• 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

The Big Dinosaur said:
Basically what you said. I'm no fan of Bush, but I still think he will find several things to include. Notice though, that there is little to no domestic achievements in what you listed.
Click to expand...
Even a broken clock is right, twice a day.

Even Sylvia Browne gets a few predictions correct, every now and then.

Hell, even Creationists might do good things for science, every once in a blue moon.

The question is: Was George W. Bush better than a broken clock?
 
From an email:

Dear Fellow Constituent:

The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages and accepting donations. The Library will include:

The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.

The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.

The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.

The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.

The National Debt Room, which is huge and has no ceiling.

The Tax Cut Room, with entry only to the wealthy.

The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.

The Iraq War Room. (After you complete your first visit, you'll want to return for a second, third, fourth, fifth and, next March, a sixth visit.)

The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.

The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.

The Supreme Court Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.

The Decider Room, complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.

Note: The library will feature an electron microscope to help you locate and view President Bush's accomplishments.
 
Why do they all have to have a library?

There are other amenities, after all. How about the George W. Bush Pretzel Stand ("Breathtakingly Good Pretzels!") Or the William Jefferson Clinton Laundromat ("Really Shifts Those Stubborn Stains!")
 
Last edited:
Ausmerican said:
True, I may need to ask Tricky what the simplest form of rock is. Don't wanna be nasty to the more complex ones.
Click to expand...

Oddly, it's glass, like obsidian. Glass no internal structure and is not even a crystal. And like Bush, it can be totally transparent. And a pane.
 
We now have the first book for the Bush Library. His own.

I haven't read it, and I don't plan to buy it. Most reports say it is fairly well-written and readable. (Credit Chris Michel for his help.) As has been reported, Little Bush admitted to some mistakes (although it seems to me that he really does not understand--or pretends not to understand--what his mistakes were, if the reports are correct).

Further, if the reports are correct, the book ignores some of the most grotesque missteps of his presidency and makes a lot of excuses (not rational justifications) for others. For example, why did Little Bush authorize torture? His answer: Because lawyers told him he could. (And if Little Bush is called to account for this egregious violation of international law and human rights, "The Buck DOESN'T Stop Here" will be his defense.)

And then there are the outright untruths in the book.

So far, the reviews, even the kind ones, fail to identify any meaningful accomplishments for the country as a whole. If the Bush interviews are any indication, he considers his most meaningful achievements to be making hard decisions to defend America (an achievement that is so nebulous that it is hard to consider it an accomplishment at all), and that there were no further major terrorist attacks on his watch. Such an achievement assumes, of course, that the little incidents on his watch don't count, and neither do the ones on foreign soil, and of course Little Bush gets a pass for the the great big one that happened in September of 2001.

So we are back to square one. Little Bush will get a library with no real accomplishments to showcase in it.
 
technoextreme said:
You ever read those warnings. I have. The amount of information was like in the pilot episode of American Dad. Something somewhere may go down at sometime.
Click to expand...

That's a great thing to tell the families of those who were murdered, and a wonderful explanation for dereliction of duty. I didn't do anything about the PDB, not a single thing, because the PDB was like a cartoon.

In a way, that would be pretty close to the truth, from Little Bush's point of view. He didn't think he could do anything, so why bother trying? When the person briefing him realized that the President of the United States wasn't taking the warnings seriously and wasn't going to do anything about them, the person doing the briefing became more insistent. Little Bush's response was this: "Okay, you've covered your ass now."

Yes, I read the PDB, Chucklehead, and have written about it on this forum. I have also written what President Bill Clinton did when he received similar briefings (as he did at least twice). Do you know what Clinton did in response? I do. It wasn't nothing, which is what Little Bush did.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Well, I'd expect a copy of Laura's as well.

So, there you go on accomplishments: 1) producing one book; 2) procuring another.
Click to expand...

And now there are reports that Little Bush has lifted parts of "his" book from other sources, notably (but not exclusively) Bob Woodward. Funny, since the official word from the Bush crew was that Woodward was unreliable, and they weren't supposed to talk to him anymore.
 
Brown said:
That's a great thing to tell the families of those who were murdered, and a wonderful explanation for dereliction of duty. I didn't do anything about the PDB, not a single thing, because the PDB was like a cartoon.
Click to expand...
Have you actually read those documents? Its on the CNN website. Would you care to enlighten me as to how people should have responded to a vague and nondescript warning about something that may occur?
Do you know what Clinton did in response?
Click to expand...
Not the things he should have done. Basically make flowery gestures that in reality didn't do much of anything.
Yes, I read the PDB, Chucklehead, and have written about it on this forum.
Click to expand...
Yeah its actually kind of sad too. Can you answer why you think having the head of the CIA and the FBI meet would have somehow cured the giant bureaucracy and lack of sharing of information that plagued those two organizations?
 
Last edited:
Ruminating on this topic a bit I recall another accomplishment: whenever vacationing at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush, according to himself, cleared brush. Considering the enormous amount of time during his presidency that was spent at the ranch, I'd wager an enormous amount of brush was cleared.

I would hope that the library contain a lifelike diorama of such a scene, along with a twenty-minute film, "The Brush-Clearingest President of All Time."
 
Last edited:
Brown said:
Actually, the JFK library museum makes some mention of some of the lower points in his presidency... but these points are naturally downplayed in favor of the accomplishments. (I saw no reference of any kind to JFK's infidelity.)

