George W. Bush and the Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Week

and allows Bush to designate an heir apparent

Do you actually think an "heir apparent" can get elected even with the power of incumbency? The best thing going for all GOP candidates, save for McCain, is their complete outsider status in relation to the current administration.

My god, man! What are you thinking?! If Cheney steps down, that means that Bush would be the president!!

Cheney should be impeached. But having him and AG stepping down would do wonders for Bush's legacy.

No skin off my back though... I didn't vote for him.

That's always my strategy in voting. Vote for the guy who doesn't win so when things go wrong it's not my fault. Hell, I've never even voted for someone who even got 5% of a vote yet ;-)

Hell, I've never even voted for someone who even got 5% of a vote yet

That sounds like when I vote for Democrats in state-wide elections in Texas. *Sigh*

Just to remind everyone, the catastrophe at Walter Reed is what is in store if we ever follow through with socialized "universal" government run health care.

It ain't necessarily so...

Critics cite inept contractors at Walter Reed - MSNBC
Outsourcing Walter Reed - Tom Paine
Outsourcing blamed for Walter Reed scandal - UPI

I'm not saying that outsourcing/privitization was the only problem at Walter Reed. But I am saying that it's disingenuous to imply, offhandedly and using WR as the example, that socialized medicine would suffer from the same problems.

That sounds like when I vote for Democrats in state-wide elections in Texas. *Sigh*

You too, eh, spiffie? I'm just glad that I'm moving over to the East Side of Austin so I'll be back in Lloyd Dogget's district instead of being stuck with Mike "Minuteman" McCaul. He may be a perfect representative for the folks in Katy, but Tom Delay certainly did me no favors when he assisted with the gerrymandering that stuck me and much of Austin with this goon.

I hope you're someplace where the local/regional elections give you at least some relief.

I have McCaul as well. The recent gerrymandering through a good bit of central Austin and campus-area into McCaul's district so as to dilute the power of the center city.

I will agree with Adam Hobson, that this has been one of the least conservative republican administrations in history. But i can see that being the future of bush's legacy, at least on fox.
Bush was a failure for his liberal ideals.
But I have to say there was a little more than liberalism or conservativism going on in the WH. A whole lot of nonamericanism as well and like it or not that will be associated with the GOP for a while to come unless there is a truly bipartisan agreement to at least voice disagreement with the presidents more draconian and abused policies. And congress risks losing a great deal of power, if they allow the WH to change hands without addressing executive authority.

JoulesBeef, since you were nice enough to agree with me, then I'll definitely have to agree with you here,

But I have to say there was a little more than liberalism or conservativism going on in the WH

Bush's failings were not in being too conservative or too liberal or having anything to do with the political spectrum. Instead his failings were entirely in implementation and especially a lack of adaptability.

To compare, Bill Clinton had two HUGE losses early on in his presidency in the failure of Hillary's national healthcare plan as well as the Republican revolution that swept his party out of the House. However Bill Clinton was very adaptable and learned from his early mistakes and went on to accomplish much while often working with and sometimes against a GOP controlled House.

Now Bush on the other hand has been a dead fish ever since November, 2006. Hell, he's been treading water ever since his brief attempt at both social security and tax reform that never made it out of committee. He's brought lame duck status to new heights.

Just to remind everyone, the catastrophe at Walter Reed is what is in store if we ever follow through with socialized "universal" government run health care.

Bull@!$%#. I spent some time at WRAMC and at that time it was very well run. The problem with it now is that it's underfunded, understaffed and, of course, the outsourcing is profit driven.

Now I get all of my health care through a local VAMC and it is one of the best run hospitals in the area. Again, the only problems arise due to underfunding and lack of staff.

We can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to oppress one nation but we can't take care of our own? That's sick.

The best healthcare I received in my life was the 21 years of care I received through the military system. Interestingly enough, it appears that only after the doyens of privatization got their hands on the reins of management did it start to go to hell.

I have been happy with the VA care I receive. I wrote about it earlier
here.

Again, the only problems arise due to underfunding and lack of staff.

And what is to guarantee that socialized government run "universal" health care would be adequately funded and with enough staff?

You can't just say, if everything is perfect then socialized medicine works. You have to account for underfunding, lack of staff and incompetence as well.

