# Peggy Noonan on George Bush



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Peggy nails it in this piece. I voted for the guy as I viewed him as the lesser of two evils and I wanted Republican nominees to the Supreme Court (which Bush also would have botched but for the outcries of the base), but I'm done with him. He can't leave office soon enough in my opinion. She's absolutely right - Bush squandered his presidency. He could have dones so many important things like introduce a real energy policy, introduce market oriented healthcare reforms to preempt future Democrat attempts at nationalized healthcare, etc. and instead we get No Child Left Behind, a botched Iraq war, and massive increased federal speding across the board.........In hindsight, maybe we would have beeen better off with a Republican congress and a Democrat president (Gore or Kerry) in a bit of a deadlock - it worked with Clinton.

https://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

That was a scathing article wasn't it. I'm still trying to digest the whole thing. I might need a bottle of antacid. LOL Harsh words for harsh times though. I saw Dan Bartlett just resigned as well. I always thought he was someone competent.

Squandered? How soon we forget the 'faith based initiative'!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am certainly not going to disagree with much of this article. The one caveat I will add though, is that Bush was also relentlessly bashed for the few good things he did do and attempted to do, i.e. tax cuts and partial reform of Social Security. As for all of his screw ups though, she nailed them.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

All of this was visible when the Republicans chose to nominate him.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> All of this was visible when the Republicans chose to nominate him.


How so? Based on what previous actions?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The fact that he did nothing in his first 50 years of life to do anything to prepare himself for the job. The fact that we was probably an alcoholic for most of his adult years. The fact that he will not openly deny cocaine use.

Blind Bush defenders will stand by their man no matter what.

This man clearly was not prepared for this job in any way.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The fact that he did nothing in his first 50 years of life to do anything to prepare himself for the job. The fact that we was probably an alcoholic for most of his adult years. The fact that he will not openly deny cocaine use.
> 
> Blind Bush defenders will stand by their man no matter what.
> 
> This man clearly was not prepared for this job in any way.


Looking at the next crop, who is?

I guess Romney and Richardson since they have been in executive leadership?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The fact that he did nothing in his first 50 years of life to do anything to prepare himself for the job. The fact that we was probably an alcoholic for most of his adult years. The fact that he will not openly deny cocaine use.
> 
> Blind Bush defenders will stand by their man no matter what.
> 
> This man clearly was not prepared for this job in any way.


Oh yes, I see - yeah you're right. Yes all those issues made it perfectly clear, prior to his nomination, that he would expand the role of the federal government in education, hugely increase spending on Medicare, fail to develop a coherent national energy policy, botch the Iraq war, and fail to intorduce any significant reform of healthcare. Thank you for explaining that.

BTW, Billy Clinton didn't have much better experience - governor of Arkansas?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

West MacArthur BLVD. Oakland California 1976. I was a Shore Patrolman on the main red Light strip. I see an old fashioned telephone booth BEING ROCKED by this 6' tall black working girl in 6" silver snakeskin Elton John boots, hotpants and bra. She had thighs the girth of a baobab tree topped by a massive afro . A baobad tree with a silver python. And inside the booth was a coastie just out of basic. You could spot them by the haircuts and really shoddy civilian clothing bought at Gus's base tailor shop. So I walk over, eyeballing my own multiple escape routes. " Evening darlin' , what seems to be the malfunction here? This trick promised me $40 to go to church with me and then changed his mind. I want my money! Well, tell you what. Heres $5. Go buy yourself some chili and coffee at the Doggie Diner, O.K.?" She took the money and strode off. I swear I heard Saint-Saens ' the Elephant' from Carnival of the Animals. I hauled the almost postrate G.I. out. First I recovered my $10 from him and then escorted him back to the Base as my watch relief showed up. A month later I was again an S.P. and heres the same idiot being half kicked to death by a Minnesota farm girl with platinum hair and a figure toned by bucking hay. I let her finish before arresting him. I figure WE,US the voters think every hooker is going to be a Julia Roberts and buy whatever has body heat closest to 98.6. Bush has turned his trick,and now we're cruising West Mac Arthur BLVD. for a farm girl because somehow different will be better this time.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The fact that we was probably an alcoholic for most of his adult years. The fact that he will not openly deny cocaine use.