Some presidential libraries mention the low points as well as the high points. The Hoover library in Iowa, the Truman library in Missouri, the Ford library in Michigan, the Clinton library in Arkansas all make mention of some of the less favorable events in the respective presidents' careers. The Clinton library, notably, devotes considerable space to the impeachment, and the Ford library does not avoid the Nixon pardon.

What is striking is that the little Bush library is unlikely to showcase ANY accomplishments that have benefitted the country as a whole or the world in general. I cannot think of ANY memorable Bush speech except for the ones in which he said something stupid (and there were a LOT of those). Even the September 11-related pronouncements are forgettable at best. The "Bush Doctrine" (whether defined as the right of preemptive attack in the face of supposed threat, or as the notion that "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," or as the idea that torture is justifiable in the face of terrorism) is unlikely to be a matter of enduring pride to be enshrined in an exhibit.

The question is whether there is any accomplishment--after EIGHT YEARS in office--that can be put into a museum honoring little Bush without blatant historical revisionism. I cannot think of a single one.
Click to expand...

Bush was the president most helpful in fighting the spread and helping the treatment of AIDs in Africa.

Sorry you missed it.
 
Brown said:
Little Bush will have been in office for eight years. But what has he accomplished?
Click to expand...

Started one war properly. Started another needlessly, then bungled it. Then increased government spending and borrowing by an order of magnitude, setting a sickening new standard.
 
novice skeptic said:
Bush was the president most helpful in fighting the spread and helping the treatment of AIDs in Africa.

Sorry you missed it.
Click to expand...

I think we already acknowledged that.

But he was "the most helpful in fighting the spread of AIDs...solely for those clinics who would comply with a pro-life agenda in return for the aid".

Kudos to him for dealing with African AIDs, sure. But it's not like he did so without any other agenda.
 
Ahh, Bush jokes. The blatant admission that you've no talent for humor.
 
novice skeptic said:
Bush was the president most helpful in fighting the spread and helping the treatment of AIDs in Africa.

Sorry you missed it.
Click to expand...
Actually (as I have previously pointed out), there are a few things done under Little Bush's administration that may turn out to be very positive steps. I am not sure that work with AIDS will be one of them, however.

One final word about the PBD of 6 August. I admit I have not read the CNN web site. Instead, I have read the entire 911 Commission Report. All of it. And for those who care to check on this forum, they will see that I have written about it extensively.

On 6 August 2001, Little Bush received a Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." The report recounted that "Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US," and recounted some of the previous intelligence. By the way, the 911 report includes some of those earlier intelligence briefings, and what President Clinton did in response. For those who wish to learn, read the report. For those who wish to express ignorant opinions without learning, do not bother.

The PDB given to Little Bush further warned that the efforts to build a strike were ongoing. Three potential target cities were named: Los Angeles, Washington and New York. The PDB reported that there were "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including surveillance of federal buildings in New York." A potential use of explosives was also mentioned.

The President said that he considered this document "historical in nature." Although the document recounted some previous intelligence, the warnings of current events were not historical or past at all, and the thrust of the briefing was that the threat was ongoing and that indications were that something WAS being planned. The President said that all the document told him was that al Qaeda was a bad group of folks, which he already knew. So... he did nothing in response to this briefing.

The apologists say there was no actual intelligence there, but as intelligence reports go, there was quite a bit. The WHO was there, so was the WHAT, even the WHERE and the WHY, and there were also indications about the WHEN. When President Clinton got reports like this, he responded. Little Bush did not. (President Clinton also warned Little Bush about the importance of addressing terrorism, a warning that Little Bush effectively ignored.)

I haven't read Little Bush's book, but I wonder what reason he gives (if any) for why he resisted an investigation into these terrorist attacks. I suspect that it was in part because evidence would come forth that he was repeatedly warned of terrorist activity and did nothing to address it.
 
Brown said:
Actually (as I have previously pointed out), there are a few things done under Little Bush's administration that may turn out to be very positive steps. I am not sure that work with AIDS will be one of them, however.

One final word about the PBD of 6 August. I admit I have not read the CNN web site. Instead, I have read the entire 911 Commission Report. All of it. And for those who care to check on this forum, they will see that I have written about it extensively.

On 6 August 2001, Little Bush received a Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." The report recounted that "Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US," and recounted some of the previous intelligence. By the way, the 911 report includes some of those earlier intelligence briefings, and what President Clinton did in response. For those who wish to learn, read the report. For those who wish to express ignorant opinions without learning, do not bother.

The PDB given to Little Bush further warned that the efforts to build a strike were ongoing. Three potential target cities were named: Los Angeles, Washington and New York. The PDB reported that there were "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including surveillance of federal buildings in New York." A potential use of explosives was also mentioned.

The President said that he considered this document "historical in nature." Although the document recounted some previous intelligence, the warnings of current events were not historical or past at all, and the thrust of the briefing was that the threat was ongoing and that indications were that something WAS being planned. The President said that all the document told him was that al Qaeda was a bad group of folks, which he already knew. So... he did nothing in response to this briefing.

The apologists say there was no actual intelligence there, but as intelligence reports go, there was quite a bit. The WHO was there, so was the WHAT, even the WHERE and the WHY, and there were also indications about the WHEN. When President Clinton got reports like this, he responded. Little Bush did not. (President Clinton also warned Little Bush about the importance of addressing terrorism, a warning that Little Bush effectively ignored.)

I haven't read Little Bush's book, but I wonder what reason he gives (if any) for why he resisted an investigation into these terrorist attacks. I suspect that it was in part because evidence would come forth that he was repeatedly warned of terrorist activity and did nothing to address it.
Click to expand...
Why don't you back some of this up, hoss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom