“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Trump: Bush is the Worst President in History

This interview encapsualtes every argument the left makes. Complete BDS is displayed here in one interview. But is it fair? Is Bush the worst President in US history? Is Iraq in full blown civil war? Is it a total castrophe? Do we need to pull out now? Was WMD a total lie? Is the White House lying about George W. reading 60 books a year? Is it all a big lie?


  1. Well, I will say this, Mr Bush is an easier target for the Donald to score points on, then Rosie.

    But then Rosie is nothing but a silly lady with a seat on a TV show. She's an easy target, her magazine failed, her Broadway Show a bust.

    To bad for Mr Bush.

  2. White: Is it all a big lie?

    Bush promised a White House investigation to discover who outed covert spook Valerie Plame, and he broke this promise. If Bush promised a net gain of 8 million jobs and the economy didn't cooperate and only delivered 5 million jobs, then shame on us for accepting a promise that is not completely in the President's power to make good. But if Bush promises an internal investigation and does not deliver, then shame on him for not making good on something that is totally within his power. That equates to a lie.

  3. Big lie? More like 30 of them.

    Here's what I wrote in Secrets & Lies last year...

    Despite George W. Bush proclaiming himself the “War President,” electorates in democracies have always shown a strong aversion to conflict. It’s only in dictatorships that leaders get away with declaring shock and awe on whomever they want to without having to explain the reasons. This might be behind Bush’s statement: “A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier.”

    To persuade the people in the countries constituting the ‘coalition of the willing’ that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified, the leaders of America, Britain and Australia told a series of lies. In fact, more than 30 direct lies or gross instances of spin (in politics, spin is often just a posh word for lying) were perpetuated to validate the loss of life and multi-billion dollar cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    The central lie was that the aim of the war as voiced by Tony Blair speaking for the coalition was to: “Disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.” Given that prior to the invasion, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix backed Saddam Hussein’s claim that he had got rid of all of his chemical, biological and nuclear capability, a series of deliberate misrepresentations was made to convince the public he did still have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not one of the assertions Colin Powell made in giving ‘evidence’ to UN concerning Iraq and WMD was right.

    Another key lie put forward as a pretext for the invasion was that Hussein supported al-Qaeda. George Bush claimed that: “Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” Pentagon adviser Richard Perle claimed al-Qaeda’s Mohammed Atta: “Met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that.” There was never any proof of the meeting or Saddam being linked to al-Qaeda.

    Even though subsequent events in Iraq have made the falsehoods self-evident, it has been worth mentioning some of them again in print, just so you do not feel you have been hallucinating - yes, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair really did get away with telling such whoppers.

  4. When Fred Barnes thinks the Administration is in ovver its' head, the bottom must have really fallen out.

    "... They've done this for raw political reasons: to mortify and cripple the president. And Bush, with his timidity in the face of Democratic accusations, has let them. He hasn't fought back. He's become an enabler.

    And look what he's enabled! By not instantly and unflinchingly denouncing the Democratic offensive for what it is, an entirely bogus attack on his administration, he has allowed a mere flap to get out of hand. And now he faces unpleasant decisions over whether to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and permit Democrats to haul Karl Rove, his senior adviser, before a congressional committee. Should he do either, his administration
    will be tremendously weakened and his presidency stained.

    So there's a crisis, but not the one Schumer talked about. It's a crisis of presidential leadership. Bush excels as leader of his country. He is unrelenting in pursuing the war on Islamic terrorists, and he performed admirably on his recent tour of Latin America. But he's also responsible for leading--and defending--his administration and the Republican party. He's failing in both of these duties.

    rufus mentioned the other day that he thought Mr Bush had spent his time in office "fighting tooth & nail" for conservative issues.
    I said I thought he'd been obliging a spend thrift & feckless Republican controlled Congress.

    Now Mr Barnes says that Mr Bush needs to START fighting.
    Day late, dollar short.

    The tide looks to have already turned.
    Leaving it to Rudy to save the GOP?

    Who'd have ever thought that a pro abortion, 3 time divorcee New Yorker would come to represent the Republican Partys' core values.

    Just another example of how 9-11 really did "change everything"

  5. Desert Rat: Who'd have ever thought that a pro abortion, 3 time divorcee New Yorker would come to represent the Republican Partys' core values.

    The fastest-growing group in American politics is the Independent Conservative, and Giuliani does not represent our core values. He'd make a great Attorney General for Mitt Romney, though.

    DR quotes Fred Barnes: Bush, with his timidity in the face of Democratic accusations, has let them. He hasn't fought back. He's become an enabler.

