Merry Christmas, from GWB!

Remove all ads!

That's taken directly from the article I posted. Again, please take the time to read the link, if you are going to respond directly to me. You make it sound like I made this stuff up out of thin air. I did not, and I have a source to qualify my statements. This is based upon "documentation" that has been uncovered by the API. That may or may not mean much to some, but for someone like me, who believes that the documentation matters (it's like forensic evidence), and who also believes that GWB is the worst president in our history, the actual retracing of how this meltdown unfolded matters.

Now, I would like to know a little more about the documentation itself. Did GWB sign-off on this, or just his underlings? And while the article is very good about quoting from the sources, it provides no background or details about the documents themsevles that are in question.

Then there is this:

Well, here's the comment in question:

That looks pretty clear to me. Bush is not alone in sharing the blame, but the buck stops at the top regarding our government. It is often said that the postition of president of the US is the most powerful one on the planet. I guess you don't agree. That's fine, but accountability is not that easily ducked. It's called taking personal responsibility. GWB apologized to the American people for the economy in one of the other links I posted. It happened on his watch and it appears that there were signals that were ignored by him and his staffers. He knows the truth of the matter. The documentation may either tell us more, or it may prove that GWB really was not so much in the loop. Maybe he had a big golf game that day....

Oh, I almost forgot this:

These guys worked for Homeland Security, what do you think the standard should be?

 

If they worked for homeland security, they'd have a better understanding of how to hide these things.

The point you refuse to see is that you blame Bush too much--to the point of letting legitimate boobs and crooks off the hook. That's not good.

 

hokay, I'm a GWB basher myself. Little me even got in a wee bit of trouble with Tal back in 2004 because of it. And I'm such a good rogue, who would think that.

However, The President of the United States is the CEO of the country and weilds a lot of power and influence. Congress? Republican or Democrat IMO it has been a long time since they took their duties seriously. Who is to blame. We the voters and residents of this nation for letting them get away with it.

We need people like Chandos on both sides of the issues. People who speak up and aren't afraid to express their opinion. Right or wrong it is better than sitting around griping in your beer or milk shake.

Argument done properly is what makes us grow and keeps us healthy as a nation.

PS: I still hate GWB. Not wild about Obama but hopefully things will improve. If not there is 2012 if we survive so long.

 

Ok Chandos, I think the thing I disagree with you most on now is where to lay the blame. I'm one who tends to try to put it where it belongs. If CEOs of companies screwed up, then screw them. If Congress was sitting on it's assets, then kick those assets out from under them. If the Pres. was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, chop it off. You get the point. Now, certainly some blame goes to all of the above, but I think it should be roughly equal with, if anything, a focus on the CEOs. I don't believe in assigning blame to the top dog just because he's the top dog.

Also, in just about any situation, a supervisor is only held accountable for work-related activity. If an employee goes off and slaughters his neighbor in his basement, his supervisor is not involved at all and gets no blame whatsoever.

 

Too bad Bush can veto anything they do... or any president, for that matter. And it needs 2/3 vote to overturn, which is harder than actually getting the bill they wanted passed.

 

Ah, but Saber, the question is did he? Or even would he? The one instance I know of a bill being introduced that may have prevented this, it was by a republican and it never even got out of committee (largely because of a few Dems on the committee). Bush is to blame if he does veto it, yes, but if no one even votes for the bill, Bush doesn't even get a chance to sign or veto it.

 

Yes, but not just me, like 70 percent of the American people. That number could be higher. But one of the main reasons cited for most of the Repubilcan loses in November was because of their handling of the economy. You and Gnarff can certainly complain about me all you want, (and it is your right) but Bush's low approval rating went below both Carter and Nixon. In fact his low rating set records. So, while you are trying to convince everyone that I'm being unfair by "blaming" Bush, just remember that your view of GWB is very much in the minority.

 

Wait a minute, I'm not letting GWB off the hook totally, but I think he has enough to answer for for what he actualy did, and let others answer for their crimes. It's the fact that blaming Bush may take the heat off some others that deserve to sweat for a bit too.

 

But we are speaking politically, Gnarff. We already agree that it was the greed and incompetence of guys who actually made the bad business decisions. You can't blame GWB for making the bad loans and business decisions that were made by the guys who ran the mortgage companies. But the "political" liability belongs mostly with GWB. That was my real point. It's not GWB's fault that CEO's did not know how to manage their companies.

 

Chandos, you do realize that Congress's approval ratings have consistently been 5-10% below Bush's for at least two years, right (not so sure about before that)? They've actually gotten to single digits! Those two together don't speak of individual failure, but of a general perception of our government as having failed, with emphasis, if anywhere, on Congress.

 

There's a lot of blame on the Congress for some matters. It is almost as if they have been invisible for the last 20 months or so. Before this last Congress, and the ratings were very low for that one as well, as leader of the Republican Party, GWB just about ran it. Thusly, the previous Congress was not just invisible, but wasn't even there but to rubberstamp the GWB agenda.

Nevertheless, if the election is an indication, the Dems are more preferred, at least atm, by most Americans. There has been a large rejection of the Republican agenda of the last 8 years by the People. The Dems have their chance - they can either step-up - or lose it - again.