At least in private medicine if one company is inadequately funding and staffing their facilities then I can choose another.

At least in private medicine if one company is inadequately funding and staffing their facilities then I can choose another. If you have a) the money, or b) the insurance coverage.

40 million Americans (or roughly 13% of Americans) do not have the latter. Way more than that don't have the former.

What they never tell you about that 40 million is how many actually want it.

The largest demographic to go uninsured are those aged in their twenties because we are generally healthy people that have no need nor want to pay $3k per year or more on health care when we visit a doctor less than once a year. Even when healthcare is provided by employers many people in their twenties will opt-out and take some extra cash.

I am one of those Americans that a.) doesn't have the money b.) can barely afford it (I'm in my 30's now).

Since I run my own business, I have to pay out for private insurance (for me and my wife) and it all but kills me each month (and even then, it's not great insurance and has a billion dollar deductable :\ )

Still...it beats the hell out of working corporate.

I am one of those Americans that a.) doesn't have the money b.) can barely afford it (I'm in my 30's now).

i too fall into that category-

when i worked for corporate america i could afford insurance that i never needed, but now that im in my 40's and am "re-educating" myself, if i were to have a health issue, it would probably ruin me financially. im depending on my savings to get me to my next job (after graduate school) and i have to admit that i no longer do the things i really love (playing soccer, mountain biking, and ice climbing) for fear that an injury will send me on a one way trip to the poor house.

hell i even freak out when i have to use power tools in the wood shop at school to build the models that are required in my classes..

i'd love to take a job to pay for insurance, but my program requires 18 hrs each semester (of graduate level work) so there really is no time.. well i guess there could be time, but then the decrease in performance would in my opinion seriously hurt me in the job search.. so, i have to take my chances and hope like hell that i can stay healthy. ( and not get hit by a car while commuting to school on my bike)

my point is that america's poor teeter on the edge of ruin and homelessness when faced with even a minor illness in the healthcare scenario of today. surely something can be done to improve the situation.

At least in private medicine if one company is inadequately funding and staffing their facilities then I can choose another.

If I'm not happy with the VAMC that I go to I can go to another.

And what is to guarantee that socialized government run "universal" health care would be adequately funded and with enough staff?

You can kill anything by underfunding it. That's not the issue. Even though we are the richest, we are the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have universal health care. We pay the most and get the least in return.

I don't think that "government run" universal health care would be the best solution but we do need a solution. I think that it would help if all insurance companies became non-profits. Companies shouldn't profit from peoples misfortune.

Even though we are the richest, we are the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have universal health care.

Could the reason that we are the riches be our lack of universal healthcare and other welfare programs?

We pay the most and get the least in return.

I don't think that "government run" universal health care would be the best solution but we do need a solution.

Now this is something that I can agree with. Just because one is against socialized medicine it does not mean that we think the present system is best, or even good at all.

We really are in need of a "solution" for medicine.

I think that it would help if all insurance companies became non-profits. Companies shouldn't profit from peoples misfortune.

I kinda like that idea. It's a good compromise between government run and corporate, for-profit, run health care. Also, not-for-profit does not have to mean charity either.

The largest demographic to go uninsured are those aged in their twenties because we are generally healthy people that have no need nor want to pay $3k per year or more on health care when we visit a doctor less than once a year. I'd be interested if you could provide some actual data on that. My anecdotal evidence doesn't count for a whole lot, but my experience has been that even if you consider 20-somethings as "generally healthy" in the sense of "less prone to illness" (such as the flu or what-have-you), how much is that offset by their generally riskier lifestyle? I know plenty of 20-somethings that skateboard or mountain bike, and virtually no one over 40 who does so. Both of those sports cost me multiple sprains, a broken arm, several weeks on crutches, and a year and a half of rehabilitation on my knee. That seemed about the average for health-care needs in my circle of friends during my 20s. We were just lucky enough that most of us had our healthcare covered by our parents, or by inexpensive student healthcare plans that were, ultimately, paid by our parents.

Could the reason that we are the riches be our lack of universal healthcare and other welfare programs? I hate to break it to you, but in quality of living terms, we fall around 8th or 9th in the world. All the countries ahead of us have universal healthcare and welfare programs. So that probably doesn't have anything to do with it. And you should really define what you mean by "welfare"-- we have plenty of welfare programs; the lion's share goes to corporations in terms of subsidies and tax breaks.