    When I get a call or snail-mail from someone in the GOP asking for a political donation, my reply is for them to go ask the Democrats for money, since the President is spending all his time pandering to their interests (immigration, more regulations, bigger government).

  6. “The Bush administration has a knack for shooting itself in the foot, or in the most recent example, the head.


    No question, there's a double standard here, but hasn't anyone in this administration figured that out by now?


    This entire episode was avoidable.

    Shooting Itself in the Foot Again

  7. I'm sorry Rufus, I did not intend to ruin your weekend its just that the anti-Bush rhetoric has hit a new crescendo that's hard to ignore.

    I agree with Fred Barnes, Bush has brought this on himself and his administration. What's new is that the Republicans are deserting him and that is his fault also. Like I said when you try to please everyone, you wind up pleasing no one.

    As to the left's allegations that Bush is a liar: most of what they allege is pure Bravo Sierra but, in the back of my mind, he said that he would put 9000 new agents on the border. He did not do and it looks like he had no intention of doing it. Also, right after 9/11 the state of Florida developed a highly lauded program to quickly train local law enforcement in arresting and detaining illegal immigrants. In order to effectively kill the program, the Bush administration pegged the cost of training each law officer at $25,000. Now the Feds claim there's no money. More Bravo Sierra.

  8. allen:
    re: the link to Chavez.

    The Bush Administration has a habit of rushing to apologize instead of defending itself. Abu Ghraib is a prime example and the firing of these prosecutors is but the latest.

    Weak-kneed politicians.

  9. I know, this is my obsession but:
    Putin media decree arouses press freedom worries
    Thu Mar 15 2007 11:37:07 ET

    President Vladimir Putin has decreed the creation of a new super-agency to regulate media and the Internet, sparking fears among Russian journalists of a bid to extend tight publishing controls to the relatively free Web.

    Putin signed a decree to create one entity that will license broadcasters, newspapers and Web sites and oversee their editorial content.

    Raf Shakirov, who was dismissed as editor of the Izvestiya daily after critical coverage of the 2004 Beslan school siege, tells REUTERS how Putin's decree could extend Soviet-style controls to Russia's online media, which have been relatively free to date.

    "This is an attempt to put everything under control, not only electronic media, but also personal data about people such as bloggers," he said.


  10. Regardless, Trump's a fraud and a con man. Should be in a jail twice over.

  11. Whit,

    On one fine morning in January 2009, a new president will take office and the United States will still be at war with Islam. What is to be done between now and then?

  12. Deuce,

    Putin seems to be doing openly what other governments, including our own, are attempting surreptitiously.

  13. At war with the Religion of Peace, who you tryin' to Bravo Sierra, allen.

    Which candidate has taken that stance?

    Some selected radicals of Islamic ancestry may hold criminal designs on the West, but War, not likely.

    The policing of Iraqi streets may be ongoing, or not, depending upon who is elected, but even there it's no war. Not when Basra is considered success.

  14. He represents the Republicans core values, now, rufus.

    Gotta get on board that GOP election train, even if he's a dirty yellow dog.
    You've always taken that position before, why change now?

    When the Party did not represent my views on frontier security, I was in the wrong for not supporting it anyway, you oft opined. If the next candidate does not represent your views on little cultural things like marriage, abortion and guns, you're going to bail, after all that?

  15. DR,

    You live in your reality; I live in mine.

  16. DR,

    re: reality of war

    For whatever it may be worth, the public speakers for Islam happen to agree with me: Islam is at war with the United States. Indeed, all across the ummah yesterday, in thousands of mosques, imams were preaching that message. While they did not seek your permission or counsel beforehand, that is their well documented opinion.

    Like me, of course, they could be wanking BSers.

  17. There is little doubt that there are criminal elements that wish US ill, allen, Mr Bush says as much.

    But where is the recriprication, the US searches for reconciliation.
    The US's Plan is not for War, but for reconciliation, in Iraq and across the Region.

    It is not what I believe that is important, it is what does the US Government believes and does.

    As I asked, who is the candidate that stands for, as you said:
    a new president will take office and the United States will still be at war with Islam.

    The US is not at War with the Religion of Peace, not today, not on Mr Bush's watch.
    Why assume that a War the US does not admit to, today, will be continued in two years? No matter the results of the next election.

  18. They call it the CNN effect.

    In Europe, that would be the BBC effect.

    The Leftists like to used the term "sheeple" when speaking of their constituent, but the Donald is not one of these. The Donald is all about marketing. What you have here is just another example of a hustler self promoting himself thru what he perceives as the populist political sentiment.