You're right, that should have been the tip off he was a closet Dem


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Whether or not you agree with Clinton's politics, at least he had done something before he became president and was never trading on an old family name. I agree with Clinton on some things and disagree on some others.

I also believe that because of his being a Democrat, some of the welfare reform, etc. in the mid-nineties became possible. Any Republican would have been pilloried for his lack of sensitivity to the plight of those who prefer not to help themselves. (I realize there are a lot of people who need the help, but a lot of people will take a freebie, too.)

I'll concede you all your specific points about Bush selling out the right. However, his father was never a true believer either.

I really don't think Bush believes in anything other than "Gee, isn't it cool to have this office." I wonder (but don't know) if he's capable of much more than that.

For what it's worth, the thought of the imperial Ex-Wife's presidency makes me gag. I simply cannot stand that condescending woman.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Oh yes, I see - yeah you're right. Yes all those issues made it perfectly clear, prior to his nomination, that he would expand the role of the federal government in education, hugely increase spending on Medicare, fail to develop a coherent national energy policy, botch the Iraq war, and fail to intorduce any significant reform of healthcare. Thank you for explaining that.
> 
> BTW, Billy Clinton didn't have much better experience - governor of Arkansas?


I have yet to hear anyone, regardless of political persuasion claim GWB would be where he is (and has been in the past) if his last name had been something other than Bush.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

This is not a comment on the column, but a more general one: Peggy Noonan routinely makes me want to barf. That squint, the sigh, and the sorrowful whine about how disappointed she is in her opponents' failure to see things her way. The perfect wordsmith for GHWB.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Concordia said:


> This is not a comment on the column, but a more general one: Peggy Noonan routinely makes me want to barf. That squint, the sigh, and the sorrowful whine about how disappointed she is in her opponents' failure to see things her way. The perfect wordsmith for GHWB.


For her age, I think she's hot.

Actually, regardless of her age - I find her very attractive - even with the squinting and sighing. :icon_smile:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I have yet to hear anyone, regardless of political persuasion claim GWB would be where he is (and has been in the past) if his last name had been something other than Bush.


That does not answer the point Rocker made, re: Clinton, which however does nicely address the point about Dubya. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Rocker is moot.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I really don't think Bush believes in anything other than "Gee, isn't it cool to have this office." I wonder (but don't know) if he's capable of much more than that.


I completely disagree. I think he believes, fundamentally, in quite a few things - I think he really believed Harriet Myers was going to make a great S. Ct. Justice, I think he really believes in the Iraq war, I think he really believes it's in the Nation's best interest to give citizenship to 12-20 million illegal aliens and their extended families, etc.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> For her age, I think she's hot.
> 
> Actually, regardless of her age - I find her very attractive - even with the squinting and sighing. :icon_smile:


Me too. Which is what is so irritating. Such squandered potential!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Don't forget W's original political philosophy, "You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on these people."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Don't forget W's original political philosophy, "You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on these people."


LOL, classic!


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

only wander over here akashunlee ta lurn stuff. ant no innalekshul. dont no iffin yall ever reed > www.takimag.com but it mite keep ya off the streets fer a whyle. Yer welkum. (frydee nite en rute twix the fish camp an tha wallmark, hittin the free why-fi long the way. buy.)


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I don't think really had much of an agenda and the terrorist came out of the blue so he made them his agenda. Which means he should never have run for President. What little agenda he had, before terrorism, was probably to keep the left from doing to much damage. But, for how much he has spent on this Iraq war he could have spent half that and out spent the left on sending people to higher education for very cheap and he could have spent much on health care and dirt poor people, which would have been better than wasted money on a thankless people in Iraq.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> I don't think really had much of an agenda and the terrorist came out of the blue so he made them his agenda. Which means he should never have run for President. What little agenda he had, before terrorism, was probably to keep the left from doing to much damage. *But, for how much he has spent on this Iraq war he could have spent half that and out spent the left on sending people to higher education for very cheap and he could have spent much on health care and dirt poor people, which would have been better than wasted money on a thankless people in Iraq.*


