice and Science bill in a few days will he have a good legacy. 19 Republican senators voted No on it so I would assume that, if Georgy had guts, he would veto it and send it back for another vote.
Somehow I doubt he is going to do that, however. He doesn’t seem to want to be known for vetoing legislation.
This bill authorizes $430 Million to radical feminist groups via the unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women that Clinton set up in 1995 AFTER the Republicans supposedly retook Congress. Since then, the Republicans have had the Presidency 8 years and both houses of Congress and now have the judicial branch…and feminists are about to get yet another $430 Million per year through this illegal office at the DOJ.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 am
I’ve just started watching Lou Dobbs on CNN after many years in which I have not had access to CNN. He seems a lot more fired up than he used to be. He’s still an extremely intelligent and knowledgable guy who has many years of experience to call upon for wisdom. If it’s any consulation, Bush was elected in large measure because he’s not Al Gore. The two parties are both so inbred at this point, that between them, they can’t come up with half a candidate that looks like a good leader for the country. It’s so bad that Republicans may have a difficult time defeating Hillary Clinton – they might even lose. There is no doubt that both parties are ripping the country apart and selling off the pieces. There is no longer any remedy in maintaining support for either one just to defeat the other. That foolishness has gone on for too long and its been the perfect formula for letting them go too far.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Three points are fairly certain to me:
1.I will bet the bank that George W Bush will get high marks from future historians on his handling of the most important issue of our times, ie., the war against the Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers. Don’t forget that right from the beginning, he has recognized that this not a local war like Korea or Viet-Nam. In November 2002, the late Saddam Hussein said that Bush would never bring him down because “the street” demonstrators would intimidate him. He chose a course, adapted his tactics and stuck with it. What is Harry Reid saying about Iraq now?
2. He has undergone more villification than any American President in my lifetime and that goes back to FDR without responding to idiots like Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to name a few.
3. His weaknesses have been an inability to convince the American people of the danger of Islam but the effect of the liberal bias of the MSM and the reluctance of people to face unpleasant truths have played a part in that and also immigration. He does not seem to understand that Americans have had it with the
pipe-dreams of their juducial, academic, Hollywood and media elites.
The Clintons? When the historians get hold of the records going back to the beginnings in Arkansas, they will without question go down as the most crooked and shoddiest people ever in American plitical life. Worse than Grant, Harding, Nixon and Carter. Can anyone name one thing that they have done for the American people?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 am
Gus,
You seem to forget that Hillary Clinton is loved by the majority of American women and even Fox News loves introducing “conservative women” as feminists.
The culture war is over and the other side completely won. Our only chance is to get Russia or the Arabs to fund a third party.
The liberal pipe dreams have come true. You cannot measure that they failed because Iraq was liberated. Liberals are only protesting that because it takes the eyes of doe-eyed conservatives off the gains they are getting everywhere else.
Were you one of the guys calling the Senate last week to ask them not to fund the Office of Violence Against Women with $430 in pork for radfem groups?
If you were, you would have seen that most of the Republican senators have feminist legislative aides and the young receptionists you would have chatted with would have honestly told you that they do not know what feminism is or that it ever was an issue.
We could liberate Iran this weekend and it will be a feminist country in 2 years.
And do you know who this Mrs. Bhutto is who wants to take over Pakistan?
I don’t argue that the Clintons are crooked and shoddy, but even if Hillary is defeated by Rudy next year, the liberals would have won and her minions already occupy the legislative aide spots in Republican senatorial offices as well as the court clerk positions for most judges at the district level and above.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 am
Jim Peterson,
You hit the nail on the head in many points. But having another country (Russia orf Arabs) fund another party would be a treason.
Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) joined then-Soviet Union by fraudulent plebisite. They could not wait get out under their rule because “Russification” was taking place by transfers of people from Russia and change of language.
I agree the “culture war” is over and the feminist won. It took too long to awaken the “sleeping giant” mens, fathers and husbands.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
The bad news, gentlemen, is that the feminists won the culture war even here on mensnewsdaily. I’ve had David Usher outright cancel comments because I discussed the merits of eliminating voting and equal employment rights for women.
These rights for women exist in a culture where most “conservative” women (and women in general) demand, through hook or crook, traditional income transfers from men. Therefore, it becomes necessary for such women to view men as second class citizens in order to justify the gravy train.
There is no way to make feminism “nice” and “reason” with it. Goodies and “rights” for women will always have to come first and NOW!!! (as they put it) while little things such as treating men with respect and human rights well, they’ll get around to that in a few centuries or so. In other words, they’re just stringing these egalaritarian men along.
Where is all this leading? I’m saying that men are slow to wake because they have to look into their own chivalrous and indoctrinated liberal impulse to want to see women have the right to vote and work equally with men. They want to be a sugar daddy. They don’t want to be “bad daddy” and send women upstairs without supper.
