George Bush is smarter than you
Here’s a good one to send round to all your liberal friends who are still accepting emails from you It’s two years old, but it’s new to me:
I teach a class at Stanford Business School titled “Financial Crises in the U.S. and Europe.” During one class session while explaining the events of September 2008, I kept referring to the efforts of the threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who were joined at the hip in dealing with firm-specific problems as they arose.
One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ”˜Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”
The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.
I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”
More silence.
I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.
I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer.
Please read the whole thing.
And 100 times smarter than Obama from the evidence.
Heh. Bet that’s the first time his students had ever hear that. I’m going to venture a guess that he is also smarter than Obama. There, I said it.
George Bush is also most likely more well-read than you (and definitely me). Quite an impressive reading list while in office:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/05/media-say-obama-is-a-bookworm-are-they-sure/
I just reread Thomas Sowell’s essay “Intellectuals” in Dismantling America. He mentions how Adlai Stevenson was considered an intellectual though he could go years without reading a book. Calvin Coolidge wasn’t even though he read the classics. The actual classics the ones written in Latin and Greek. And he read them in Latin and Greek.
The “smart” people aren’t as smart as they think they are.
the Professor:
“I am not kidding. You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”
White knighting ‘conservative’ president’s intellect — quixotry in ivied towers — who’d have believed it?
To whatever extent anyone is willing to believe this, it makes only this point: IQ, smarts, books read, certifications, etc. are no guarantors of success. Dubya was a ‘legacy’ admission at Yale and had no measurable success (reflecting principles he himself professed as his) in executive positions corporate or political — unless ‘a vote of confidence’ is all there’s to success.
Okay, he was smart. What did it get us? Willy C was a Rhodes Scholar. What did it get us? Ophilia was a J.D. magna cum laude. What did it get us?
Fantastic read.
“This is a hard one, for liberals only. Do you assume that he is unintelligent because he made policy choices with which you disagree? If so, your logic may be backwards. “I disagree with choice X that President Bush made. No intelligent person could conclude X, therefore President Bush is unintelligent.” Might it be possible that an intelligent, thoughtful conservative with different values and priorities than your own might have reached a different conclusion than you? Do you really think your policy views derive only from your intellect?”
Boy did he nail it.
George Pal,
It got us a bit more than 7 years of domestic safety under Bush and since Obama minimally continued Bush’s domestic security policies, another 7 under Obama.
You might consider that your obvious denigration of ‘Dubya’ is a perfect example of Hennessey’s point. Or you might not. Rooted prejudices are very hard to change.
“If someone likes you, they’ll forgive almost any offense, provided you offer sincere regret but if they dislike you, nothing you do will ever be quite good enough”.
“If someone likes you, they’ll forgive almost any offense, provided you offer sincere regret but if they dislike you, nothing you do will ever be quite good enough”….
Yup!
Meanwhile, I agree that it is Bush’s fault.
His Presidency ended in disasters, a major Financial crisis and … Obama.
Smarts are not enough. Principles matter.
And, this strange approach of allowing Libtards to demonize him without ever pushing back …
Doesn’t work, obviously!
¡NO MORE BUSHES!
I remember reading that a while back. Well worth reading it again.
Very fitting that Matthew brought up Adlai Stevenson, because the liberal narrative at the time was not only that Adlai was much brighter than Ike- after all, no smarts were needed to navigate the diplomatic straights of being Supreme Commander- but all the bright people [liberals of course]- were voting for Stevenson.
In Dubya’s initial foray into politics, he got slammed for being an Ivy Leaguer out of touch with Texas. He subsequently decided he would get more votes by downplaying his Ivy League background.
Remember “nucular”?
And how the press and everyone else made fun of Bush for pronouncing it that way?
I remember it too; but, I remember it when Bubba Clinton said it that way and not one peep from the media or late night comedians on how funny it sounded.
The linked essay is informative and persuasive.
Thank you for finding it for us.
re G6loq’s comment “His Presidency ended in disasters, a major Financial crisis and … Obama.’ the last part is certainly true and the main disaster. President Obama himself has persuasively denied the first two. He stated that the recession that started under Bush had officially ended in July 2009, and he claimed a great success in Iraq when he announced withdrawal of our troops in 2011.
In fact the U.S.’s foreign policy goals were being achieved under Bush. The mass murderer Saddam Hussein (the official French report of 2005 said he had more than 1 million killed in his country) was gone and a government was approaching stability as Obama claimed. Libya had transported its atomic weapons program to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The people of sub-Saharan Africa consider Bush43 our greatest President (with good reason). Relations with India improved significantly. The entire Anglosphere moved closer to the U.S. Etc.
Economic policy is never perfect under any President, but in fact Obama has a poorer rating than Bush in this regard. The official unemployment rate under Bush was lower a majority of the time than the lowest rate under Obama (5.4%, just reached), but the employment rate was higher throughout. Bush ran much lower deficits (remember that FY 2009 is huge entirely because of the Obama “Stimulus”). Bush tried to get Congress to take away the requirements on Fannie and Freddie to provide mortgages to unqualified buyers, but was rebuffed.
Bush is generally considered our second best President for science policy (or third if Lincoln is rated second), which was carried out in a non-partisan manner (Democrats held several of the key positions). Obama has not done anything but continue the science policies developed in the Bush administration, since they are comprehensive.
Etc.
Geoffrey Britain,
You are, as per usual, too sanguine, and something new to me presumptive.
I’ll not buy safety if the cost is a the Patriot Act, a burgeoning surveillance state, record deficit spending, a two front war on terror in god forsaken hell holes and none on the home front. The aforementioned nugatory safety measures are made so by open borders, or laissez faire security. Frankly, I’m surprised to hear you make the safety argument as I recall numerous appeals you had made in previous comments extolling freedom over safety.
Now, to the presumption. The denigration of Dubya was no such thing. It was an observation of facts — legacy, mismanagement of the Texas Rangers, a dubious wildcatting oil adventure, and his political, no, say conservative waywardness in office. Furthermore what I was denigrating is intelligence — not qua intelligence but as some guarantor of success. Finally, I conceded Dubya’s smarts.
Finally, this time for sure finally, I find the professor’s chivalry a bit too much — methinks he doth protest too much. When the misogynist calls the women a slut it best not to leap to her defense — the source is all the defense needed. G6loq makes the point, “this strange approach of allowing Libtards to demonize him without ever pushing back …
Doesn’t work, obviously!
It does not. Ronald Reagan will forever be a dunce – as long as the liberals have all the best soap boxes. Commenting of which, please lord, let our next president have no more than a BA from Eureka or a certificate of completion from Pasadena JC. For whatever he lacks in intelligence nature will have been bound to have compensated him/her with common sense and fearlessness.
I don’t doubt that George W. Bush is intelligent, but when I read the phrase “threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner,” my brain damn near exploded. Those men are criminals who belong in prison. And fuck GWB for acceding to TARP.
George Pal,
“I’ll not buy safety if the cost is a the Patriot Act”
Under Bush the Patriot Act was not nearly as invasive as under Obama. Laws are tools and Obama has proven that any tool can be put to deadly use.
Our burgeoning surveillance state and record deficit spending have both been greatly increased under Obama, far more than Bush ever contemplated.
The problem with our two front war on terror “in god forsaken hell holes” was the lack of political support for ‘going all in’, instead we tried to ‘win hearts and minds’.
The object in war is “to make the other guy die for his country”, you can’t do that if your war is on the home front.
I’m not making the safety for liberty argument, merely responding to your question, “what did we get”? In the real world, it’s always a trade off between negatives and positives.
Our open borders and non-existent security are entirely Obama’s doing.
Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding of your reference to Dubya. I find it to be a pejorative label.
If considering the source was all the defense needed, the common denigration of Bush’s intelligence would never have taken hold. But it did take hold, which is why Hennessey’s personal experience is so valuable. I have never read such a direct, personally knowledgeable, coherent and salient appraisal of Bush’s intelligence.
Bush never lacked courage or common sense, necessary qualities in a President. What he lacked was a balanced advisement in perspective on Islam (a religion of peace) and an accurate appreciation for just how traitorous the Left has become. Evidently, he still accepts the lie that Islam is inherently peaceful. On the other, I can’t imagine that after his long crucifixion, he could still harbor any illusions about the Left.
rickl,
Had Bush not acceded to TARP, had he instead taken the alternative and said “we’re just going to suck it up, take our lumps and live within our means”… what do you think would have been the consequential results?
Please think deeply, beyond the admitted long term benefits and consider the probable, at minimum 10+ years of economic devastation and chaos that would first result and then consider if any democracy can willingly pursue and stick to that path… and remain whole.
On the other, I can’t imagine that after his long crucifixion, he could still harbor any illusions about the Left….
George W. Bush calls Bill Clinton ‘brother from another mother’
Then the Jebb:
In a speech in Puerto Rico, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) told the audience that “I am a Latino trapped inside an Anglo body.” Bush lamented that “there is no ethnic reassignment protocol like there is gender reassignment therapy for a woman trapped inside a man’s body. Nevertheless, I feel as if I am an illegal immigrant and want to do what I can to secure the rights of all my compatriots to enjoy the fruits of US citizenship.”…
It’s gotten so ridiculous that we no longer tell what’s what …
*It’s gotten so ridiculous that we can no longer tell what’s what …
G6loq,
Well, you got me there. Perhaps Bush finds it difficult to change his mind or perhaps he’s overcompensating, trying to get people to see that he’s not such a bad guy after all, to ‘rehabilitate’ himself in the public’s eye, much like Nixon did some years after he resigned.
