On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Bush Terms: Numbers Mean Things
Marc Ambinder sums it up nicely:
Friday, September 4, 2009
David Letterman on Jenna Bush's New Job
"Jenna Bush---talk about a great gig---is going to be on the Today show. ... They say Jenna will contribute about once a month. It's the same schedule her old man had."
---David Letterman
Via Daily Kos
---David Letterman
Via Daily Kos
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Dick Cheney's Pie Hole
Kevin Drum, via ThinkProgress, shares some speculation on whether an outgoing administration has a moral or patriotic duty to keep their opinions to themselves once they leave office.
Much has been made of Dick Cheney going off half-cocked with comments insinuating that President Obama is making the country less safe and that his policies are destined to lead us into an abyss.
Compare that to the approach taken by Cheney's former boss, George W. Bush, who has been admirably quiet, and who believes that he owes the Obama administration his silence.
I added the following comment to Drum's piece:
Getting advice and counsel from the previous administration would be a valuable asset to any new president, and there are scores of examples of where such assistance has been provided. Generally it's given directly to the new administration, not via media outlets like FOX.
And intent is very important here. Is the aim of the person providing the advice really to present alternate views and constructive criticism, or is it to poke the tiger and fan the flames of discontent in general?
With Cheney, many believe that he's so consistently wrong and out of touch, as demonstrated by the success (or lack thereof) of programs and dogmas he supported, that he can't possibly have good intentions at heart and therefore he should shut his pie hole.
Perhaps that's simply transference on my part.
Should Dick Keep His Trap Shut?
Much has been made of Dick Cheney going off half-cocked with comments insinuating that President Obama is making the country less safe and that his policies are destined to lead us into an abyss.
Compare that to the approach taken by Cheney's former boss, George W. Bush, who has been admirably quiet, and who believes that he owes the Obama administration his silence.
I added the following comment to Drum's piece:
Getting advice and counsel from the previous administration would be a valuable asset to any new president, and there are scores of examples of where such assistance has been provided. Generally it's given directly to the new administration, not via media outlets like FOX.
And intent is very important here. Is the aim of the person providing the advice really to present alternate views and constructive criticism, or is it to poke the tiger and fan the flames of discontent in general?
With Cheney, many believe that he's so consistently wrong and out of touch, as demonstrated by the success (or lack thereof) of programs and dogmas he supported, that he can't possibly have good intentions at heart and therefore he should shut his pie hole.
Perhaps that's simply transference on my part.
Should Dick Keep His Trap Shut?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Search for Truth
Albert Einstein once said, "The search for truth is more precious than its possession." What greater justification is needed for a "Truth Commission" to investigate possible crimes committed by Bush administration officials?
In his NY Times Sunday column, Frank Rich compares the Ponzi scheme committed by Bernie Madoff to a similar exercise by the Bushies regarding Iraq reconstruction that will soon be detailed in a 513-page history of the multiple schemes and scandals, being put together by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
Like all successful Ponzi enterprises, the American people were mislead into believing there were steady "dividends" resulting from the millions of dollars being poured into Iraq, when there is little evidence to support these claims. Through the middle of 2008, $117 billion had been spent in Iraqi reconstruction, yet showing a benefit that exceeded the cost would be exceptionally difficult.
There are other examples posited by Rich - the $345 billion in lost tax revenues resulting from lax enforcement of offshore corporate tax shelters, $350 billion in TARP funds for which Hank Paulsen and friends are unable to provide documentation to substantiate where the money went and how it was spent, and other sundry scandals, missteps, and outright frauds perpetrated by members of the outgoing administration and their minions.
Calls for a 9/11-style "Truth Commission" to begin discovery proceedings that could lead to criminal prosecution of administration officials are growing louder as the Bush presidency wanes, and the reaction from various fronts is surprising. I'm amazed at the number of groups that believe we can't live in the past and should instead concentrate on repairing the significant damage that has occurred during the past eight years.
Rich writes, "In the old Pat Moynihan phrase, the Bush years have “defined deviancy down” in terms of how low a standard of ethical behavior we now tolerate as the norm from public officials."
The Center for Public Integrity detailed “125 systematic failures across the breadth of the federal government” during the Bush years. That's the tip of the iceberg, a view based on information we already have. A forensic examination that goes beyond public records is sure to uncover a breadth and depth of malfeasance, a "Rove trove" if you will.
While in agreement that adjudicating each decision and discovered wrong of the Bush administration could strain resources needed to get the country back on track, that's not a good reason for sticking our collective heads in the sand and moving on. Seeking the truth is more important than what might be learned.
Consider the practice of abducting citizens from their native countries and whisking them away to rendition sites, where they are held without charge, denied access to legal counsel, interrogated in manners that would violate the Geneva Convention, all under the guise of "enemy combatant" or the global war on terror. Cases of death and serious injury have resulted and been reported, and many of these practices would seem to violate international law.
If the US government fails to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding groups that implemented Bush policy, with a level of transparency and accountability required of a nation that claims "due process" as its own, or fails to react appropriately to the results of any such query, then we're truly nothing more than an elaborate fraud.
What would happen if Bush administration principals travel abroad after January 20 and are arrested in a foreign land, to be put on trial for violating the laws of that country, or far worse (or better, depending on perspective), brought before The Hague on war crimes charges? As we attempt to change the world view of what the US has become, having an international organization investigate and punish our leadership because we were unwilling would be a terrible indictment of our failed values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)