Skip to main content

It's been nearly six years since George Walker Bush left his domestic and foreign policy messes behind for someone else to clean up. However, no matter where you turn, there are still policy fires all over the place, nearly all of which can be traced to him.

Those policies, specifically, include the wars on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as the Patriot Act, as well as his failed economic policies.

The economic catastrophe left behind by Bush is pretty self-evident. By the time President Obama took office, the economy was in virtual meltdown. The stock market had lost nearly half its value, entire industries, from automotive to banking to housing, were on the verge of collapse, corporations were shedding both profits and jobs. And even though we've made significant progress under President Obama, we're still suffering from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

It's quite apparent that Bush's quagmires in both Iraq and Afghanistan are still commanding a fair amount of our attention and resources to this very day, despite enormous efforts to get past those.

However, what might not be understood by many is the significant, and deep, impact that Bush's war on terror and its spawn, the Patriot Act (as well as the equally nefarious National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)) have had. For the past few years, we've begun seeing the full ramifications of  what the extraordinary surveillance and law enforcement authority of our federal government has done.

The revelations by Eric Snowden and others have felt like spine-chilling real-life versions of fictional novels from the past, like “1984” and “Brave New World.”

And the current racial turmoil going on in cities across the U.S., especially Ferguson, Mo., can also be traced, at least in part, to those very same policies. The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department that it created, facilitated the virtual  militarization of police departments in cities across the country.  And, while it's true that racism existed long before George Walker Bush became president, there's no denying that the cynical war on terror conducted by his administration certainly helped magnify the problem in our police departments by giving them both excuses and military hardware to justify continuing racist policies and practices of the past.

The fact is that President Obama has spent most of his administration cleaning up after the messes left behind by George Walker Bush's cynical and incompetent administration.

Even the problem of income inequality, which started well before George Walker Bush took office, was clearly made worse by Bush's pro-rich economic policies, including tax cuts that favored the wealthiest Americans at the expense of programs to help the poor and middle class.

Can Ralph Nader and his supporters tell me again how there was “not a dime's worth of difference” between Al Gore and George Walker Bush in 2000? Because we're still living with the nightmarish after-effects of the policies of George Walker Bush. Would we be in the same shape today if Al Gore were allowed to serve in the office that he was elected to? My suspicion is that things would be dramatically different, across the board.

Originally posted to wdrath on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 07:42 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, but Obomber has had 6 years to fix it all (13+ / 0-)

    and what has he done? Nothing! The National Debt is $17trillion!
    /s
    (Actually, I just had someone make that exact argument to me today. Disinformation is incredibly persistent.)

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:07:31 PM PDT

  •  W changed my right wing grandma to a lefty (20+ / 0-)

    Up till the 2000 election, she was pretty hard core Republican. A low info voter, but she went for whatever the GOP put in front of her.
    But when the debates between Gore and Bush aired, she was turned off by him mainly due to his "lack of intellect". She didn't want anyone in office who seemed to have a worse grasp on big, global issues than she did. And the misadventure in Iraq sealed the deal with her, since Bush created "another Vietnam, losing all our boys".

  •  The Good News is that Shrub got on the chopper (10+ / 0-)

    without needing a push. That would have been really ugly.

    Maliki chose the same option.

  •  The worst handful of doodoo that George Bush (7+ / 0-)

    left us with is the gop.
    That makes all of those other things worse or un-fixable.
    That's why we can't let 2014 be like 2010.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:32:07 PM PDT

  •  I'm really fed up at hearing "Nader" every time (7+ / 0-)

    a Democrat grumbles about Bush.  Yours is just misdirected angry -- blaming the powerless because it's easier than facing the powerful.  Not only was Bush's coup aided and abetted by a supine Democratic establishment shitting its pants over the prospect of a "constitutional crisis", but the "nightmarish after-effects of the policies of George Walker Bush"  were enthusiastically supported by a majority of Democrats in Congress. Indeed, Obama has doubled down on some of them.  Plus, all you have to do is listen to Hillary Clinton to realize that "wars on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, as well as [Bush's] failed economic policies" could very well have come about under a Democratic president.

    •  Too Bad (9+ / 0-)

      But the fact remains that Nader was complicit in putting Bush in the White House and no amount of trying to absolve him  can change that.  We will be living with the consequences of the unmitigated disaster that was 8 years of the Bush/Cheney administration for a long, long time and for as long as we do you will be reminded of the role Nader played in that.