“Jeb Bush (R) told the audience that “I am a Latino trapped inside an Anglo body.” Bush lamented that “there is no ethnic reassignment protocol like there is gender reassignment therapy for a woman trapped inside a man’s body. Nevertheless, I feel as if I am an illegal immigrant and want to do what I can to secure the rights of all my compatriots to enjoy the fruits of US citizenship.”…”
I can easily accept that Jeb Bush feels more at ease in the typically more emotionally demonstrative Latino environment.
Clearly, he’s allowing emotion to overrule reason.
People of other nations do NOT have a ‘right’ to enjoy ‘the fruits’ of US citizenship. It is a certainty that they have not contributed to the building of the society that provides those ‘fruits’.
As an American, Jeb Bush has an obligation to place the rights, security and welfare of his fellow citizens before the desires of people from other lands, those who would like to enjoy the fruits of US citizenship.
Besides a lack of clarity in reason, Jeb Bush demonstrates a lack of wisdom. Were he to gain his wish and “secure the rights of all my compatriots to enjoy the fruits of US citizenship”, he would find that he had destroyed the very thing he wished to share.
No country can retain cultural stability in absorbing immigrants beyond a certain point and, the great majority of what immigration it can support is also dependent upon those immigrant’s willingness to assimilate. Far too many immigrants, especially those from nearby Mexico, do NOT wish to assimilate, in fact they resist it. La Raza, active on every major US campus is filled with such as they.
Bush in this and other comments, demonstrates that he understands none of this and that lack is demonstrable proof of his unfitness for the office he seeks.
Sorry for the curve ball Geoffrey Britain but this quote is from the semi satire guy ….
Point is that we can’t tell anymore.
We’re phucquet ….
charles: “Remember “nucular”?
And how the press and everyone else made fun of Bush for pronouncing it that way?”
I thought it was a funny mispronunciation, too, until I took a class taught by an actual nuclear physicist who pronounced it “nucular”. I guess it’s a dialectal pronunciation.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 9th, 2015 at 5:10 pm
rickl,
Full on economic collapse and and depression.
TARP only postponed the inevitable. We are in much greater trouble today because of it.
We are in a depression right now. It’s being masked by deficit spending. Take that away, and the bottom will fall out. But it can’t continue. All these economic wizards are juggling chainsaws.
It would have been much better to take our medicine in 2008. We would be in a genuine recovery by now.
An economic collapse today will probably spell the end of America as we know it.
I agree with rickl on this one, GB.
Wall Street is now a rigged system of cronies, siphoning what true wealth remains.
Malinvestment is rampant. We should have let them sink.
And I doubly agree about the trio. They are in the same league as Bernie Madoff.
My beef with the 2008 collapse is that in was in great part a result of the Democ.rats having run an under the radar societal experiment through the housing market mechanisms.
Very clear from the various congressional testimonies from before and after collapse:
Example. I have many more bookmarked.
Under the radar! Please! Bush is smarter than that!
Ah!
When too big to fail is the mantra, a thinking peasent knows he/she and their great grandchildern will be left to toil to pay the bill. All that has been accomplished is postponement of the inevitable at 10E3 the initial harm. Banksters and their enablers should be in shackles marching to the firing squad. Negative interest rates do not reward those who are conservative with their finances. Its coming. Your personal savings and investments belong to the criminal cabal of central banks, private banksters, and the corrupt global political class. If you think otherwise, you are a pitiful fool.
Matt_SE,
Actually, I agree with rickl too. I just wanted to make sure that he fully understood the situation, which obviously he does. It’s an irresolvable mess and when it finally collapses, lots of people are going to die and the rest will suffer greatly.
It’s always best to ‘bite the bullet’ and take your medicine when the need is obvious. In such a case, the greater the denial, the greater the eventual consequence. Far too many Americans are in deep denial.
In Bush’s case, getting America to bite the bullet was impossible, even then it had gone far too far. No politician is going to vote for “Full on economic collapse and depression” because a large majority of the public would have fought it ‘tooth and nail’.
Which they would do now and will at any point in the future. It’s going to take a very hard dose of reality to wean American’s off the entitlement ‘tit’.
Some potential disasters that we face are uncertain but the collapse of our fiscal Ponzi scheme is certain, a matter of when, not if. When it happens, I think it probable that we’ll endure some martial law that will probably evolve into tyranny. That’s when a second American revolution may occur, if not the world will be in for another long, dark age.
I will welcome a dark age of every man, woman, child for themselves over a tyranny of the left or right. Me and mine can deal with a dark age, we will go down fighting the tyranny of the cabal should they remain standing. But, I doubt their ability to remain standing beyond a few months. Prepare as best you are able and then crawl out under the ashes to inherent a new world.
