Rice's View of the Bush Legacy

Condoleezza Rice thinks that people are going to "thank" Bush for what he has done.

That sound you hear? That's the crickets chirping.

Let's see, he presided over...

the worst foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor,
the failure to catch the primary culprit for said attack,
the authorization to defy the Geneva Conventions and permit torture,
the botched invasion of Iraq on trumped up evidence of non-existent WMDs,
the comically inept response to Hurricane Katrina,
and the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

But, I'm sure that other than these minor things, people will be thanking Bush. I'm not sure for what, but no doubt they will.

The Bush Legacy

Joe Klein writes an ode to Bush as his Presidency winds down.

In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.

Putting aside my own biases, I have a hard time imagining anyone making any sort of credible defense of Bush's legacy. Yes, his Presidency isn't officially over, yet and time could be more favorable to him (Harry Truman style), but it is still difficult to figure out what a more favorable picture of Bush would even entail. He did actually have a few decent moments (immigration, AIDS assistance in Africa), but when it came to the big things - the response to 9/11 and terrorism, the conduct of Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, the economy, civil liberties - he has been an unmitigated disaster.

Anyone out there care to make an intellectually credible defense of George W. Bush?

Torture Pardons

A bill has been introduced in the House to prevent the expected preemptive pardons by Bush for crimes his administration has committed. There has been talk that the Obama team is worried about pushing this issue themselves feeling that they would burn political capital and fuel partisan bickering. I understand that, but find it incredibly sad and pathetic, too. What kind of message does it send to people that we won't investigate wrong doings, especially things as grotesque as torture, if it might make some people mad?

If you care about this issue, go here and sign this petition supporting this resolution and send an email or letter to your Congressional representatives asking them to support it, as well. If we the people don't take a stand on this, we have no right to complain in the future when elected officials break the law.

Bush Administration Has Never Tortured

Yes, that's the new line from the White House. Dana Perino said, "This president has said that we did interrogate terrorists, and we did so to protect the country from possible imminent terrorist attack. We did not torture."

When did the White House change its name to the Ministry of Truth? Oh, I forgot, waterboarding isn't torture anymore. I'll have to make a note of that.

Honesty About Torture

In the comments of a recent post, I said:

Andrew Sullivan has been pushing on his blog for someone to ask Bush if what happened to McCain was torture. I would love to see the President try to dance around with that one.

to which commenter Kyle replied:

his reply would be painfully easy and would yield far to many head-nods.
"9-11 changed everything"
i would actually fear someone posing that question to the president as im sure it would only solidify the need for me to swear off (after swearing at) politics and take up stamp collecting.

I would welcome that answer however repugnant I may find it. If the Bush Administration and its supporters truly believe that 9/11 changed everything, then they should be up front about it. Tell the American people, "We believe that in order to protect you and keep you safe, we must resort to such things as torture." At least then we could have an honest debate about that instead of dancing around the issue. Of course I also understand that Bush and his cronies believe that 9/11 has also given the Executive Branch carte blanche to do whatever it feels like without having to tell anyone and that they have no interest in debating anything. The point is, though, that most of the supporters of Bush policies have not been intellectually honest enough to truly state where they stand. Instead we hear about things like enhanced interrogation techniques.

I'm tired of cowards who try to take a stand on an issue while trying not to look like that's where they really stand. Call a spade a spade. If you support torture, then, damn it, come out and say it.

Birthday Treaty

You know, I could see Bush falling for something like this.

George W. Bush Sewage Plant

Heh. San Franciscans will vote this November on whether or not to name a sewage treatment plant after our esteemed President. Personally, I think it gives Bush too much credit; at least the treatment plant cleans up its mess.

Secret Executive Orders?

Jane Meyer's new book, The Dark Side, in addition to dealing with torture on Bush's watch, also reveals that it is suspected that a secret executive order exists that changes the rules of succession we currently have in place.

New Yorker writer Jane Mayer's new book, The Dark Side, opens with a shocker. Apparently sometime in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan issued a "secret executive order" that in the event of the death of the president and the vice president "established a means of re-creating the executive branch." Reagan's order violated the express terms of the Constitution and governing statutes.
...
Congress last considered the problem of a dual vacancy in the presidency and the vice presidency when Harry Truman was in the White House. In the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, lawmakers stipulated that if both positions are empty, power passes first to the Speaker of the House or, if she, too, does not survive, to the president pro tem of the Senate. But relying on James Mann's earlier book Rise of the Vulcans, Mayer reports that Reagan "amended the process for speed and clarity … without informing Congress that it had been sidestepped." We don't know how. But if the order bypasses the speaker and the Senate president pro tempore in favor of an official in the executive branch, we have a recipe for a constitutional crisis.
...
Where does the Bush administration figure into all of this? Since Sept. 11 , the question of presidential succession has been a preoccupation of some of the most responsible statesmen in Washington. Most notably, James Baker joined the late Lloyd Cutler to chair a bipartisan AEI-Brookings Institution commission on the subject. But their recommendations went nowhere in Congress, and I have always wondered why the Bush administration was content to remain on the sidelines. After all, the administration is certainly serious about terrorism. Why, then, didn't it take energetic steps to make much-needed revisions to the law of presidential succession inherited from the days of Harry Truman?

Speaking of hubris.

Not No, But Hell No.

Like Andrew, I hope this is a joke.

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God's Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God's candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God's president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

Genghis Khan vs. George W. Bush

Matt Yglesias has the blistering takedown.

On the advice of some readers I picked up Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World where I learned that Genghis Khan banned torture in his empire.

So, yes, under George W. Bush the United States of America is regressing to an understanding of humane treatment of people that doesn't reflect the enlightened views of Genghis Khan. That's your feel-good thought of the day.

Now, yes, you can say that Genghis had pragmatic reasons for this and not moral reasons. You can also say that Genghis perpetrated many atrocities in his time. Still, it's pretty sad when the President of the United States of America heartily embraces a practice banned by Genghis Khan.