• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Bush Library

Really? You're unfamiliar with burden of proof and such?

I am, but perhaps you are not.

The burden of proof does not mean that one person does his homework and presents well-informed and educated points, while the other side sits on his ignorant hindquarters imperiously saying, "Well, I'm not convinced," as though he and only he was entitled to judge.

(Legally speaking, by the way, the burden of proof does not mean that one side presents all the evidence for its view and the other side gets to have its say without presenting any evidence at all.)

It takes no brains or effort to form an opinion. It takes considerable intellect and work, however, to create an informed opinion. Those who bawl about not being convinced are often either too dense of too lazy to do what is necessary to create informed opinions. They cling to the delusion that all opinions are equally entitled to respect, when they are not.

I have set forth my sources and my statements are supported. If I'm wrong, point out why and back it up. Better still, if any of you folks out there want to try to defend Little Bush and somehow hold the view that he was in any mode of speaking a good president, then trot out your evidence.
 
Well, the Bush Library is getting ready to open: 1 May 2013. This is the ten-year anniversary of Little Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.

I wonder what accomplishments will be showcased. And I wonder what failures will be discussed, by which I mean, not ignored in their entirety. So far, preliminary reports give little hint; they say that the museum will show personal items (apparently including cowboy hats and boots), photos and lots of documents (but documents of what, the reports don't say). It wouldn't surprise me if they put one of Little Bush's paintings in there. Present will be a 9 mm Glock pistol that Saddam Hussein had when he was captured (Bush was responsible for that capture, because it happened on his watch), and the bullhorn that Bush used at the wreckage of the World Trade Center (an incident for which Bush bears no responsibility whatsoever, and in fact "He kept us safe").

No doubt there will be those with a more than passing interest in actual history who will check the veracity of the displays. My expectations are low.
 
I did hear that they had the foresight to order multiple copies of most of their books.
That way they can replace them once all the pictures have been colored in. :D

Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the tortured,baby cow!
 
Hmmm... Sounds like something that needs to be properly "christened" doesn't it?

I think several buckets of blood ought to suffice.

Not funny, Ben.

Taking a step back and recognizing the true human cost, no it isn't.

That said humour can actually be a gateway to a better understanding so I am not sure we should shame Ben... besides it reminded me of this "Get Your War On" cartoon, mentioning how Kissinger's appearances in public should have him surrounded by piles of skulls and dead bodies and questioning whether he uses a "ballpoint pen or the bloody, severed limb of an East Timorese child" to sign paychecks...

The humour here can trigger a useful thought: maybe we should picture coating the Bush library in blood red, and a pile of skulls around any podium that Kissinger speaks on. What started as a joke can end up in a more useful place, reminding us of a human cost that allegedly good (or misguided) motives are enough for most to dismiss/forget...
 
Last edited:
I did hear that they had the foresight to order multiple copies of most of their books.
That way they can replace them once all the pictures have been colored in. :D

Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the tortured,baby cow!
Actually, this may not be all that far off.

The initial reports refer to the magnificent facility, which includes "Decisions Point Theater." In an absolutely jaw-dropping coincidence, Little Bush "wrote" a book called "Decision Points," which will no doubt be available for sale at the gift shop.

Chances are that the museum will be designed around the book, to an extent. Expect exhibits directed to: stem cell research, September 11, events leading to war, Hurricane Katrina, AIDS in Africa, the "Surge" and the financial crisis. But don't expect an exhibit about his alcohol problems, even though he discussed them in his book (or so say reviewers). Such an exhibit would not be appropriate.

To the extent there is such a tradition, presidential libraries traditionally try to be accurate. Herbert Hoover's rating as president is generally low, but one doesn't go to the Hoover Library in West Branch, Iowa, and see a whitewashing of his record. The Ford library in Grand Rapids, Michigan, doesn't try to gloss over the Nixon pardon. Supposedly the Nixon and Clinton libraries report basically honestly about each president's troubles with Congress. Truman's library in Independence, Missouri, includes some unflattering things about Harry, but it is very likely that the former president knew about them (he had an office in his library for many years) and wouldn't have it any way other than the way it was.

Perhaps we can expect the same from the Bush library: few real accomplishments, several serious disasters, but reported more-or-less honestly and with some historical merit. But, like Bush's book, the museum may be notable for the things that it omits ....
 
Not funny, Ben.

Not even remotely intended as humor.

Bush the Lesser was not only the worst President in American history, but actually one of the larger monsters who has ever been in control of a military. He has enough blood on his hands to fill a swimming pool.