America’s desire for a cult leader is rather stupid and not something I can agree or support.
Democrat criticism of Bush II was merely about their Messiah, which Bush wasn’t. So criticism of the President is less now about improving things and more about tribal loyalties or finding that “Perfect Leader” to do the job, that most Americans have no clue how to do.
Originally it was a problem of Democrats. Losing a single Presidential election caused them to declare the causes of secession after all, on top of some other complaints. Now it’s a problem other people in the US have imbibed and accepted as ancient wisdom by now.
That criticizing your leader for not being a God is somehow going to improve things for your nation.
For a culture that claims to be about equality or liberty or freedom, that kind of hero worship or the desire for a dominating warlord to keep them under check, is rather contradictory.
It’s the tribal cargo cult coming out, probably. Americans didn’t inherit freedom, just a democratic voting system. The Republic requires citizens, not slaves, to operate.
OT but having to do with cops killing suspects. This is the first-hand account by a former policeman of his own experience of having to kill a criminal who was attempting to murder his partner, and the author’s research with other police around the country involved in deadly force incidents.
Fascinating stuff, and miles away from the popular perception of how cops, or anyone, reacts in such a situation:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/what-i-learned-after-i-killed-a-criminal-117751.html#.VU7pb5MsA8I
Geoffry Britain wrote:
The “when” is pretty easy to predict. The collapse will occur when America has a Republican president and congress – probably in 2017. That way the Republicans will get the blame for 50 years of democrat profligacy. President Walker (or Cruz, or whomever) will be the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century.
Eric…
You’ll find that the FIRST national figure to routinely use that form was …
Eisenhower…
Truman almost exclusively stayed with “atomic”…
snoper…
The implosion will be a ROLLING one…
Starting with Escape from Detroit.
&&&&7
To clarify:
The implosion will start in Democrat bastions – – Illinois, California, …
Ayatollah Soetoro has already destroyed the UAW.
Check out its membership rolls/ roles.
To an extent impossible to scope: the AFL-CIO has been castrated.
ACORN (and spawn) is an ersatz echo of the union movement.
I do believe that McConnell is stupid enough to think that the latest GATT gambit sailing through his Senate is going to bury the union-Democrat nexus.
The man is S L O W. Their unity has already been destroyed by the ayatollah — and Beijing.
Get a load of the Keystone fiasco. Boy Barry is the first prince that defied the AFL-CIO. He did so to pick up the Rob Reiner/ Oprah Winfrey vote.
&&&&&&&
If the decline is ‘managed’ — stage managed or otherwise — then the implosion will radiate up from the curtailed Democrat economy:
The Democrat-Fortunate 500:
MSFT
GE-NBC
Apple
Raytheon
Loreal
The attorney guild
The banker guild
The real estate guild
The mortgage guild
The 0-care hyper-guild
on and on they go.
To an astonishing degree: Democrat voters are “on the pad.”
They don’t see it that way, natch.
1) “Islam is a religion of peace” These are the words (and theme) of a man with some serious defect. They were a pronouncement of surrender at the start of a war. Prudence did not require this highly destructive, obsequious falsehood.
2) When people cannot make money on a savings account, we are at the precipice. This is the legacy of a man with a serious defect, someone without the integrity to do the right thing. Doing the right thing would have required calling out his brother from another mother and his brother’s party of vile charlatans. Sort of makes the man no better.
3) When the looters in Baghdad were given a protected “space to destroy” it became evident that we might be trying a futile kinder, gentler approach to warfare. Why not impose ruthless order from the start, let the whole country know they are defeated, sort out the trustworthy, and go from there?
4) Anyone who thought Bush was not a highly intelligent and very decent man was easily blinkered. Did I mention how baffling it is that my highly intelligent and very decent friends hold the most ridiculous opinions?
5) How directly and disgustingly insulting was the Harriet Miers nomination? Really? This is what he thought, Islam is the religion of peace, and lovers of the constitution deserve zero respect? On the single practical, significant issue where victory has some actual meaning to the passionate segment – – the usually ignored, those who get only rhetoric – – you pass up Babe Ruth and choose Marv Thorneberry?
6) I do not doubt the sincerity and good will intended by Bush’s personal gestures. I think he is witty, good humored and warm, unlike BO, Gore, Kerry, Hillary and many more assorted charlatans and haters of America.
7) But I do resent having to defend a man who thinks so little of my interests, other than how they can be manipulated for his own benefit. And I resent that so many mistakenly believe Bush represents the non-Left, except to the extent he is not a hateful America hater.
