Don't Know Much About History (Part Two)

See http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2008/05/bad-researcher-chastises-obama-for-bad.html
for a rebuttal.

I stopped reading at 'smart guy'.

For what it's worth, I'm appalled at the general lack of knowledge of history by Americans in general.

Here's my personal story. I'm bright and, in lots of ways, well educated. My family -- for generations on my father's side -- can claim likewise. My grandfather, Charles Divine, was awarded a degree in chemistry from Rutgers College in 1890 (Yes, 1890. Teen marriages do not run in the family.) Two of his brothers also attended Rutgers. His father, Michael Divine, was a successful corporate attorney. His mother, Angelina Elizabeth Donne, is how I am related to the John Donne who was a poet contemporary to Shakespeare and who became dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in 1621.

You would think I would be well educated about British history, wouldn't you? I mean, it was British colonists who laid the foundations for the United States. We have many things in common still with Britain.

You'd guess wrong -- at least a few years ago.

About 3 years ago I saw in a local bookstore the book 1066 by David Howarth. Curious, I bought it. I was appalled at how little I knew about one of history's major events. I suspect that, if Harold had won at Hastings, the Reformation might have started in 1067. Yes, the Pope had backed William that strongly -- and without even listening to the English.

Eventually I contacted my cousin Harry, who taught history in Nottingham, England schools for most of his adult life, and asked him what to do. He suggested going to the library.

In the library I found Rebecca Fraser's The Story of Britain. this account ranged from the ancient Celts to the modern day. Yes, she has a viewpoint. Her mother is Antonia Fraser. Her stepfather is Harold Pinter. I learned some British history. For examples, the Puritans of the mid 17th century established a particularly grim totalitarian state. It lasted only a few years, but the impact it had is still being felt today. Why are the British so unwilling to abandon the monarchy? Their experience with "republican" government in the form of the Puritan Commonwealth was so bad they are reluctant to try it again. I wonder what the impact of the Puritans of the 17th century on today is. I doubt that it is helpful for us.

I hope people get my drift.

The essence of the rebuttal is that Roosevelt wrote a rather chatty letter to Hitler in 1939 suggesting peaceful discussions. You can read the text of Roosevelt's letter here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/7-2-188/188-12.html

The rebuttal also pointed out that Kelly misattributes Churchill with Santayana's famous quote just after criticizing journalists for their lack of education.

"For examples, the Puritans of the mid 17th century established a particularly grim totalitarian state."

A poor Roundhead you would make. You didn't know about Oliver Cromwell?

Mike,

My family was mostly on the other side from Cromwell. :-)

Yes, I knew a little bit about English history. Some things about 1066, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Cromwell, etc. My point was that I should have known quite a bit more than I did. Why didn't I? Well, it wasn't taught in school. Since my parents engaged in considerable amounts of what we would call home schooling today, I suspect they didn't include basic world history thinking I would get it in school. Alas, I didn't.

There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power.

Other than when he said, "We will bury you".

This line of discussion is a ridiculous conflation of disagreement with ignorance. The story is very simple: Yes, Roosevelt talked to America's enemies. So did Truman, Kennedy, and even Reagan. Reagan greeted Leonid Brezhnev when he was president elect. Obama's historical statement about talking to enemies is completely correct. Joseph McCarthy said that we should never talk to enemies, but no president has taken this childish approach. Bush has only pretended to, and even this pretense has been very damaging to America's interests. In order to claim that he never talks to enemies, Bush has to pretend that most of our enemies are actually friends.

I actually don't have a problem with talking to enemies, per se. I just don't want someone doing it who can't even properly judge his pastor.

Jim Harris, I think that horse is as tender as it's going to get. BTW, here's your quote in context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you

Not quite what you lead us to believe. Meeing world powers, especially those with nuclear-tipped ICBMs is one thing. The conversation Obama wants to have is very different from others from history. Iran, Syria, N. Korea and Venezuela are state sponsors of terrorism and, at best, regional powers. It's one thing to have subordinates reach out through back doors or send a letter but conferring the prestige of meeting with the leader of the free world in another thing entirely.

And Bush looked deep into Putin's eyes and found an honest man!

Both Bush, Obama and others would do well not to look at appearances, but track record. I don't want touchy feely presidents. Any idiot could look at Hitler's track record up to August 1939 and see where he was going. But that's what we get with a feminized man.

And Bush looked deep...

Lefties-- Here's a hint: Bush ain't running this year.