I think ideally there should be a mix of socialization and private not-for-profit care. We should socialize preventive medicine. The savings in costs (lost productivity, etc) associated with the slide of preventable health problems into catastrophic problems would probably end in a net benefit to the economy. Catastrophic health issues could be covered by private insurance.

A fully funded network of socialized preventive healthcare would probably cost us about one B2 bomber a year.

Could the reason that we are the riches be our lack of universal healthcare and other welfare programs?

No, not since we're paying more into our health care system and getting less out of it.

I kinda like that idea. It's a good compromise between government run and corporate, for-profit, run health care. Also, not-for-profit does not have to mean charity either.

Exatly. Think of all of the cash that you lay out for insurance, life, home, auto, malpractice, whatever. If all of that cash went into a single non-profit system, it could take care of everthing. You wouldn't have to sue for malpractice since both you and your doctor are covered under the same system. Yea, there would be problems though too. No system will ever be perfect.

Oh, and by non-profit I didn't mean for charity. I think it would be cool if whatever you pay into the system would go to your heirs sort of like a life insurance, minus administrative costs and of course death taxes. Negative balances would have to be accounted for too though, either coming directly from the assets of the insured or from govt. subsidies for the destitute.

And future generations of Americans . . .

On a bright note, the 'clean-up' is a shade less than 680 days away now.

the next administration is going to be left with the task of cleaning up this mess.

That is, assuming that American voters decide to usher in a candidate with 'cleaning up' as part of the agenda. Don't count your dust pans until they're imported from China.

I'll postulate that a theoretical 2008 presidential candidate with the distinction of being the 'cleaner-upper' of what has been done is less likely to be elected. Why? Little credit is borne for the maid who mops the same floor twice. Voters esteem initiatives rather than retrospectives.

Initiatives are good, but they don't clean up a mess, unless of course they are initiatives to clean up the mess.

It doesn't even matter if there is time, just get on the record you disagree with the man. Put down in history that the process was started and why. It matters less that bush inc be held accountable than we ourselves voice opposition or we will suffer the same fate as history labels us all accountable.

Impeachment itself isn't all that hard. Draw up articles, pass them on a damn-near-partisan vote. Hell, if you did it in Spring of 2008 and Bush's popularity stays low, it might make for a great election-year strategy.

Well, in theory maybe not. But do you remember how long the process took with Clinton?

"watching politics is a funny business sometimes isn't it? Like watching a drunk stumble down a dark alleyway, lurching from wall to wall on his way home ... or to the next bar."

That's a great analogy!

Why perjure yourself for nothing?

Otto, three of them leaked her identity, each to different people. The fact that someone had already leaked it did not mean the subsequent person was not blowing her cover. They were not mutually exclusive. I am surprised that Karl Rove has not been charged as well.

Why perjure yourself for nothing?

Yes, that's the point.

The fact that someone had already leaked it did not mean the subsequent person was not blowing her cover.

Actually, that kind of contradicts the definition of 'blowing her cover'. If you tell someone something because you think you are introducing something new is one thing. If you are just repeating gossip that you've heard, then that's something completely different.

I am surprised that Karl Rove has not been charged as well.

Charged with what? Do you know something about this that I don't?

As Clinton's impeachment showed, OttO, it's not how important what you were lying about is, it's that you were lying that's important. If you want to make the case that somehow Wilson's wife's identity was not a big deal, fine. I don't agree with you, but fine.

What does that have to do with what Libby was convicted of?

He went down for obstructing an investigation and lying to investigators. He may have done so in protection of what he thought was inconsequential and nobody's business (arguable), but if you're willing to defend that, I'm forced to ask about where you stand on Clinton lying about a blowjob which had nothing whatsoever to do with a shoddy real-estate deal.

You're not trying to apply a double standard, here, are you?