My problem with Bush uttering the execrable ‘islam is the religion of peace’ line is that he should have stuck to being the C-in-C, not the religious philosopher-in-chief. I also think that ‘islam is the RoP’ was put there by Grover Norquist, a muslim posing as a ‘Republican’. In other words, just one more quisling.
1) “Islam is a religion of peace” These are the words (and theme) of a man with some serious defect. They were a pronouncement of surrender at the start of a war. Prudence did not require this highly destructive, obsequious falsehood…
he was/is a big government, big spending liberal that left us with current occupant.
This here, I have been wondering about it since the first Gulf War:
the-american-military-has-been-fighting-and-dying-all-this-time-to-advance-the-caliphate-agenda
I suspect that as much as for any other reason, Bush uttered the execrable ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ line to preclude leftist criticism that the Bush administration’s War on Terror was actually a ‘New Christian Crusade’.
Politically, the falsity of that criticism was irrelevant, only whether such a libel would have traction with the public. And had Bush correctly identified jihadist terrorism as an inherent aspect of Islam, the MSM would have easily made that libel stick. Bush would have been labeled an Islamophobe and the support for the WoT would have dissolved.
Since at the time Bush assessed that fighting the WoT was critical to America’s survival (right after 9/11) he made that accommodation with political reality. In hindsight, we can disagree but its a canard to accuse him of disingenuous motivations. There’s simply no doubt in my mind that when it came to America’s survival, nothing superseded that concern.
I don’t think its accurate to describe Bush as “a big government, big spending liberal”. I know that’s what he did but I don’t think that was his motivation. As evidence of this assertion, his attempt at trying to get Congress to rein in banker’s Congressionally mandated, legal obligation to make bad loans was not supportive of “a big government, big spending liberal”. I assess Bush to first be a pragmatist and that there simply wasn’t the public and therefore political support for reducing government or its spending.
The American Military has not been intentionally Fighting And Dying All This Time To Advance The Caliphate Agenda. That de facto result is due to our embrace of “just war doctrine” and our refusal to fully identify our enemies.
The comments on this thread universally see a bleak and catastrophic future. I am among them. But I am also aware that some humans tend reflexively to have a negative view. Negative, in the sense of finding things to doubt, to worry about, and a reluctance to commit to a “Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!”
So we shall see. In the meantime, what constructive actions have we taken? Or have we simply sat and wrung our hands? And, while being passive, considering ourselves as betters for our cogitations? What have we done?
My life, and the lives of many, depends on the availability of medications in liquid form with very short shelf lives (e.g., insulins, biologicals like Humira)i so there are some things about which I can do nothing; unlike parker, the boonies are not a place of survival for me and those like me.
Caterpiller,
Speaking strictly for myself, I have a strong inclination toward optimism. I very rarely get even mildly depressed and then but for a few hours. It took the election of 2012, in which I strongly argued here that Obama would not be reelected… to open my eyes to the current reality of the majority’s quiescence. Just as it took 9/11 to awaken me to the threat of Islam. I guess I’m one of those people who needed a ‘sledgehammer between the eyes’ to set aside my rose colored glasses.
As for what we’ve done, other than speaking out, what can we legally do? Attend Tea Party rallies? Done. Call and write to my Congressmen? Done. Contribute money? Done. Argue vociferously with the LIVs? Done and done. Frankly it appears to have all been a waste of time and money because the blindness is willful… they don’t want to see.
“There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see once they are shown & those who will not see.” Leonardo da Vinci
So, to the best of my ability, I’m on the same page as parker, “Prepare as best you are able and then crawl out under the ashes to inherent a new world.”
Some of us aren’t going to make it. I’m 66, mildly diabetic and due to personal circumstance, including while my aging parents live, (@ 93 my Dad’s going for 12 more years!:-) I can’t get out into the country either and… that’s OK. If it comes to it, I promise I’ll take some of the bastards with me.
Que sera, sera.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 10th, 2015 at 1:01 pm
I suspect that as much as for any other reason, Bush uttered the execrable ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ line to preclude leftist criticism that the Bush administration’s War on Terror was actually a ‘New Christian Crusade’.
&&&&
If you believe this then you need take a peek at Grover Norquist — and his ‘lover’ — sexual jihadist — later spouse: Samah Alrayyes Norquist (m. 2004)
Norquist’s wife, Samah, is a Palestinian Muslim — with a Kuwaiti connection… being a flack for that nation in Washington when she hooked up with Grover… a superannuated bachelor on the up.
It was his LOVER who arranged the critical confab of ‘moderate’ Muslim clerics — in the shadow weeks after 9-11.
GWB was totally SNOWED BY THEM — and was also hugely impressed by Grover Norquist, himself.
The sub-text obviously was that Muslims make even better lovers than fighters.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/04/is-grover-norquist-an-islamist
However, on the evidence, Grover has crossed over — like John O. Brennan — read Pipes. ^^^^
Quite simply, wherever Norquist or Brennan pop up you hear a defense of Islam and Muslim Arab culture.