If all you've got is to compare your candidate to him, and to say he'll probably be marginally better than the worst possible President we'll ever have, then you haven't got much, have you?

Only a misogynist would call Hitler a feminized man.

Rand: Playing the pastor card is a complete change of topic from whether Obama knows his history when he declared that presidents are willing to talk to America's enemies. I'm glad that you agree with Obama on the historical question. America needs a break from Bush's three-card foreign policy: Kiss butt, kick butt, or the silent treatment. Either likely choice for the next president should be an improvement.

Bill Maron: As Wikipedia says, Khrushchev was indeed questioning America's power with phrases such as "history is on our side", "the proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism", and "we will bury you". He may not have meant that the Soviet Union would annihilate the US, but he obviously wasn't just referring to Kennedy.

Meanwhile you reason that it's okay to talk to really big enemies, it's just bad to talk to little pipsqueak enemies. This is also a complete misreading of history. For example, here a quote from Ronald Reagan, dated January 1984: "I have today written to President Assad regarding the release of Lieutenant Goodman. I expressed my appreciation for this action and suggested that this is an opportune moment to put all the issues on the table and work with the United States to bring greater stability to Lebanon and withdrawals of foreign troops." Reagan did not think it was beneath him to talk to Syria or its dictator Assad. Reagan's thanks was a little too generous in my opinion, but his willingness to talk was correct.

But your suggestion is pretty close to Bush's foreign policy, which comes across as bullying and inglorious. "If you're a little SOB, I want to kick your butt. If you're a really big SOB, let's be pals." Everyone here is saying that Bush was misled when he met Putin. In fact, he decided that he would be pals with Putin before the meeting, because he knew that Putin is too big to be crushed. It was the same with Pervez Musharraf.

I'm glad that you agree with Obama on the historical question.

Then you're glad about a delusion. Which, I suspect, is often the case with you.

Then you're glad about a delusion.

I don't have any real illusions about whether or not you agree with Obama. You clearly don't want to. If you and Obama both said that birds fly north, you would still say that Obama is an idiot who doesn't know anything about birds. You and Obama have both said that it's not a problem to talk to enemies per se. You read it as proof that Obama is ignorant of history even though you said the same thing.

Actually, in just about every topic on this blog, you've been pretty eager to call other people stupid, idiots, dim, ignorant, deluded, etc. For the record, I don't think that you're stupid. But what is true is that if you call other people stupid too often, it saps your intelligence.

You clearly don't want to. If you and Obama both said that birds fly north, you would still say that Obama is an idiot who doesn't know anything about birds.

Nonsense. I'm sure that there are many things about which I agree with Obama. For instance, I agree with him that a gasoline tax holiday is pointless political pandering. Do you have any other idiotic attempts at psychoanalysis?

That was a rhetorical question. I'm sure we'll see many more, unless I ban you.

For the record, I don't think that you're stupid. But what is true is that if you call other people stupid too often, it saps your intelligence.

That isn't true at all. Do you have any way to substantiate it? I simply call 'em the way I see 'em. I've been doing it all my life, and have noticed no obvious diminution of my intelligence thereby. Nor has anyone else pointed it out.

So in fact, it's not only not true, it's a dumb comment (i.e., typical).

Reagan was, IIRC, negotiating with Assad over the return of an American naval aviator whose plane was shot down by the Syrians while he was attacking Syrian targets. Not only is this episode not the kind of "talking to your enemies" that Obama has in mind, it is also a cautionary tale showing how careful we must be not to allow ourselves to be used by tinhorn dictators such as Assad and Ahmadinejad, who gain prestige merely by the fact that we decide to interact with them. Reagan did not handle Lebanon or Syria well.

He wasn't questioning our power. He felt our form of government wouldn't last and it would be changed from the inside. COMPLETELY different things. He knew from his spies in the defense dept. what our capabilities were. He KNEW he couldn't defeat us without turning the USSR into slag too. Given how well Socialism and Communism treat its people, I don't understand why the regressives...err...the "progressives" think either of those will work now. Imagine, being arrested for expressing an IDEA.

I guess he was for the unconditional meeting before he was against it.

This is an extension of the false and damaging all-or-nothing, with-us-or-against-us foreign policy that we have now. Obama said that he was willing to meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions. He didn't say that he was eager to meet him no matter what.

