I don’t accept the (unproven) premise, so I have not feelings about it.
What is “unproven”, John? Not the impounding of the Reagan papers, thats a matter of public record, yes? The motive remains in doubt?
Well, it might very well be as I suggested: that GeeDubya, moved by the becoming and praiseworthy modesty common to Pubbies, simply doesn’t want to overwhelm an adoring public with the sheer wonder and majesty of Reagans probity and intelligence. If we were to see the underlying facts as regards the Reagan years, and its prescient wisdom as regards the Middle East, and its application of a stern but avuncular hand to our misguided brothers in Central America, the outpourings of glad praise would be simply too embarassing for a Party that prefers stealth.
Yes. That must be it. Move along, you looky-loos. Nothing to see here.
I mispoke late last night. Must’ve been the beer.
It wasn’t your premise that I don’t accept, but your conclusion.
BTW, doesn’t the Freedom of Info act have a way of making this kind of stuff public one way or another? And why were these papers not disclosed during the 8 yr Clinton presidency?
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/housepanelseeks.html
One of many, Google on “Reagan papers release”.
They weren’t released during the Clinton Admin because the appropriate time limit had not passed. The Bushistas are moving heaven and earth to prevent such. They are at great pains to point out that some of the documents have been released, and even trotted out that ol’ standby, executive privilege.
Of course, I don’t think anything else but that they are hiding something. I draw that conclusion because they won’t let us see them. Rather simple. You are, of course, free to derive another motive, perhaps even a worthy one.
Good luck.
Elucidator:
I guess in the strictest sense they are hiding something if they refuse to make the papers public. Whether out of embarassment or genuine concerns of national security (or a combo of both) we really don’t know. Bush detractors will assume the fomer, supporters the latter. Fortunately we live in a fairly transparent democracy with enough people on both sides such that this will play out in due course. The courts will, I’m sure, have their say, and ultimately there will be another Dem in the White House and the political motives for secrecy will, presumably, no longer exist. In the meantime, I’m not losing any sleep over this.
Why am I suddenly having flashbacks to that Saturday Night Live skit, with mild-mannered Ronald Reagan turning into SuperBrain President Ron the moment he was out of the public limelight? Maybe mush-mouthed Dubya turns into Multisyllabic Multilingual WonderBush the moment the cameras turn off?
(And no, december, that Reagan skit was not meant to be factual.)
I love that skit. It reminds me of this classic article.
If we take the OP’s premise at face value, what does that say for those who blindly support the ignorant boob?
What if we take at face value the premise that I am the reincarnation of Borovelli Gaspatcho, the renowned 14th century Tibetan-Portugeuse muralist?
I usually don’t chime in on the political posts, since most of the time somebody else has represented a portion or other of my viewpoint… but I do read them all because they are always amusing and occasionally informative.
But I got home early from the bar early tonight and have a little gumption in me, so here goes:
As much as I hate partisan politics and mudslinging, I really relate to the “government governs best when it governs least of all” theory. I think one of the reasons that the last six years of Clinton’s term were so successful (at least fiscally) is that both sides “got out of the way”, so to speak. Not that I agree with tax-and-spend or borrow-and-spend, but not allowing either to have complete autonomy seemed to have beneficial results.
And of all the “recent president” comments…
People seem to give Reagan and Clinton more credit than they deserve. I don’t know how “history will bear them out”, but it seems to me that Bush Sr. and Carter did more for the good of the country than they did for their respective political careers (i.e. raising taxes after a “no new taxes” pledge, or Carter’s “put on a sweater” comment relating to the energy crisis). Not exactly popular opinions, but much needed wisdom in that flies in the face of re-election convention, IMHO.
Back to the OP…
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men…etc”
Bush was referring to Iraq as ONE VICTORY in the war on terror. He then continues. He is not saying that the hijackers were Iraqi. Try to pay more attention.
And by the way, you Bush haters could not possibly loathe him any more than I loathe Bill Clinton.
Bush said that we are stricking them back. Everyone I have spoken to who has supported the war has justified our actions by saying something like “Good, they deserved it.” Referring to the misnomer that the Iraqis had something to do with 9/11.
Kind of reminds me of the attack victim who wants revenge so badly that she points out the wrong assailant in the line up.
The simplist explanation is that Bush wasn’t just referring to the Iraqi war, but the war on terror in general. I was reading a newsweek or Time magazine yesterday and one of the captured Al Qaeda operatives said the expected response to 9/11 was a few cruise missiles being sent to Afghanistan. An all out war wasn’t expected.
I don’t think Bush is stupid. Regrettably, he sounds stupid, but that doesn’t mean he is is dumb as a rock.
I have two problems with his leadership.
The war in Iraq. I really am happy that Saddam has been ousted and his brutal regime has been brought to an end. I do think the government lied to the world about nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. But it is still a happy result. My problem is that the build-up and execution of this war was a complete and dismal failure of diplomacy. The first Gulf war was paid for by our allies. That was the triumph of G.H.W. Bush. We are stuck for the bill this time and did not have to be that way. I suppose Karl Rove had his timetable and no-one was allowed to veer from the re-election script.
The tax cuts. I’m not even going to get into for or against. What they represent is political cowardice. Bush is not making the tough political decisions now; he has dumped them on future congresspeople, presidential administrations…entire generations to come. Has he cut spending? No, he has increased spending. Down the road the tax cuts will have to be repealed or someone else is going to have to tell Americans the news they refuse to hear. That is not leadership.
I can only see it as a money grab for his generation. Those of us younger than the I-got-mine crowd will be paying for these cuts for the rest of our lives. With interest.
What ever happened to the balanced budget amendment anyway?
It was defeated by Democrats.
Whenever people say Republicans are fiscally irresponsible and Democrats are, I point to the several votes on the Balanced Budget amendments. Defeated by party line votes, with Democrats mostly against.
That hardly surprises me. I would expect the Dems to be in favor of deficit spending.
It seemed like it was a central tenet of the Republican party in '90’s. I’m just a little surprised that there isn’t a movement to revive it.
Could it be that both parties are hopelessly corrupted by pork and cash?
They don’t have the votes. They need 67 votes in the Senate.
**OP: **Would most Dopers then agree that the above quotes from Dear Leader…
Missed the question all this time.
>>>prove that GWB is either 1) purposefully manipulating (lying to) the American Public, or 2) an ignorant boob<<<
Neither. He’s Topo Gigio.
“Its not the man’s ignorance that scares me. Its what he knows for certain that just ain’t so.”
- Mark Twain