      “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

      by RoIn on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:26:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Noone needs your absolution. If you want (6+ / 0-)

        to help Democrats win elections, it will be more productive to start from the obvious premise that you're not entitled to someone's vote just because you have a D by your name. Instead of alienating Greens and other natural allies, work to rein in the right-wing lie machine, to put some spine into Democratic politicians, and to institute fair voting procedures (including instant runoff voting).

      •  Not how I remember it, Clinton did his best to ... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        codairem, wdrath, Sandino, elwior, JVolvo

        Not how I remember it, Clinton did his best to hurt Gore, where Gore disowned him and Nader took more votes from GOP. Gore made a disastrous pick in Lieberman. Lost TN. But if you want to get mad, go after the illegal GOP Court decision that stopped the counting. Bush had better lawyers, including Roberts. Blame Roberts. Lots to blame all around. Bush's legacy is Katrina, which genocide against US citizens the Ferguson syndrome doesnt yet approach. Nader didnt lose it for Kerry or ask Obama to keep Guantanamo open. That doesnt mean that Nader didnt waste his efforts by not getting more votes out of his moderate GOP base of neo-Perotists.

        •  But without Nader, (8+ / 0-)

          nobody would have cared about the infamous butterfly ballots, because Gore would have won Florida.

          I don't mean to say that the Democrats are blameless for the 2000 defeat. But throw your vote away of a Green when you live in a swing state, and you just might get the very opposite of what you want for President -- which is what happened in 2000.

          Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

          by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 07:49:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gore would've won Florida if the SCOTUS... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wdrath, elwior, Sandino, Maverick80229, JVolvo

            had stuck to centuries old American jurisprudence of staying the hell out of individual state's electoral matters.

            It really is that simple.

            "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

            by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:22:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And the GOP would have disputed. (0+ / 0-)

              They had the votes to uphold the dispute in the Senate. Would have then been kicked to the House I believe. Guess how the House would have voted.

              Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

              by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 10:17:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bull. That's not how it works... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                Congress can only get involved in a presidential election in the case of an electoral tie, -- which it clearly wouldn't have been -- because Florida would have given Gore MORE electoral votes than shrub. All other disputes are worked out in the courts in the state where the dispute originated.

                The '2000 election was pure, UNPRECEDENTED election chicanery -- perpetrated solely by SCOTUS-- by overturning the decision of the Supreme court of Florida.

                In fact, it was so unprecedented that SCOTUS itself declared that what it did in '2000 should never be used as precedent in the future.

                "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

                by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 12:47:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If both houses agree on an objection... (0+ / 0-)

                  one of the scenarios is that the election could go to the House.

                  Here is an article that explains the scenarios quite well.  

                  Dutch is an interesting character. It's hard to tell if he's a conservative who often swings left, or a liberal who often swings right.

                  Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

                  by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 04:01:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There's only been one election decided by Congress (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RhodeIslandAspie

                    because of a dispute concerning electoral votes, and that one involved disputes between several states.

                    The election of 1876 ended up being decided by Congress because of disputes over the electoral votes from several states.
                    Never has a U.S. presidential election been decided by Congress involving the electoral votes of one state. Although, apparently, they could have decided the case if they had not been divided -- as stated in the linked article. Instead, SCOTUS did their dirty work for them.

                    However, I still stand by my assertion that SCOTUS's decision to get involved in an individual state's electoral affairs was both unprecedented and epically wrong-headed.

                    Anyway, thanks for bringing the article to my attention. I was only aware of Congress' constituted involvement in a presidential election in the event of an electoral vote tie.

                    I stand corrected on that aspect.

                    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

                    by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 05:43:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I will agree with you that is was unprecedented. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      markthshark

                      But this election would have had the odor of taint regardless of what happened, or who had won. To be sure, I can't imagine the GOP defending the system if it hadn't worked for them. But was there any right decision here. The recount would have involved the counters to guess at a voters intentions, regarding the butterfly ballots, and that would have certainly been unprecedented.

                      I have no illusions about the objectivity of the gang of GOP proxies that dominate this court, but even if we had 9 truly dispassionate justices on this court, it would have been a vexing situation to which there was probably no solution. To refuse to hear the case would have been tantamount to the court not doing there job. To here the case and defer to the states might have given the election to Gore, but only by letting counter assume that most of the Nader votes were Gore votes - they probably were, but how many to bee sure? The decision that WAS made might have been far less infamous had their this court not been so transparently Republican - a problem that was to become even worse with the appointees of Bush.

                      A better solution would be not to have a situation able to even come up. Standardized election laws for Federal election would be a good start. I'm quite open to instant runoff elections, which would allow people to vent their frustration with the establish by voting for third party candidates without throwing their votes away. If either of these two solutions had been in place, chances are we wouldn't be having this thread today.