 

Well, yes and no. It's true that the people wanted change in the White House, which is why Obama's campaign to paint McCain as the next Bush worked so well. The people are sick of Bush and have some very good reasons to be so, though not half of what you seem to want to put on his plate. At the same time, though, while the Dems did win some seats in Congress, they didn't get as many as they were asking for, and there weren't really many Dem incumbents in competative elections. Really, we didn't get much of a review for Congress as a whole. In gubenatorial races, however, the Republicans did quite well (again, considering the races at hand). There wasn't really a chance for any kind of approval of the Reps as a whole, but we fell far short of an outright condemnation of them.

 

Your comment, "what the Dems were asking for," I have to take as meaning every race? I'm not sure what that means. The Dems made gains in both the Congress and the Senate - substantial gains, considering that many of those gains were in states that previously were red states. In fact, I would say that it was a huge election for the Dems in that respect. Sorry, NOG, but you are spinning the results in an attempt to make them look like less than they were. Take a look at the map, with all those nice, new blue states. Senate results:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#S

Results for the House:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#H

I find it ironic that now you are the one "blaming" GWB.

 

Yes, Chandos, take a look at those results. Of the seats up for election in the Senate, the Dems won 19 (I think maybe 6 of those were a change from previous) while the Reps won 15 (no new gains). Now, remember, in many of those states for both the Reps and the Dems, there was only one serious candidate, so there wasn't really much of an election. The Dems were reasonably hoping, however, for enough to get a supermajority, but they didn't. I think there were something like 10 Rep seats up for real challenge, with the Dems needing 8 to take a supermajority, and they only got 6. Don't quote me on those numbers, but it was something like that.

I'm not too sure about the House, as I didn't watch that rase as closely.

Where do you see that, exactly? I blame him for what he's actually done, yes. I've never claimed he was free of any guilt on anything. I can't think of a single politician who ever has been. I don't think I really blamed Bush for much of anything in my post, though, except perhaps his bad reputation.

 

NOG - Well, if that was their expectation then I don't think the Dems were being resaonable. A super-majority would have been a total wipe out for the Republicans; it would have left them powerless. Maybe they did expect that, but I had not heard anything like that. I'm not saying you are wrong, and it would not surprise me, since the other side is saying that the Senate seat in Georgia, that they just won, is the a big comeback for them. Yeah, a Senate seat in the state of Georgia...r-i-g-h-t. If they can't win a seat there, that leaves only Utah, Alabama and Texas (a three state party).

And you blaming Bush?

I took that to mean that Bush, at least in a large part, cost Mac the election. In the rhetorical game that we are engaged in, it would have been Mac's election to lose or win. Blaming GWB for Mac's failure in the election is out bounds, if only in theory and by the "rules" we are currently engaged in (I use the term "rules" loosely in this instance).

 

You're being too narrow with the blame. There are mambers of Congress (Representative and Senate), Cabinet members and Advisors (I'm not sure of my terminology, but I think you get my meaning) that share that blame. Putting it all on Bush and letting the rest of them off the hook does the Republican party or the American people any good. The people may well have spoke their piece on Congress, but the ones you would let get away in your apparent obsession with W should also take some impact politically.

Put me down for noble failure. I believe that Obama is sincere with wanting Change, but I just think that too much is beyond the control of the Democrats. The economy will still be in the crapper in 2010...

But when there are only 100 seats in the senate, isn't that change of 6 seats a huge swing? And when the Democrats made gains in two consecutive elections, that's a big difference...

 

Then you took it to mean far more than I had intended. Did it play a role in the election? Sure. Again, that's why Obama painting McCain as Bush II worked so well, but there are such tactics in most elections and it is expected that the contender will know how to counter them, or at least mitigate the damage. McCain, well, didn't. His failure is on his own head, Bush is just the blade Obama used to drive it home with. As I said, I blame Bush for what he's actually done, with does net him some blame for very good reasons, but not much more than Clinton, in all honesty. You seem to want to net up the blame from the past 6 presidencies and their congresses and lay it all at his feet. That could just be my perception, though.

 

"Democratic" congress would be more accurate. In 2007, the democrats held a whopping 232 seats in the house to the Republican party's 200 (3 seats were vacant). While I substantial advantage, it still takes two houses to pass a bill. In the senate, the democrats held 49 seats - they only had 50 if if you count Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman - to the Republican party's 49....and the tie breaking vote in the event of a stalemate was Dick Cheney. They were dealing with a president that could (and often did) veto even the most bi-partisan legislation they passed (SCHIP, for example), and the republicans were capable of killing any bill they wanted by simply whispering "filibuster" into Harry Reid's ear. If you call that a democratic majority...

 

Drew, really, it was a reliable 51, with both independants caucusing with the Dems. It's true that that isn't a filibuster-proof majority, or a veto-proof one, but that just means it was their responsability to find middle ground that would give them enough republican support to get those majorities. That's what happens in most congresses. Usually, neither side has a veto- or filibuster-proof majority, so they have to work together. What did the Dems do? They gave the reigns to Nancy Pelosi.

Again, I won't claim for a second that Bush should get off scott-free, but Congress needs to go down with him.

 

NOG - The problem for the Democratic Congress - other than it's own ineffectualness - is that the majority they have is not veto-proof. They still have to deal with the "Decider."