Clinton's perjury involved an actual crime. What crime was Libby trying to cover up? Thus far, there isn't an indication of one. The jury is still out on Plame's status as a covert operative ("classified") rather than an active analyst. I'm still not convinced what was to be gained by Libby not recalling some passing conversations about something that I'm sure seemed minute and benign at the time. Wasn't the point of the investigation to find the leaker? They know who the leaker is! And it doesn't appear to have anything to do with Libby, Cheney, Rove or some sinister conspiracy to destroy a nobody like Joe Wilson. If Libby was obstructing an investigation into a crime, then why aren't there charges filed against Armitage? Interesting that people are still calling for Rove's and Cheney's heads on platters but I don't come across a lot of persuasive arguments to throw the book at Armitage.

As far as double standards, then I assume that if you feel this way about Libby's perjury, then you must also believe that Clinton's perjury charges were valid and consequential as well (including the investigations that led to Monica-gate). Well, Clinton and scores of Democrats and liberals at the time didn't.

Here's my question: does anyone really, honestly believe that Scooter Libby should be facing spending the rest of his life in prison because he waffled on which reporter told him what was already becoming common knowledge and was perhaps not the crime that everyone is making it out to be? Should Armitage spend the rest of his life in prison too?

If this conspiracy theory wasn't given legs by the media and Congressional Democrats, I'm convinced that most people wouldn't know who Joe Wilson was today and his anti-war op/ed that catapulted this controversy would be lost amid a sea of much better and more convincing and substantive arguments against the war. Why would the White House care about Wilson when there were more credible indictments against invasion circulating?

None of it, from the bottom up makes a lick of sense.

None of it, from the bottom up makes a lick of sense.

So true. Nothing the Bush bunch has done has made much sense.

Okay...

Clinton's perjury involved an actual crime. I beg your pardon? What crime? Whitewater? dropped with no charges against Clinton. Paula Jones' sexual harassment case? Dismissed before trial on the grounds that she suffered no damages. Getting a blowjob? It's a stretch, although I think the Republicans still maintain laws against it on the books-- never enforced against their own, of course; and something of which most men are guilty.

No, the crime was the perjury.

Just as it is in the case of Libby. It's not Libby's obligation to determine for the investigators whether a crime has taken place. That's the responsibility of the investigators. It was Libby's obligation to tell the truth and cooperate to the full extent of the law with the investigation.

you must also believe that Clinton's perjury charges were valid and consequential Sure. He lied, didn't he? I mean, I can totally understand why he lied, but the fact remains that he was guilty of perjury, doesn't it?

including the investigations that led to Monica-gate On the contrary, I still fail to see the relevance a sexual harassment lawsuit had to the investigation of a real-estate deal to which Jones had no part. Extending the investigation in that direction was simply digging for dirt, IMO. It was a fishing expedition.

How is that in any way similar to what happened with Libby? There was a leak. Prior to Armitage coming forward, Libby obstructed the investigation and lied about what he knew. Those things are directly tied together. You can try to spin it that Libby conveniently happened to "forget" what happened and who talked about what, when, but a jury of 12 listened to the arguments, and disagree with you. He's been found guilty.

does anyone really, honestly believe that Scooter Libby should be facing spending the rest of his life in prison because he waffled on which reporter told him what was already becoming common knowledge and was perhaps not the crime that everyone is making it out to be? Given the facts of the case, it's likely that he'll spend a few years, not the rest of his life, behind bars. He deserves it. Fact is, Libby lied because he thought he WAS the leaker, or Cheney was, or he was deflecting scandal from the White House, because-- let's face it-- the reason Valerie Wilson was brought into this was because the administration was trying in an underhanded way to do damage to Wilson for vocally pointing out the flaws in their argument. Supposing Mrs. Wilson wasn't undercover, it would still have been a pretty petty method of addressing Wilson's claims. Can't have the President appear to be a vindictive @!$%#, can we (even if it IS true)?

Yeah, I think Libby deserves to do time. Frankly, my opinion is that several people in the administration deserve to do time.

Should Armitage spend the rest of his life in prison too? Cutting through your typical bull@!$%# hyperbole, I imagine if Armitage had played the same game as Libby, he'd be facing similar circumstances, and rightfully so. As it is, he probably escaped the consequences of his actions because he has been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation, and has testified before the grand jury on three separate occasions.