I'm not sure I can in words communicate the extreme loathing I have for this sorry excuse for a human being, but this was not meant to be funny at all.
 
Was there an exhibit on the Bay of Pigs? His escalation in Vietnam? His philandering? Slow acting on Civil Rights? Interventionism in Iraq?

I think JFK is grossly overrated as far as accomplishments, and not just due to his short term.

His restraint in the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis arguably saved the human race from destruction.

The U.S. didn't know there were tactical nukes in Cuba, and JFK resisted a lot of pressure to invade. If that had happened, use of a tactical nuke could easily have escalated into WWIII and a full nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. Cuba, or at least many Cubans, were braced for just such a thing.
 
Not even remotely intended as humor.

Bush the Lesser was not only the worst President in American history, but actually one of the larger monsters who has ever been in control of a military. He has enough blood on his hands to fill a swimming pool.

I'm not sure I can in words communicate the extreme loathing I have for this sorry excuse for a human being, but this was not meant to be funny at all.

No fan of Dubya here, but with that rant you sort of lost credibtility as far as criticising right wingers for over the top comments on Obama.
 
Yeah, Bush was an awful president, but he wasn't even the biggest monster on the ticket.
 
No fan of Dubya here, but with that rant you sort of lost credibtility as far as criticising right wingers for over the top comments on Obama.

Them's the facts, man. If I add up all the spilled blood that is the result of his feckless attempts to pretend to be President, I could in fact fill a swimming pool.

4488 American soldiers killed in Iraq, nine pints of blood each, that is around 5000 gallons, which is absolutely in the swimming pool range.

And this does not count the blood spilled by the wounded, or that spilled by Iraqis themselves.

Or that spilled needlessly in Afghanistan because he beggared our effort there to conduct his needless Iraq war.

He was a monster because he started a war simply because (as far as I can tell) he wanted to start a war. Who knows why? Maybe to try to fill his Old Man's shoes? He was the sort of petty third-rate monster who does most of his evil through incompetency, but when you examine the motives for doing any of that at all you find those motives to be repugnant as well.
 
Them's the facts, man. If I add up all the spilled blood that is the result of his feckless attempts to pretend to be President, I could in fact fill a swimming pool.

4488 American soldiers killed in Iraq, nine pints of blood each, that is around 5000 gallons, which is absolutely in the swimming pool range.

And this does not count the blood spilled by the wounded, or that spilled by Iraqis themselves.

Or that spilled needlessly in Afghanistan because he beggared our effort there to conduct his needless Iraq war.

He was a monster because he started a war simply because (as far as I can tell) he wanted to start a war. Who knows why? Maybe to try to fill his Old Man's shoes? He was the sort of petty third-rate monster who does most of his evil through incompetency, but when you examine the motives for doing any of that at all you find those motives to be repugnant as well.

True...true...true
And.......
True.
The guy was awful.
 
He was a monster because he started a war simply because (as far as I can tell) he wanted to start a war. Who knows why? Maybe to try to fill his Old Man's shoes? He was the sort of petty third-rate monster who does most of his evil through incompetency, but when you examine the motives for doing any of that at all you find those motives to be repugnant as well.

I'm with ya on a lot of this but I think the final bit is where emotion may have taken you a bit too far. And it's understandable. The issue is the costs you see aren't in his calculus, they couldn't really be anyway - because for him to fully appreciate those costs would mean that all the personal credibility and all the nation's blood and treasure he committed were wasted, or perhaps worse, used in ways that multiplied misery for Americans and for millions of others in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is much more likely to be rationalized away, than it is to be confronted.

So I actually don't think his motives are repugnant. The outcomes are repugnant. But we didn't get there because Bush is consciously callous - we got there because the calculations his administration was using were all set so that their desired outcome would be the obvious choice. They honestly thought there was an issue of national security at stake and that American might could remake the middle east. They had visions of an American midwifed Arab Spring bringing peace to the region and toppling adversarial governments. They even thought there would be peace in Israel/Palestine after the Middle East Extreme Makeover.

While some take solace in the fact the motives may have been well-intentioned, I find it rather more scary that such a thing could come to pass as the product of unchecked groupthink in a secular democracy. If they truly were an evil cabal, I might actually feel safer. These guys were patriots who loved their country and even if they crossed lines - rationalized that the line-crossing was the Best Thing for America.

This is why I am beginning to turn to an outcomes-based analysis of foreign policy. I don't care if you thought your war was going to unlock to key to Peace+Prosperity, that doesn't count for much at the end of the day.
 

Back
Top Bottom