                      Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

                      by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 06:49:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Agreed... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RhodeIslandAspie
                        Standardized election laws for Federal election would be a good start.

                        "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

                        by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 07:25:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Gore did win florida (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wdrath, elwior

            Nader didn't cause Fox to change the call.

          •  Gore would've probably won New Hampshire too (5+ / 0-)

            if not for Nader pulling thousands of votes with his "no difference" B.S.

            Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

            by bear83 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:28:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You mean the 308K registered FL Dems who (0+ / 0-)

            voted for Bush.  Final margin: 537.  Look to pathetic Gore "I'm not Clinton" campaign + Lieberman! effect nationwide.  Gore lost his home state (!!).

            Jim Hightower will enlighten you about Dem's national and Florida failures:

            Losing ground with under $50k voters nationwide.
            Losing FL senior vote to Bush.
            Losing FL white women vote to Bush.
            PS there were a total of @ 40,000 3rd party votes cast in FL (excluding Green party votes).  Bush's margin = 537.

            But, yeah.  Blame Nader.

            Sad.  How long did Repugs whine about Clinton's '92 and '96 under-50% plurality wins?  They hated Clinton's guts but they sure as shit didn't piss and moan about Perot for 14 years.

            "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

            by JVolvo on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 01:30:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So after 9/11 (8+ / 0-)

      You're telling me it's plausible that the Gore administration would've invaded Iraq? That Gore would've abandoned his economic plan and gone for the completely inane Bush plan?

      Look, the political folding of the Democrats to the Bush crew after 9/11 was pathetic, but there is no way any Democrat would've endorsed them.

      And yes, they were wary of the prospect of a constitutional crisis. Wouldn't you be?

      "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama

      by anshmishra on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:27:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To me it is not just plausible but certain (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wdrath, Sandino

        that if 9/11 had happened under Gore we would have invaded Iraq.  For one thing, Gore wouldn't have lasted a month.  We'd either have President Lieberman or a Republican coup.

        Now, of course 9/11 might not have happened if  Gore were president instead of the fool.  But we'd still have the same war on terrorism, the same buildup of the MIC, the same spying on average Americans, the same escalation of the war on drugs, and the same likelihood of armed intervention abroad, perhaps in slightly less ruinous termsfor the US, but not necessarily for the foreign target.  I don't need to conjecture here: all I have to do is look at the record of the Clinton and Obama years.

        •  The first paragraph of the above comment (9+ / 0-)

          seems to be fishing in the waters of bizarre conspiracy theories. What's that Carl Sagan line about extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?

          Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

          by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 07:53:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a selectively applied, smug, unthinking (0+ / 0-)

            retort by people who prefer to bury their heads in the sand.  That's what the Sagan line is.

            There can be no "proof" that something that didn't occur would have triggered something else.  At best you have strong evidence backed up by analogy.  You just have to look at how Republicans and Democrats fare when they're caught doing something wrong, and at how Clinton was persecuted and vilified at every turn, to realize that  the rules are different for Republicans and Democrats.  

            Bush got uncritical support and immesurable additional power out of his trifecta, thanks to Democrats.  If you really think Republicans would have been equally supportive of Gore, you're living on another plane where news of Benghazi hasn't arrived yet.  I repeat, Gore would have been out on his ass in a matter of weeks. Republicans and their media enablers would have torn him to pieces.  

        •  You are simply wrong (7+ / 0-)

          Al Gore is a smart guy. Iraq had absolutely zero connection to 9/11. Clinton had Saddam Hussein contained with a no-fly zone in Iraq. Gore was a soldier on the ground in Vietnam - there's not a chance he would have sent a ground invasion to Iraq. None.

          Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

          by bear83 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:38:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Gore may not have wanted to invade Iraq (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wdrath, elwior

        but his Cheney would have been gung ho for war.  And you betcha, McCain even wanted him as his VP pick in 2008.

        •  it seems unlikely (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bear83, elwior, kurt, anshmishra

          to me that Gore would have invaded Iraq since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was no good reason. The only so-called "reasons" Bush and his cynical, corrupt administration ever came up with to rationalize their blood-thirst for invading Iraq....were all bogus.

          •  I dunno, but Gore allowed himself to be (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, wdrath

            an enabler of political expediency, ergo his VP pick.