Again, this is obsessing over talk. This really is the way that Bush sees it. One famous low point of this philosophy was during Bush's tour of Latin America. Having concluded that Hugo Chavez has cooties, Bush did his best to pretend that Chavez doesn't exist during the trip. What a great way to accomplish nothing.

Talk by itself is not the problem. Listen to what Winston Churchill had to say about it: "It is always better to jaw-jaw than to war-war."

In fact with Syria it's been even worse than saying nothing and accomplishing nothing. Reagan was relieved when Syria helped release an American hostage. Bush provided Syria with a Canadian hostage, who was then tortured. Consider how that looks when we're not even supposed to talk to Syria.

Bush, Bush, Bush, blah, blah, blah.

What are you BDSers going to do when you don't have George Bush to whine and pout about any more?

What are you BDSers going to do when you don't have George Bush to whine and pout about any more?

Be relieved that the next president is better. After all, this is an election year. It's completely on-topic to compare what the candidates propose to what we have now. The candidates are debating the wisdom of talking to enemies. Well, gee, it's better to talk to them than to send them Western citizens in chains!

What I'm not going to do is diagram criminal conspiracies in some "Bush mafia" long after Bush has left office. Bush as a person isn't the point, and certainly his family is not the point. I hope that Bush has a good next career as, say, a baseball manager. It would be nice if they don't delete their e-mail when they leave. But even then the main point is not to bag Bush, but to let the next president see the hand that he has been dealt.

After all, this is an election year. It's completely on-topic to compare what the candidates propose to what we have now.

No, it's not on topic at all, since last time I checked, George Bush isn't running. He is not one of the choices on offer.

What should be compared is what the three candidates who actually are running will do.

But we realize that logic isn't your strong suit, Jim. Particularly when one suffers from Bush derangement.

No, it's not on topic at all, since last time I checked, George Bush isn't running. He is not one of the choices on offer.

All of the candidate have talked and should talk about how they will or won't change Bush's policies. Obama wants to make big changes. McCain says that he only wants small adjustments. It's fair enough to call him McSame.

But to give McCain credit, the small changes that he wants are improvements.

No, calling him "McSame" is McLame. But that's just what we expect. And why the Dems will lose. Again.

The Moonbats think it's cute calling McCain Bush's third term.

Considering the abundance of Carter policies and advisors in the Obama campaign, It seems referring that as a potential second Carter term would be far more apropriate.

No, calling him "McSame" is McLame.

Certainly for the purposes of this discussion, he is exactly the same as Bush. Should the US talk to Hugo Chavez? No, it would just enhance his prestige. Should the US talk to Pervez Musharraf? Yes, he has done what we asked him to do. What is so bad about Chavez? He has used a cloak of electoral legitimacy to establish a one-party dictatorship. But didn't Musharraf establish a one-man dictatorship without even a cloak of electoral legitimacy? Doesn't it enhance the prestige of a dictator to not only talk to Musharraf, but call him a friend? McCain hasn't addressed these questions. He doesn't see the need, because he doesn't see anything wrong with what Bush is doing.

Bush doesn't realize, and McCain at best doesn't acknowledge, how bad it looks to vow not to talk to dictators, we don't want to give them prestige, and then talk to some dictators anyway and call them friends. No one thinks that Bush or McCain is enough of a dolt to be fooled by any dictator's "eyes". Certainly not Musharraf's eyes. They have use talk of democracy and prestige as a euphemism for short-term military alliance.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/mccain-cites-obamas-inexperience-lack-of-judgment/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/28/mccain_outspoken_in_defense_of.html

Jim...Why even bother arguing with these guys? They are essentially irrelevant - whining at the margins and building temples to Jeremiah and Ayers. McCain really has no chance of winning. The voter registration drive that Obama has launched is going to wipe out the GOP for at least the next 8 years. The youth vote is Democratic and with Obama at the helm these attitides formed when young will ensure a generation of dominance. Rasmussen polling shows that among daily internet users Obama leads McCain by 23 points. 23 fricking points and Clinton is still arguing her case for the clingy bitter vote. I would guess when she's really out, this is going to be about a 30 point margin. Older farts who are fixated on Jeremiah Wright will do as they want, but as I said they are simply whining at the margins, grovelling for small delights like Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos.

That's where this bunch is. Heh.

Jim...Why even bother arguing with these guys?

Gee, another anonymous cowardly troll has some good advice for Jim Harris.

Rand, on a topic you started about Obama not knowing much about history, why do you refuse discussion of Bush, when his actions are historically relevant to the topic?