When I say, at dinner parties, that I don’t think women should have equality with men because they don’t LIVE in an equal manner to men, it’s as if I have dropped a dead albatross in the room. Or more importantly, also freed it. I see eyes open. But I also understand that this is a therapeutic situation. These men have to embrace this on their own and that takes time.
Sadly, though, I doubt I can call a congressman and ask him to propose ending voting rights for women or turning back the 1964 civil rights act. (Which was proposed by republicans.) Maybe we should look at this locally? Go for the churches and PTA meetings.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Gentlemen,
There is one thing that the self-obsessed Baby Boom generation forgot (actually there were many things) and that is time. Francis Fukiyama (sic) wrote a book about this being “the end of history”. How anyone who knows any history can say such a thing amazes me but history for the Boomers was just a made-up concoction with no objective reality.
Both the French and Russian Revolutions could have been called successful, the one in 1796 and the other up to, say, the 30’s. The picture in 1815 after Waterloo and 1992 after the implosion of the USSR show a different.
The wind has been at the backs of the feminists and other left wing groups since 1975 when Saigon fell.
We have not faced any serious international crises or really bad economic times since then. The left has been able to indulge themselves in putting forward their utopian view of society by manipulating the judiciary, the media, academia and Hollywood. The left has also been favored by being up against the weakest generation of men in American history, the Baby Boomers. Has anyone else noticed a change in attitudes towards men and male such as reason, law and physical bravery since 9/11.
The original feminists are getting a little long in the truth. Young women have learned that the work-place is not the be-all and end-all of life. In one poll the number of women who wanted to be career women was 32%, down substantially
from what it had been.
There are too many variables in play now for me to say that the feminists won the culture wars.
Life is not a one act play. Let’s see how things look after people have lived in this chaotic madness of Tolerance, Multiculturalism, Unqualified Freedom, Diversity and an Obsession with “Individual Rights” for a while. The French wound up with Napoleon; the Russians wound up with Lenin.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
But meanwhile please call Jordan Talge of Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman’s office at 202-224-5641.
Ask him why he just voted to give $430M to feminist organizations via the unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women at the DOJ…when 19 Republican senators, including John McCain, refused.
Ask him why Senator Coleman ignored the men who called last week to demand that he just vote No.
At best Jordan will tell you it was because Senator Coleman did not want to upset the “women’s vote”.
We cannot use a guy like that in office anymore after next November 2008.
Ditto for feminist-kissing Rhinos like Sununu (NH) and Smith (Oregon).
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I disagree somewhat. I don’t think most Republicans did have any idea that Bush was a globalist or as weak on the border as he turned out to be. In fact, at the local RNC I remember distinctly that the people down there were “hoping” that he’d been just trying to get a long so he could get re-elected and then he would be free to act with strong conservative principles. I had my doubts – I thought it was not a positive when they were saying “…Bush was popular in Texas and could reach out to both parties…”
Free trade at any cost has been a disaster, and his willingness to consider LOST is another potential disaster. The dollar is in the toilet and we’re $9trillion in debt.
Its arguable on whether Bush held anybody accountable for the first 4 years of the war – there’s been commentary by senior ranking officers that have essentially wrote that a Private in the Army faces worse sanction than a General that runs a war badly (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198). State Department has been allowed to meddle and botch things in theater the whole time – the chief example of this is putting Mooky al Sadr in the cross hairs no less than three times for killing (or having his people kill) our troops and then having him taken off the target list because his death may cause “political problems.” There’s also the directives to the 101st in 2003 NOT to stop weapons and other smuggling through the Syrian border into Iraq because “it may hinder trade.”
The rules of engagement are insane, and the military devolving into such a state of CYA that they’re to this minute conducting witch hunts throughout Iraq and Afghanistan – the latest story I heard is some officer bring a SOF sniper up on ART32 hearings for killing a terrorist… And not “boo” from the CinC on this.
Dobbs may have overstated something, but he certainly understated others. Bush has been no boon to the US or the Republican party.
Like my wife said, “I can’t think of anything that he (Bush) hasn’t betrayed us on…”
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Men no longer can hope to die with their boots on, as in Wild. Wild, West days. Now they can only hope not to die as derelict in gutter or in jail.
As a gratitude of grateful Congress and the President a new law ipushed by Sen Arlen Spector (PA) and Barbara Mikulski (MD) they were going to strip all veterans benefits from veterans who having minds messed in Irag and commit felony. What would have happened to their families?
They settled on a law that if former soldier commits a felony, his ashes will be dug up from Veterans Cemetery and family told to stick them where the sun does not shine. This was recently done to a Maryland cremated veteran at Arlington.