            •  thinking back (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TLS66

              on when Gore picked Lieberman, Lieberman hadn't yet established his "troll-like" anti-liberal credentials, had he?
              If my memory serves correctly, Lieberman in 2000 was perceived by the general public as a very honorable "straight-talking" guy who had, at least up until that point, had a fairly liberal record. It seems to me that Lieberman only started going all right-wing and trollish after 9/11 and after Bush's warmongering.

              •  He was regarded (0+ / 0-)

                as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat.  Perhaps a bit of a moralistic prisspot, but nonetheless a mainstream Democrat.  And if Bill had kept it in his pants, maybe Gore would not have felt he needed to pick a moral sciold?

                "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

                by TLS66 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 12:25:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Lieberman was dirty, dirty Clinton's # 1 scold. (0+ / 0-)

                Gore wanted to strengthen his "I'm not Clinton" bonafides.  (derp)

                And win Florida...

                "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

                by JVolvo on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 01:33:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  It's not clear there would have BEEN a 9-11 (7+ / 0-)

        What is with the assumption that it would have gone down anyway even if Bush "Missile Shield is the most important thing" hadn't gotten into office.  The Bushies pretty much shut down the Bin Laden investigation handed to them by the Clinton people.  We're to assume Gore's administration would have done the same?  

        When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

        by Sun dog on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:23:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (7+ / 0-)

          Clinton and Gore were taking bin Laden seriously. Maybe under President Gore we would have seen better intelligence coordination, better passenger screening, and stronger cockpit doors - any of which could have stopped 9/11.

          Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

          by bear83 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:32:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They could have found them (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wdrath, bear83, Maverick80229, kurt

            There was a recognizable pattern.  They had a certain number of guys in flight schools etc.  There was a reasonable chance, if the investigation was pursued, that the group would have been broken up well before they got to any airport.  I think Richard Clarke sees it that way.  

            When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

            by Sun dog on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 09:32:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I was using a hypothetical responding to that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sun dog

          situation.

          It's far more likely that 9/11 would've happened (though it's also more likely to have been stopped by the Gore admin) then the Iraq War or any of the other W. era disasters.

          "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama

          by anshmishra on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 02:20:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's not just empty finger-pointing (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath, elwior, kurt, TLS66

      Nader 2000 is emblematic of a still very prevalent attitude on the left that confuses being a responsible voter with being a responsible consumer.  The idea that if you don't buy something you force the company to produce a better product.  "This will show the Democrats what we REALLY want."  But it doesn't really work that way.  

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:21:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Correct me if I am wrong, but we still have not (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, kurt, codairem, elliott, elwior

    had habeas corpus restored.

    This comment is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.

    by blue muon on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:01:57 PM PDT

  •  You know what _would_ help mitigate (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, elwior, wdrath, Maverick80229

    the consequences of W's policies and ensure future presidents don't adopt the same?  Prosecuting wrongdoers.  You know what won't?  Blaming those who dared think they could vote for the candidate they thought was best.  (Only about 3% of such people, in fact, because while you inveigh against Green voters, no blame seem to attach to actual W voters in your strange worldview.)

    •  They didn't think Nader was "best" (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath, elwior, Gary Norton, kurt, TLS66

      No one had any delusion that he would become president.  They didn't think he was to be the "best" president of the candidates available.  They either thought Gore would become president anyway or believed the insane line that there was no difference between Bush or Gore.   For many it was a self-satisfied "fuck you" to the Democratic party with the false rationalization that it would somehow make the Democratic party better.

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:26:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's that line about there (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, bear83, Gary Norton, Sun dog

        "not being a dime's worth of difference" between Al Gore and G.W. Bush that stuck in my craw not only during the election, but for years after.  And even today, looking back in hindsight, it seems absurd for anyone to think that there would not have been any difference. If only Ralph Nader would acknowledge that fact, it would change my view of him entirely, as a person who is truly open minded and who can actually be humble enough to learn something new. His inability to acknowledge what appears increasingly to have been a false premise for his campaign is what has really bothered me most about Nader.

  •  Five votes vs. countless (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, Sandino, elwior, Maverick80229

    SCOTUS is out of order.  The hypocrisy of the court continues to dumbfound the republic.

  •  I was SO with you up until the last para. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, elwior, wdrath

    Good grief, must you take an otherwise good piece and litter it with the same old go-to stuff? I'm so sick of hearing about Nader I could scream.

    The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

    by cany on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:01:40 AM PDT

  •  I don't think the Patriot Act should be mentioned. (6+ / 0-)

    without including its diabolical cousins, the NDAA, and the AUMF in the same sentence.

    Together, these three Bush error laws are an abomination, responsible for eviscerating both the U.S. Constitution and the underpinnings of the rule of law.