McCain really has no chance of winning.

It's true that he has no chance of getting my vote, but I don't want to project my choice onto the odds. It's the wrong time for Texas talk --- let's let Obama make his case in the summer and fall, and then discuss his odds.

Rasmussen polling shows that among daily internet users Obama leads McCain by 23 points.

Good point! Well, if this is actually true. Where did you get this information?

Bush's actions aren't (yet) history. They're current events, and ones with which one would hope (at least) Obama is familiar.

"Rasmussen polling shows that among daily internet users Obama leads McCain by 23 points. "

.....and if exit polls counted, Kerry would be president.

And when the non-internet oldsters show up and vote and the Obamaniac youngsters stay home and McCain wins, you are going to shit your paints.

If the internet was any barometer, we would be picking out Ron Pauls office furniture right now.

In spite of being the wizard at teh interweb, boy wonder can just by the narrowest margins barely best the wicked witch of the west.

Rand, when do Bush's actions become history? January 21? Are we to restrict ourselves to discussions of everything but Bush?

The Anonymous Coward is so full of crap. You and two like you anytime. Every election, the young register, call the opposition names and look good on TV then don't bother to go to the polls. I voted in every national election from 18 on and remember too many my age just not going. Obama's inexperience will stand out with no other Democrat to take the heat off. Even when the press is giving him a pass, he will still make too many mistakes. His policies are just recycled progressive garbage that won't fly with independents and conservative or even moderate dems.

Rand, when do Bush's actions become history? January 21?

There is no magic number, but for a forty-six-year-old presidential candidate, it certainly doesn't include the past eight years, which he should be expected to remember. History is something you have to look up.

And McCain's policies are just recycled neocon garbage (Middle East war forever, tax less spend more), with a smattering of pandering (gas tax holiday), and a heavy dose of spineless opportunism (Hamas wants Obama to be president).
Obama's too many mistakes? McCain is a neverending fountain of gaffes.

"And McCain's policies are just recycled neocon garbage (Middle East war forever"

You know that is damn well that is not what he really said. This is this just a heavy does of spinless opportunism to show your 100 year quagmire of unthiking hypocracy.

I love it when the simpletons hoist themselves on their own haterade pitards.

Steve, "tax less spend more" has nothing to do with a "neocon" philosophy. It's obvious you use it as a catch-all insult for any conservative viewpoint. You should note that reduced tax rates have led to record tax receipts. I used "progressive garbage" because there is nothing in the ideology that appeals to me and most of it flies in the face of the founder's ideals. It's a Socialist philosophy. If this is your use of "neocon" then you would be against liberating peoples victimized by tyrannical dictators and promoting democracy. Also, I know of no "neocon" who has advocated "Middle East war forever" so this is mere hyperbole originally promoted by...Obama.

liberating peoples victimized by tyrannical dictators and promoting democracy.

Bill, are you a neocon, and if so, do you advocate liberating Burma? What about other victimized nations? Shall we liberate a new country as our budget allows - perhaps one every 4 years or so - until the world is free?

"There'll be love and laughter
And peace ever after
Tomorrow, when the world is free."

Bill, it doesn't matter that the lower tax rates have led to more tax revenue. What does matter is that McCain wants to spend far in excess of what the tax revenue provides for, thus continuing to increase the debt Bush started.

The vast majority of people who use the mindless epithet "neocon" have no idea what it means. And McCain is the only candidate running who wants to reduce spending.

Rand is right and Steve is full of it.

McCain is a Budget Hawk, perhaps the chief budget hawk in the senate. To argue otherwise is to argue nonsense.

I'm no more a "neocon" than anyone who advocates for all people to be free. Yes, we should do what we can to free Burma/Myanmar. Every time we alow a Mugabe or junta to keep power, we encourage the next one. The U.N. is useless at this as almost half its members are despotic in nature.

Bill, it doesn't matter that the lower tax rates have led to more tax revenue.

But it does matter that it's not really true. Bill Maron claimed that Bush's tax rate cuts have led to record tax revenues. However, there are two ways that the tax revenues might grow that are clearly no credit to any tax policies: One is population expansion, the other is inflation. So the correct question is whether tax revenues are, in fact, at a record per person in constant dollars. They are not. Tax receipts in FY2000 were $7206 per person using the Census 2000 population of 281 million people. Tax receipts in FY2007 were $7083 per person, in 2000 dollars, using the current population of 301 million people and using the inflation ratio of $1.20 from 2000 to 2007.