That may be true. However, if three more planes had flown into buildings during that time would it have mattered? While the war may be debatable in hindsight, the simple fact remains the U.S. homeland has not been successfully attacked since the invasion of afghanistan and the GWOT including Iraq. While Edwards and Co. keep saying the war in Iraq is making us less safe, that's not supported by facts. The only issue I have with analysis such as yours is the zero sum game it assumes. No one can say with certainty or disprove that if we were not fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we would not have had another attack here. W says that is part of the strategy. Until there is another attack on America he should get some credit because he would certainly get the blame. Just my opinion. I'd love to hear a version of the don't fight terrorists, spend the money on healthcare and education and also protect the homeland plan. Unfortunately, none of the candidates running on that have an actual plan. It's really rather simple - our enemies want to fight. They are determined to fight. They attacked us - unprovoked. Where *do* you want to fight them and how much *are* you willing to spend? Once we hear that we can compare it to $2.5B-$10B/mo in Iraq. The plan that says fallback to Kuwait is interesting. However, I personally fail to see the advantage between spending $2.5-$10B/mo to fight in Kuwait vs. $2.5-$10B/mo to fight in Iraq. And Kuwait doesn't deserve to be destroyed. Where is the better battlefield? If someone could lay out the argument people would listen. No one likes the deal in Iraq. However, from Edwards, to Reid, to Pelosi, to Murtha, none are offering a plan - even a phoney one. Biden comes the closest and he even seems to admit there isn't much difference going to be realized by pulling out of Iraq except negative consequences. The others are just saying "This sucks." well, of course, it sucks. It doesn't require any leadership skills to notice that. What wouldn't suck as bad? Regroup and Reposition is something only those politicians dumber than W think is a legitimate plan. Most of the Dems can't even stop lying and admit that W did at least change leadership and change the plan. There is a new plan at least on a details level. Yet, their argument seems to depend on not even recognizing this change at all. That's simply not legitimate debate. And pretending there is an option to not fight and simply spend that money creating some progressive-utopian view of America is not legitimate either.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It is speculation either way. We could have saved ourselves billions of $'s by beefing up homeland security and still have no more jets crashing into buildings. Even today they could pass a A-bomb through our ports because the money is going into Iraq instead of port security.

I think without doubt going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do and stay there until finnished. But Iraq is a different story. First off Bush's military experience is almost nothing, Rumfield is the same and lastly Cheney is the same, too, while Collin Powell was top Military officer of the US, the only one with military experience worth mentioning and was pushed totally out of the picture. So that makes Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney the three stooges, because they wouldn't even listen to Collin Powell the only expert among them. Where is the wisdom? Reagan made some mistakes and set up a group to study it and give answers- Bush refused to even listen to these people- I think Reagan was by far smarter than Bush even when they were in the crib. Rumsfield was so far behind the ball with Iraq he made a fool of himself. I would think of strategic things to do and they would months later think of them and then finally do them. Collin Powell was the only Alexander The Great among them, which they refused to listen to. 

I hear one third of the oil is being robbed, which is suppose to pay for some of this war and Bush has shown no interest in secureing the oil, I guess it is easier to tax us. WW2 was coming at us. The Iraq "war" wasn't coming at us, the planning should have and continued to be much better it is. There are thinkers out here who are ahead of the ball, but Bush refuses to listen to them. Sending people into such a careless war to be killed and maimed is immoral. The soldiers are doing the best they can, but the leaders are a diaster. One thing about war is you have to be nimble like playing soccer- Bush does not know what the word nimble means, when the other side does something- coming back months later with an idea is way to late. Being ahead of the ball is keeping the enemies on their toes, not the other way around. As so many people say, Bush only has plan A and no B, C, D, E, F, G. Bush has never claimed to have any B, C,... plans. I have used F plans and maybe G plans or I would have been busted up. Bush is not a good commander in chief. We can draw the enemy into a terrifing fight- fear is a good weapon.