If this conspiracy theory wasn't given legs by the media and Congressional Democrats, I'm convinced that most people wouldn't know who Joe Wilson was today and his anti-war op/ed that catapulted this controversy would be lost amid a sea of much better and more convincing and substantive arguments against the war. Why would the White House care about Wilson when there were more credible indictments against invasion circulating? We disagree on this. I think the reason is pretty clear. We have a White House full of cowboys who think they're above the law, and have a vindictive streak a mile wide. It's fairly obvious, but it doesn't stop the faithful from circling the wagons with much gnashing of teeth about the unfairness of the fact being brought to light in such clear fashion.

It's okay. You answered my question. You're firmly in favor of double standards.

OldFogey,

So true. Nothing the Bush bunch has done has made much sense.

He's made plenty of sense and you know it. I mean there was that one time he declared himself the decider. That makes plenty of sense. He is the ER of the Decision.

Sexual harassment is no crime.

Sexual harassment is no crime.

In my office it's considered a benefit.

In my office it's considered a benefit.

I didn't say that! LOL

Just that it's in the domain of civil and not criminal law.

In the United States an individual is presumed innocent until proved guilty. I don't care if you're standing over the body with a smoking gun in hand and your monogram stitched into the victim's chest in .38 cal rounds. You're still innocent until proved guilty.

Killfile I just wanted to clarify on this point. In the U.S. you are presumed innocent until proved guilty for legal and court purposes. That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a trial.

However the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with our own opinions. We can assume anyone we want is guilty. Hell, look at half the left-wing has Bush and Co. fitted for nooses and there hasn't even been an investigation much like a trial or conviction. But that is their right to presume Bush and Co. are guilty. It is only the courts that are required to treat all as innocent until proved guilty.

and facts have nothing to do with anything!

look at half the left-wing has Bush and Co. fitted for nooses

No, I prefer a firing squad, or better yet, a little good natured "college hazing".

Guys, I don't think it's a useful discussion, really.

Killfile, you object to my saying Clinton was "guilty" of perjury. Fine. He wasn't found guilty by a court of law.

On the other hand, he stated under oath that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and by any reasonable interpretation of the word "sex", he lied. That's perjury. He admits now what he wouldn't admit under oath. As I noted, the circumstances compared to Libby are vastly different, but if the question is "Did both of them lie under oath?" (i.e. commit perjury), the answer is clearly "Yes." There's no "opinion" about it.

That Clinton didn't get convicted of it is a legal nicety. But he definitely did it. I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is on perjury, but if there isn't one a court could today prosecute him for it and find him guilty. I don't think it'll happen, but there isn't any doubt about the difference between what he claimed, what he did, and what he now admits to.

I'm more than willing to cut Clinton some slack, because the investigation into his sex life wasn't germane to the investigation into Whitewater, and the question should never even have been asked. If he were prosecuted and found guilty, I wouldn't mind a lenient sentence. I'm more than willing to burn Libby, because the questions he lied on were germane to the investigation, and he knew it, which was precisely the point of lying about it.

But they both perjured themselves.

but if there isn't one a court could today prosecute him for it and find him guilty.

That brings up an interesting question, does a Senate Trial count as a trial trial for purposes of double jeopardy? If so, then a court today could not convict him because a court already found him innocent and you cannot be charged twice for the same crime.

he stated under oath that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and by any reasonable interpretation of the word "sex", he lied.

He didn't @!$%# er. I've gotten head from @!$%#es that I never @!$%#ed. I'm not gonna say that I @!$%#ed em just because they gave me head. In any event, nobody died from Clinton's indiscretion.

but to argue otherwise would be to suggest that the Senate does not have the authority to "try" an impeachment case in the first place -- an obvious constitutional contradiction.

Yeah, so it probably does count as a trial then. Thus Clinton cannot be tried again. Anyway there is no use in kicking a dead out-of-office duck anyway.

Irob

Good comment-on target but does this mean we are "in the last throes" of this administration?

Yes that has to be the worst of the week for beleaguered Mr. Bush. Even the spirits are angry...dang!

Programming is useful, Killfile, but you have a true gift for analysis and "seeing clearly", as Orwell puts it. Your journalism reminds me a lot of Orwell's in style and subject-matter. Not knowing you, my advice is next to worthless, but (were I you), I would put your talents to work in professional journalism. You could definitely make a living doing it, and the journalist community (dare I say the world?) would be better for it.