    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

    by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:12:51 AM PDT

  •  Dubya's government was like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath

    a particularly virulent outbreak of a systemic virus that has infected the USA for at least a century, probably longer.

    I think Obama's leadership has helped to suppress some of the most violent manifestations of the disease, and for that he deserves credit. But it has not even recognized, let alone tried to address the causes and structures of government and finance within which the virus is deeply embedded.

    It would be difficult if not impossible for any politician to do so, because the American body politic itself is infected, its nervous system (the MSM) is infected, and tends to spread the virus rather than try to identify it.

    So sure, BushCo was ugly, destructive, and dangerous -- but the people, institutions, tendencies, and mindsets that made it possible are still very much with us.

  •  A couple of points about this . .. . (0+ / 0-)
    Can Ralph Nader and his supporters tell me again how there was “not a dime's worth of difference” between Al Gore and George Walker Bush in 2000?
    First, as others have already pointed out, blaming Ralph Nader is totally off base.

    Second, we really have no freakin' idea how an Al Gore presidency would have turned out.  After all, Al Gore - while in office - was * completely * different (and not in a good way) than what he morphed into afterwards . . . .

    •  my key point here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, TLS66

      ...is that Ralph Nader was simply wrong about his claim that there was virtually no difference between Al Gore and GW Bush. Even during the 2000 presidential campaign that made no sense to me whatsoever. And it makes less sense over time.

      •  And my key point is that there is absolutely (0+ / 0-)

        no way to know if that's the case or not.

        Most evidence points to it not being true.

        •  most evidence (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Maverick80229, kurt

          points in the direction of it being true. Take the Supreme Court, for instance. If George Walker Bush had not been there to appoint John Roberts and Sam Alito, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever have ruled the way it did with Citizens United. That one decision alone has harmed this country dramatically, even if you think there would have been no difference in any other area.

          The argument that there was virtually no difference between the policies espoused by Al Gore and those espoused by George Walker Bush seemed false to me on its face then...and seems even more so now.

  •  does this suprise anyone? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, kurt

    Is this surprising? I cant figure out for the life of me why conservatives think the way they do. They wont be happy till our streets resemble those of Afghanistan. The one thing I do know abouit conservative ideology is that they must “at all costs’ prevent the smooth flow of society, especially when democrats have control. If things were to go well under democrats (heaven forbid) then conservatives don’t get elected so they must destroy anything that even comes close to working for the people. This is not made up stuff, its exactly how they think and what they do. That ideology is “piss poor’ and a disgrace to our nation. I am having a hard time believing that they have used this ‘hail mary’ strategy of divide and conquer to such an extent and I know for a fact that I could never support their way of thinking. When t conservatives take office they pass radical laws that plague our country for generations to come. People need to pull their heads out of their arses because we hit rock bottom under the GOP. I Love and care about America and its people, all people.  

  •  George W. Bush and his ENTIRE administration (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, AllTheWayWithLBJ85

    is the worst in living memory, perhaps even surpassing Nixon in evil and criminality.
    A criminal organization from top-to-bottom, and Obama is an accessory after the fact for refusing to prosecute that war criminal regime.

    •  They ARE worse than Nixon (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath

      John Dean (yes, THAT John Dean) wrote a book called Worse than Watergate. That alone says it all. As Dean pointed out, no one was tortured or died in Watergate.

      Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. -- Lyndon B. Johnson

      by AllTheWayWithLBJ85 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 11:52:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not to mention (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AllTheWayWithLBJ85

        Nixon genuinely believed what he was doing was best for the country. Bush and his cronies were "We couldn't give a shit if it's in the national interest or not -- it will make us rich!"

        "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

        by TLS66 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 03:18:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
          Nixon genuinely believed what he was doing was best for the country.
          What do you mean?

          Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. -- Lyndon B. Johnson

          by AllTheWayWithLBJ85 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 04:57:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Haliburton Loophole (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath

    that makes fossil fuel extraction by hydraulic fracturing exempt from clean air, clean water, and clean drinking water:

    while ruining billions of gallons of fresh drinking water, and disposing of it in a manner that ruins more.

    Media shut down on the effects of this.

    The chemicals are in the gas that is being delivered to homes.

    VOC's, endocrine disruptors, neurotoxins, arsenic: a horrifying cocktail.   And the FERC is a quasi public private agency set up to rubber stamp anything that will benefit the .01%.

    We are an extraction colony, and the rest is all distraction from this, each and every attrocity is staged to divert attention from this, while our country is taken from us.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site