Yuck.
The entire zone is anti-cultural and stuck in the Neolithic.
Hence the entire population is oppressed — and largely BROKE.
The moment the oil runs out, then every Arab Muslim will be broke.
And as Indonesia can tell you, the oil does run out. (Indonesia is no longer a member of OPEC.)
Egypt used to export natural gas to Israel and Jordan. That’s stopped — and may go into reverse. Israel has about 1,000 times the natural gas reserves that Egypt had at its peak.
While AOPEC and Russia are squirming about American frackers… The real threat is Kenya and South Sudan.
It’s now turning out that the ancient strata that created the staggering deposits in KSA and Kuwait broke off from its other half — now residing under Kenya and South Sudan!
This reality is attested to by oil strikes and stratigraphy… and crude oil specific chemistries.
We are almost certainly looking at Peak Islam — right along with Peak Beijing.
In the latter case, the players have flown clean off the (capitalist) map.
The cheer leading that passes for financial reporting — and macro-fraudulent government statistics — in all polities — has blinded the powers that be.
Like Adolf in ’41 – they’ve come to believe their own media narrative… heel clickers, every one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooM-RGUTe2E
BTW, when you read USAID remember that the Soviets maintained from the first to the last that it’s a NOC form of the CIA.
(non-official cover)
On the weight, the overwhelming weight, of the evidence, the Bolsheviks were right — all along.
USAID is the publically exposed ‘purse’ of the CIA. No nation on the outs with the CIA/ Washington ever receives USAID support.
It was created so that the CIA could be a counter-patron to various KGB plays across the Third World — way back at the beginning of the Cold War, nee World War III.
(Yes, WWIII has come and gone. Notify the NY Times style desk. We’re already deep into WWIV and WWV is next up.)
WWV, ayatollah Barry’s war, should reasonably eclipse all that have ever come before — probably in a flash, too.
I am proud to say I am part of the 30%. We are the ones who supported Bush when the rest had wavered and joined the other side out of personal character weakness.
When a Liberal shows character weakness we call that a redundancy. When a conservative shows it it is sickening.
The exact malady of this country is that so many of the so-called good people (conservatives) have gone bad.
Bush is a litmus test. Anyone who criticizes him in he standard way he is criticized, is either a traitorous liberal or a good for nothing weak conservative.
To be honest the 2nd is much worse than the first.
Bush is a great and good man. I do not associate with people on any level other than polite exchanges with anyone who does not know this fact.
He is a litmus test. If you think there is something wrong with him the rock solid take it to the bank fact is that there is something wrong with Y-O-U.
Tonawanda: “3) When the looters in Baghdad were given a protected “space to destroy” it became evident that we might be trying a futile kinder, gentler approach to warfare. Why not impose ruthless order from the start, let the whole country know they are defeated, sort out the trustworthy, and go from there?”
This was the pre-war “humanitarian reconstruction” plan for Iraq. In hindsight, its fundamental flaw is clear: upon deposing Saddam’s regime, the plan shifted the military to a support role for civilian humanitarian GOs and IGOs rather than an old-school military occupation role.
The formulation was we opposed the regime, not the Iraqi people at large.
It wasn’t just propaganda. The US had been working with dissidents inside and outside Iraq since enforcing UNSCR 688 (1991) of the Gulf War ceasefire. Contrary to a popular misconception, President HW Bush was not against Iraqi regime change in order to keep Saddam on to counter Iran. In fact, HW Bush set a firm orientation, if not yet a firm policy, for Iraqi regime change at the outset of the ceasefire with the UNSCR 688 enforcement.
Under Clinton, we formalized the regime change policy with active measures, ramping up our work with Iraqi dissidents, with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which included the mandate for the post-regime peace operations in section 7 of PL 105-338, which was raised in section 4 of the 2002 AUMF.
Which is to say, we didn’t enter Iraq cold in 2003 facing a presumably hostile populace, excepting the parts tied to the regime. We were going into Iraq with established relations with Iraqi factions outside of the regime.
I believe the years of prep for the regime change made post-war planners plan too much around the knowns while underestimating the incalculable danger of the Rumsfeldian unknowns, such as al Sadr bypassing the senior Shia leaders working with the occupation and the efficacy of Saddam’s terrorists hooking up with their pre-OIF allies, al Qaeda affiliates. (Another popular misconception is Saddam was opposed to jihadists. The fact is Saddam’s terrorists worked with jihadists.)
With the years of prep that preceded the Bush administration, it made sense to enter into the post-war with a softer initial approach. In hindsight, I agree, as it happened, the initial approach failed.