It is very bad to base financial plans on fictions. Bush embraced the theory that all you have to do to raise government revenue is cut tax rates. He promised that there is such a thing as a free lunch, that by leaving the taxpayers with more to spend, the government would have more to spend too. But all that he actually did was claim credit for population expansion and inflation. Tax receipts are not actually at a record in constant dollars, per person. And now that the dazzling economic boom of the Bush years has hit a tiny little speed bump, tax revenues are expected to go down this year by the same yardstick, i.e., in constant dollars, per person.

Since Rand has said that any remarks about Bush are off-topic, again, McCain's plan is to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. His plans depends on the same free-lunch tax theories as Bush.

McCain is the only candidate running who wants to reduce spending.

Again, it is important that this is not actually true. McCain wants to freeze discretionary non-defense spending. Freezing spending is not reducing it, and discretionary non-defense spending is only 1/6 of spending. The other 5/6 of spending will continue to increase. Non-defense discretionary has already been frozen from FY2006 to FY2008. Whether the question is taxes or spending, John McCain is John McSame. Neither Bush nor McCain admit that there is more discretion in discretionary defense spending than in discretionary non-defense spending. Ending the Iraq war will save more money than any plausible non-defense discretionary plans.

Oops, I forgot to sign the previous post or give references.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.shtml

Much though it pains me to say so, I have to give Obama some slack on the "57 states" thing. It appears that he meant he'd visited _47_ of the lower 48, and specifically hadn't visited Hawaii and Alaska. If you substitute "forty" where he said "fifty.... seven", the entire clip makes sense. That sort of numerical subsitution doesn't even rise to the level of a spoonerism.

In other words, Obama is enough of a bonehead on real issues that one need not make much hay of simple verbal stumbles.

I agree, Doug, but you have to admit that the flag lapel is a hoot. By the way, I've figured out why he doesn't want to wear one. He's probably afraid that Bill Ayers will stomp on him.

Well, Rand, since you have said that it's so important for the next president not to abandon Iraqis, you should ask why they don't wear this flag pin.

And I should ask them that...why?

Or is this just another non sequitur?

Nice try there Jim. It's obvious you're from the Paul Krugman School of Economics. Even a broke clock's right twice a day. If you want to pick the highest receipts just before the tech bubble burst, be my guest. But you really need to look the receipts just before the tax cuts. That would be 2003 when rates were the same as 2000. That downward spiral from 9/11 and reduced growth. If Clinton was a Republican, the press would have called it a recession like the one we aren't in now. That would be an INFLATION ADJUSTED increase PER CAPITA of 36%. Keep in mind you need to use just the corporate and individual tax numbers since those were the taxes affected. Also remember in Washingtonspeak, freezing spending is a cut since there are usually adjusters built in and if you keep those from kicking in, you don't spend as much. I'm still waiting for an estimate on national health care from Obama. Talk about a tax increase!!

Bill: You said that revenues were at a record, not just more than they were in some specific prior year. If you meant something else, you should have said so.

Bush's tax cuts did not begin in FY2004. They began in FY2002. If you want to say that tax revenues are higher now than they were in the middle of Bush's tax plans, yes, that's true. But you're just comparing tax cuts to themselves, and again, it's not a record.

Besides, if record revenues vindicate tax policies, then clearly revenue went way up after Clinton raised taxes in 1993. You can compare the last year before Clinton, which was FY1993, to any later year you want, and the answer will be that revenues went up.

Also re another thing that you said, that you are in favor of freedom everywhere, for instance in Burma. Your feelings on that may well be sincere, but the fact is that Iraq is more than half of America's foreign policy, Afghanistan is a big chunk of the rest, and everything else that the US says about freedom is just talk. The Burmese junta knows that the US won't get involved with them at all as long as the Iraq war drags on. In fact they started waterboarding their people because Bush et al said that it wasn't torture.

So you should understand that your support for freedom in places like Burma, in fact everywhere other than Iraq, is just hypothetical.

I don't understand why we're arguing about taxes here. First, no matter how you work it, it's foolish to claim that tax revenue should or will go up merely because there was a tax cut a few years ago. Even if it is a true statement in the long term, you have significant delay between implementation of the policy and the revenue increase. Further, it's obvious that lower taxes will break down at some point. For example, no matter how much economic growth occurs, a permanent 0% tax rate can't increase tax revenue. There's some point where decreasing tax rates means decreasing tax revenue. It's a basic calculus theorem (well assuming tax revenue as a continuous function of tax rate).