Cloak and Digger methods have removed many major enemies through out history, with out the major leaders what enemies would you have that can do anything? Remove the smarts and you remove the problem.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> All of this was visible when the Republicans chose to nominate him.


absolutely, and they nominated him and America (maybe) voted for him, I am still not convinced he won that first election.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Oh yes, I see - yeah you're right. Yes all those issues made it perfectly clear, prior to his nomination, that he would expand the role of the federal government in education, hugely increase spending on Medicare, fail to develop a coherent national energy policy, botch the Iraq war, and fail to intorduce any significant reform of healthcare. Thank you for explaining that.
> 
> BTW, Billy Clinton didn't have much better experience - governor of Arkansas?


What it made clear to many of us was that he was not competent to do the job. And say what you will about Clinton, if he would have kept his pants on there would not be much to bash about him...smart he is, smart bush may be, but prepared for this job, his VP may be but he never was.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> I think without doubt going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do and stay there until finnished. But Iraq is a different story. First off Bush's military experience is almost nothing, Rumfield is the same and lastly Cheney is the same, too, while Collin Powell was top Military officer of the US, the only one with military experience worth mentioning and was pushed totally out of the picture. So that makes Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney the three stooges, because they wouldn't even listen to Collin Powell the only expert among them. Where is the wisdom? Reagan made some mistakes and set up a group to study it and give answers- Bush refused to even listen to these people


Howard Dean made the exact same comment on Colbert's show a few weeks ago:

BTW this video also serves as an excellent response to the "Democrats have no ideas" mythology.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Howard Dean made the exact same comment on Colbert's show a few weeks ago:
> 
> BTW this video also serves as an excellent response to the "Democrats have no ideas" mythology.


No Howard Dean from that link for me, but a nice clip of Linkin Park in concert.....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Try it again.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

It worked that time, thanks for fixing the link.

Okay, I watched it all. Got some chuckles. But one thing Frank....name me an "idea" Dean had except total withdrawal from Iraq in one year? Seriously, quote an idea about a substantive action the Dems plan to take from that nearly seven minutes of Howard. Many Bush insults, many FNC insults...but I failed to catch one single idea.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It worked that time, thanks for fixing the link.
> 
> Okay, I watched it all. Got some chuckles. But one thing Frank....name me an "idea" Dean had except total withdrawal from Iraq in one year? Seriously, quote an idea about a substantive action the Dems plan to take from that nearly seven minutes of Howard. Many Bush insults, many FNC insults...but I failed to catch one single idea.


"Total withdrawal from Iraq in one year"? You missed the other 90% of that sentence, as well as the subsequent exchange about why "only" 25,000 troops are needed in Iraq.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "Total withdrawal from Iraq in one year"? You missed the other 90% of that sentence, as well as the subsequent exchange about why "only" 25,000 troops are needed in Iraq.


LOL, I knew I could count on you to misquote your own source....yet again. Frank, he specifically said, "In the Middle East" when Colbert asked him...not Iraq. I listened to it once while reading an industry publication and caught that, funny how you did not after endlessly replaying it for hours no doubt.

I will refrain from any comments that can be construed as an insult towards your facility to comprehend input, the evidence speaks for itself.

Edit: And still waiting for those ideas you promised....
And the answer to Cobert's question about one difference between Dean and Bush....Bush is POTUS.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL, I knew I could count on you to misquote your own source....


I was quoting _your_ misquote, not my source.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I was quoting _your_ misquote, not my source.


Listen to it again Francis. Dean says quite clearly, and with some emphasis, "Not in Iraq" in regards to those 25k troops. Seriously, you are making it very hard not to make a sarcastic remark. Just admit you were wrong.

You know what should be an actionable infraction here? Being repeatedly so friggin' dense you keep repeating the same incorrect thing endlessly. I mean seriously, the video is an objective item of evidence and you are misquoting it. This is worse than a flame as it just incites people and allows no basis for the discussion of reality.