However, I disagree that the problem was the Iraqi people didn’t know Iraq was defeated. They knew Iraq was defeated – “shock and awe” was effective. At the outset, the Iraqis had, if anything, unrealistic expectations of what America could accomplish next.
I agree it was a mistake not to clamp down right away, but I disagree with your implication that the insurgency was a consequence of that initial mistake. The insurgency was not an organic outgrowth of the disorder that first followed the fall of the regime. It was deliberate campaigns by distinct factions.
The first problem was lack of an effective counterinsurgency doctrine at the outset. That’s a different issue than securing the population at large.
The second problem was the ianti-OIF domestic and international politics along with lessons of the 20th century (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia) that led the insurgents to calculate they could induce US withdrawal, which also affected the political calculation of non-insurgent Iraqis. They were wrong with Bush, but were proved right with Obama.
So, I agree that clamp-down security should have been a higher priority at the outset for the sake of the nation-building. But I disagree with the implication that the insurgency grew out of the initial mistake. Different problems. A better counter-insurgency also falls under the heading of security, but it’s a different area of security.
Me: “The second problem was the
ianti-OIF domestic and international politics along with lessons of the 20th century (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia) that led the insurgents to calculate they could induce US withdrawal, which also affected the political calculation of non-insurgent Iraqis.”Add: Keep in mind that betting on the staying power of America versus Saddam’s terrorists was a life-or-death calculation. The Iraqis who bet on America lost with Obama.
Caterpillar: “I am all TeaPartied out, I have long ago given up on the GOP. I am combative and competitive by nature. I want us to win.”
Are you a Marxist-method (not Marxist-ideology) activist? If not yet, and you sincerely want to win, then you need to become one.
Eric-
You will have to expand at some length on your Marxist-method for me and others. I am versed in Saul Alinsky and have tried to push that on my fellow Tea Partiers, but they are all too grey, too new to struggle, too mannerly,too used to following the rules, though these are often laid down by the other side and are a recipe for defeat. They are comfortable with moral victories that are less than Pyrrhic ones. They make cases, obvious good cases before the City Council, lose 7-2, and get satisfaction.
Cat….
The VERY FIRST thing you should do is hunt down younger talent — so that you and your crew can be king makers…
For some reason this aspect of politics is skipped past by just about everyone on the sane side of politics.
Alinsky’s REAL trick was recruitment.
&&&&&&&
Examples: both PM Brown and PM Blair were sponsored — financially — by the KGB all the way back into their college days. (!)
This came out as a result of the KGB archives being open after the end of WWIII/ the Cold War.
In the case of Blair, he was flat broke and about to entirely abandon politics (Labour) when he suddenly — out of the red — got an incredibly cushy job from some highly liberal (pro-Labour) NGO. [ As in KGB front ]
Such funding cost Moscow peanuts.
The KGB was simply salting the field with ‘talent’ skewed to the left of the political spectrum. No further direction was ever attempted.
On a long term basis, this type of Active Measure (Bezmenov) is akin to placing a magnet nearby a ship’s compass at the beginning of a voyage — after it has ‘boxed its compass in.’
{ Boxing the compass was routine before GPS — and entailed sailing to and fro critical buoys that were maintained by the USCG or other authorities. This elegant procedure would balance out any local magnetism — truing it up for the long voyage to come. }
When this procedure is not followed properly, the compass will be ‘off’ by just enough to lead the ship into harm’s way — while never appearing to do so.
For ships in the North Atlantic getting this procedure right was a life or death matter, as the magnetic pole and the polar axis are seriously far off each other at the high latitudes.
It is by such Active Measures that the Western political compass has been corrupted — and the Overton window wrenched to the Left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
It is THIS process that has brought ayatollah Soetoro to the top of the greasy pole.
Even Pipes has a hard time tracking down just how screwy Barry’s life arc has been.
http://www.danielpipes.org
Caterpillar: “You will have to expand at some length on your Marxist-method for me and others.”
Alinsky’s rules are just 1 set of tools in the workshop.
You don’t need anyone to expand it for you. You’ve observed it. The challenge is adapting and applying what you’ve observed. If you need to learn more, you know where to look for examples. There’s plenty of ‘field manual’ literature, too.
The right mindset is the key. Don’t cargo-cult. Learn the proper activist mindset for the method:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
Remove the opposition ideology from the method. Insert your ideology and customize the method.
The odd disconnect is that Neo and commenters on her blog talk about Left-side Marxist-method activism at great length all the time yet seem to struggle with even conceptualizing the adaptation of those observations for a competitive Right-side activist social movement.
GB @1:01 – – I was not saying Bush did not have an understandable justification for adopting the theme “islam is peace.” What you suggest as a motivation seems plausible (although I don’t buy it).
That is why I said “Prudence did not require this highly destructive, obsequious falsehood.” If, as you imply, Bush knew he was lying (although I don’t buy it) all the more reason he should have never adopted the theme.