Finally, maximizing tax revenue is not a worthy goal of government. While I don't see the benefit to excessive tax rates (that is, tax rates so high that they diminish tax revenue). But at the same time, I don't have a problem with lower tax rates even if they result in less government revenue.

Revenues have never been higher, a fact and a record. The EGTRRA was passed in 2001 with a slow, phased introduction of rate changes, very few of which went into effect prior to 2003. The JGTRRA was passed in 2003 and accelerated many of these rate changes. which is why I used 2003. The purpose of the tax cuts was to stimulate the economy, which they did because they freed up money for investment rather than being misspent by the government. Income redistribution schemes (higher taxes) have never created wealth but have limited its growth. The resulting increase in revenues from corporate and individual income taxes speak for themselves.
So far, the junta in Burma is not trying to kill us or expand their power into neighboring countries like the Islamists are now and Saddam did on several occasions. If you choose to ignore the geo-political importance of the middle east, I can't help you. I am sincere in my beliefs for world democracy otherwise I would not have said so. I would like to see say India play a more important role in promoting democracy in that part of the world and apply pressure on Burma.
I find it interesting that many on the left vilifing Bush for not doing more about Burma and Tibet were the same ones burning flags and destroying property to protest the Vietnam war, a war were fighting to keep South Vietnam free from Communism. So explain to me how someone can be against freeing Iraq and Afghanistan and complain about not freeing Burma and Tibet?

Jim, in your tax rate analysis you mentioned $7206 per person. Not every person pays taxes either. The process of lowering a tax rate will indeed lower tax revenue, but the spending increase by the populace, including those that do not pay taxes, is the ultimate goal. Increased spending by the populace will eventually show up in increased tax revenue in the future as with increased spending, there's MORE to tax. Clinton raised taxes and revenue went up...but then plateued and recessed, because the taxes go up, the populace stops spending. Then there's LESS to tax and revenues go down. I will agree that labelling a tax rate hike or cut to a president in term is ridiculous, you have to let the history of the hike or cut show first. The hike in the Clinton administration eventually proved a failure. The cut in the Bush administration launched our economy after the tech bubble burst and 9/11. The (not true yet) recession is because of greedy banks doing stupid things. Again, I will agree (partially) thank further tax rate cuts may not work now, but that doesn't mean it won't stimulate spending.

Nat Burton wrote:
"...do you advocate liberating Burma? What about other victimized nations? Shall we liberate a new country as our budget allows - perhaps one every 4 years or so - until the world is free?"

Victimized nations? That's an extremely odd way of putting the severe lack of liberty and individual freedoms in some nations. Hopefully you can see that when pointed out to you.

Anyway are you saying the people of Burma don't have a right to liberty except the "liberty" provided by death? How about Sudan, Tibet, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Libya, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Gaza, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Cuba, or Lebanon? There's more to choose from if they somehow all failed your criteria (whatever those might be).

Fact is the US is doing better than anyone else including the use of armed intervention when politically feasible, it's the rest of the free world which ought to get its act together and contribute more (and I say that as a non-American). But meanwhile the US needs to continue true to the ideals of freedom (which translates directly into "no Obama" as far as I'm concerned).

Hmmmm. . .
>>Raoul Ortega wrote:
And Bush looked deep...

Lefties-- Here's a hint: Bush ain't running this year.

If all you've got is to compare your candidate to him, and to say he'll probably be marginally better than the worst possible President we'll ever have, then you haven't got much, have you?

Now this is a remarkable display of historical ignorance in a thread about historical ignorance. Reasonable people may reasonably disgree about how good a president George Bush has been, and history will be the ultimate judge. Persanlly I think he ranks somewhere between numbers 8 and 15 or so. But to claim he is the worst in a list that includes John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, James Buchannan, Ulysses Grant, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter is almost beyond belief. Raoul is evidently just a complete tabula rasa about enything that happened before the turn of the century.

But to claim he is the worst in a list that includes John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, James Buchannan, Ulysses Grant, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter is almost beyond belief.

I consider the odds a bit better than 50% that G. W. Bush's administration will eventually be considered the apex of US military power. It depends a lot on who follows him. Certainly, the flawed execution of the Iraq occupation will result in recruitment problems. And somebody needs to fix the procurement system for the US or eventually we'll be competing with other powers with comparable military force and lower costs.