So, just to show you how friggin' bereft of thought you are, I'll just stipulate I was wrong, Dean did say those 25k troops were going to stay in Iraq (even though he clearly did not). So I'll stipulate that. Now give me some of these other ideas or just go away Francis.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So, just to show you how friggin' bereft of thought you are, I'll just stipulate I was wrong


Thank you. It's like pulling badly impacted wisdom teeth.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thank you. It's like pulling badly impacted wisdom teeth.


The stipulation was so you would enumerate the "ideas". Your above comment is specifically designed to incite argument but still light...well, totally devoid of...facts.

I shall not react to your attempt to incite and fight, please just enumerate the list of ideas dispelling the "myth" you referenced above or any hint of a conversation is clearly at an end and you are merely attempting to bait me and others into a flame war.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> It is speculation either way. We could have saved ourselves billions of $'s by beefing up homeland security and still have no more jets crashing into buildings. Even today they could pass a A-bomb through our ports because the money is going into Iraq instead of port security.
> 
> I think without doubt going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do and stay there until finnished. But Iraq is a different story. First off Bush's military experience is almost nothing, Rumfield is the same and lastly Cheney is the same, too, while Collin Powell was top Military officer of the US, the only one with military experience worth mentioning and was pushed totally out of the picture. So that makes Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney the three stooges, because they wouldn't even listen to Collin Powell the only expert among them. Where is the wisdom? Reagan made some mistakes and set up a group to study it and give answers- Bush refused to even listen to these people- I think Reagan was by far smarter than Bush even when they were in the crib. Rumsfield was so far behind the ball with Iraq he made a fool of himself. I would think of strategic things to do and they would months later think of them and then finally do them. Collin Powell was the only Alexander The Great among them, which they refused to listen to.
> 
> ...


Well, I disagree with a lot of that. However, the one thing I will engage, it is not speculation that we have not been attacked. All I'm asking is for those that claim to want the responsibility he has to be as open with their plans as he is with his. No, this isn't perfect, but what is? I don't see how Bush not having Plan B is argument for someone else that doesn't even have a Plan A.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Pistols at dawn ... or please stop reporting your disagreements until someone breaks a rule.

Disagreeing over veracity of facts, attention to detail, and IQ's below 50 are not rule-breaking. 

Until then, we mods have important things to do like counting the number of blades of grass which together till weight a total of one gram.

You're on your own ... but remember the rules.

1 blade of grass ... 2 blades of grass ... 3 ... 4 Oh, where was I?

1 blade of grass ... 2 blades of grass ... 3 ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Pistols at dawn ... or please stop reporting your disagreements until someone breaks a rule.


Pistols are sort of final. Texas caged match maybe?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Howard Dean made the exact same comment on Colbert's show a few weeks ago:
> 
> BTW this video also serves as an excellent response to the "Democrats have no ideas" mythology.


Hey Buddy, ready to enumerate all the "ideas" Dean put forth in this little Bush/O'Reilly/Republican bash fest?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Hey Buddy, ready to enumerate all the "ideas" Dean put forth in this little Bush/O'Reilly/Republican bash fest?


Way, you seem to not understand that FIRST we have to defeat W in 2008 and then the ideas he's stifling with this fascist regime can come to the surface.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Way, you seem to not understand that FIRST we have to defeat W in 2008 and then the ideas he's stifling with this facist regime can come to the surface.


LOL, you have spent too much time in the belly of the beast to be able to think up lines that some people might actually try and use.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The next President elect, be they the black guy from the WAMU commercial or a candidate possibly as obsolescent as his old Skyhawk can talk all day about healthcare or the abortion issue till the genetically modified, growth hormone fed cows come home. The Next POTUS will have one term defining mission, cleaning up the mess in Iraq. This will be the centerpiece, the jinn freed from the bottle whoever that person will be. This is how we will judge them, not on Global Warming, Gay Marriage, Immigration or a plethora of issues, large and small we should be turning our national consciousness too. Bush is going to retire to his Crawford ranch with the wife, his truck and gun collection. The Secret Service will provide lifetime protection, Walter Reed medical care and a pension some poor grunt
home from Iraq wil never see. So lets really put it to him by voting for the other side of our national duopoly of tired old white guys disguised as black, east coast patrician or female leaders.


----------