He could have used his speech writers to come up with a truthful formulation which was not counterproductive, or he could have shut up.
I really don’t know why Bush adopted and promoted this highly destructive falsehood.
My guess is that he was motivated by the same psychology which allowed him to peer into Putin’s soul and feel inspired to proclaim to the world what a good fellow Putin was.
And in turn, I am guessing this has something to do with the noblesse oblige which is the Bush family philosophy, a pov which goes easily to one who has never had to earn a living.
Eric @ 9:27 – –
Any patriot who was paying attention during the Viet Nam war and who favored the goals of the war, had forever imprinted on his mind that half-measures are sheer waste and stupidity, regardless of how laudatory otherwise.
Where was Bush when this searing object lesson was being taught? Even Colin Powell got the lesson right, or at least articulated it correctly.
Some folks actually think it is self-evident – – and I agree – – that allowing wrongdoers a “space to destroy” is wrong and a mistake. This is especially so during riots and military invasions.
In general, Nixon and Bush are two very different men. But they both have something in common. They were both unfairly and malignantly attacked by the left.
In turn, this generated a corps of intense defenders among folks who counted for nothing but rhetorical manipulation in the eyes of Bush and Nixon. You certainly didn’t see liberal Republicans or any democrats defending them against the vile leftist propaganda.
Many non-Leftists became and remain confused, illogically thinking that if the left is waging a war against a man, the man is one of us.
Tonawanda: “Where was Bush when this searing object lesson was being taught? Even Colin Powell got the lesson right, or at least articulated it correctly.”
No. Vietnam-era Powell got it wrong. Post-Vietnam Petraeus got it right.
Petraeus: “If we are going to fight future wars, they’re going to be very similar to Iraq,” he says, adding that this was why “we have to get it right in Iraq”.
The Vietnam War traumatized the Army, and Powell and others learned the wrong lesson from the Vietnam War from a policy standpoint. They sought to limit the military mission to a rigid definition of war and marginalize every other instrumentation as an “operation other than war”.
Yet the global competition of war and peace is a fluid spectrum, not like a rigid limited sport as formulated by the Powell Doctrine where there’s war and not-war.
The Powell Doctrine calls for the military to avoid counterinsurgency, which left the military tactically and culturally unprepared to do counterinsurgency. Competing against “low intensity” counterinsurgency is different in kind, not just degree, from “high intensity” major combat operations.
The reality is we go to war with the Army we have, not always – nor even often – the Army we need.
In fact, the pre-war “humanitarian reconstruction” plan for Iraq was state of the art at the time, based on contemporary analogous missions, including Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Haiti. Given the military’s aversion to dedicated peace operations before OIF, as expressed by the Powell Doctrine, the only practical way the Army could develop a sufficient peace-operations doctrine, capability, and more fundamentally, a proper civil-affairs mindset for occupying post-war Iraq was to actually occupy post-war Iraq and learn through necessity. Ergo, the conception and birth of the Petraeus-led Counterinsurgency “Surge” that combined with the Sunni Awakening and had us winning Iraq before President Obama changed course from President Bush.
Our enemies aren’t stupid. They’re competitive. They’ll adapt and attack our vulnerabilities. Self-imposed vulnerabilities, like the Powell Doctrine, are not exempt from attack. They’re an invitation to attack exactly there.
In short, the Powell Doctrine is self-programmed obsolescence. The “right” lesson that Powell learned from the Vietnam War was a blueprint for any competitor in the world willing and able to fight a guerilla war to defeat the US by simply shifting from conventional warfare, where the US has mastery, to unconventional warfare, where the Powell Doctrine meant the US reacted in Pavlovian manner like a traumatized whimpering beaten dog.
The enemy is teacher. Our learning curve for victory in post-Saddam Iraq was driven by necessity on the ground, which is consistent with military history. Our military has always undergone steep learning curves in war that have routinely included devastating setbacks. Due to the nature of the particular enemy, OIF just demanded a steeper learning curve for the peace operations of the post-war than the war that deposed Saddam’s regime.
Under Bush, Petraeus and others willing to learn the enemy’s lessons were an antidote for the Powell Doctrine. But under Obama, the Powell Doctrine orientation towards self-programmed obsolescence was restored.
Fix: Competing against “low intensity”
counterinsurgency is different in kind, not just degree, from “high intensity” major combat operations.Powell’s incompetent. And that’s the best. The worst is that he’s going to turn coat and start obeying totalitarian orders.
5) How directly and disgustingly insulting was the Harriet Miers nomination? Really?
It would probably slap people in the face if they realized that she wouldn’t have voted for O care like Roberts did. That’s not certain, of course, but it is how it turned out with Roberts, people’s “better choice”. Sometimes people don’t know as much as they think they do.