Does Rumsfeld miss Bush? 'Um, no.'

Didn't the Prophecy say the devil would return with a blind dog by his side?

Donald Rumsfeld has always spent more time covering his own butt than the backs of our troops. He never makes mistakes. It is always someone else’s fault. The Iraq mess is his design. Not enough troops, equipment, quick changes to strategy and poor post invasion planning.

When did Reagan ever get vindicated? Oh, wait. He must know some unknowns that are now known knowns.

If the Sec. of Defense tried to resign before the invasion shouldn't that say something about how history will view Bush?

Does America miss Rumsfeld? Um, no.

"Before the Iraq invasion he wrote out a memo with at least two dozen warnings about what might happen, including not finding weapons of mass destruction."

This must have got lost in the same shuffle with that 1994 video of Cheney talking about why Iraq was not invaded during the first Gulf War...Too little too late, Don.

Just what the world needs, a Donald Rumsfeld book.

Go away dumb old man!!!

When did Reagan ever get vindicated? Oh, wait. He must know some unknowns that are now known knowns.

Posted by: RomanB | September 11, 2007 2:20 PM

Ronald Reagan may have been caricatured by some Dems and lefties. But, as far as I can recall, he was never in any great need of vindication.

If you recall correctly, he was the man in charge when that communist country - whose health care system you love so much - became a non-communist country. Because of your socialist proclivities, you just might not think that is a good thing. Those of us who have hated communism all our lives think otherwise. And, I might add, the end of communism in Europe came on his watch in no small measure because of his resolve to peacefully destroy it at its weakest point - its ability to compete with capitalism. That is what I call good leadership.

Reagan actually believed in the American Dream and the blessings of liberty. [Sigh] Now, only if we had a President today who did . . .

John W., I agree with you till your last line. How does Bush not believe in the American Dream and blessings of liberty. Whether you agree with his tactics or not, or with the Iraq War or not, what he has done is because he believes in the American Dream and liberty.

You correctly boast about Reagan fighting and defeating communism, yet you knock Bush for fighting against Islamic extremism and dictatorship. While I don't completely agree with Bush's position on immigration, his belief is to allow immigrants the opportunity to enjoy the American Dream, whether it's through legal means or not.
Bush cut taxes so folks can keep more of their money and do with it as they wish, which is part of the American Dream and liberty.
You could say the Patriot Act and some of the decisions regarding terrorist incarceration are not examples of liberty and you may have a point. In that regard, though, Bush has pushed keeping us safe compared to liberties for noncitizens or those conspiring with terrorists. That is a legitimate debate, and as Tony loves to note, one in which at the moment I have been on the side of keeping us safe rather than providing liberties to terrorists or those working with them.

"If you recall correctly, he was the man in charge when that communist country - whose health care system you love so much - became a non-communist country."

Well actually no. The Soviet Union only became a non-communist country in 1990, 2 years after Reagan left office.

As to it's health care system, I don't recall anyone praising it.

It's the healthcare systems of Western Europe that are admired. You know the the kind that you've claimed that the United States Government is too inefficient and incompetent to run?

Some of us believe in the United States and it's form of government enough to think that it can provide services to it's people as well as any government can. Too bad you don't.

Tony:

Are you RomanB too? If not, I wasn't speaking to you.

In a different thread, RomanB made glowing remarks about the health care his parents received in in a communist country. So, it was not in reference to the socialized medicine in Western Europe. Unless his parents lived in Cuba or China, he was referring to a communist state in Eastern Europe.

Okay, you are right. The last communist country to throw off communism occurred in 1990. Thanks for reminding me. But that wasn't the first communist country to fall, and Reagan's successor in office (Duh'bya's Daddy) did nothing to add to what Reagan had already done. In which case, Reagan still deserves the credit.

"Thanks for reminding me. But that wasn't the first communist country to fall,"

Which communist country do you think it was that fell during Reagan's term?

Tony:

I didn't say any communist country fell precisely during the period of Reagan's second term. I took that back. I was saying that the Soviet Union wasn't the first communist country to fall. It was about the last to go.

BTW, technically, no country “fell.” Their communist regimes may have been ousted from power, but no country lost their power to govern their own territory. Your wording is bad.

In any event, in 1989 events began which led to the unraveling of the communist regimes in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and East Germany. By the end of the following year, their communist regimes were toast. The Soviet Union did not cease to exist until 1991.

All the same, I stand by my original remark that the fall of these communist regimes was due in no small part to their economic bankruptcy wrought by Reagan’s policies of competition. They couldn’t keep up with us in producing bullets and butter, and so that had to make a choice between the two. They chose butter. Hurray.

BTW Tony, our governmental debt now sits at nine (9) trillion dollars. We have piled up this debt largely between the mid 1960s and now. That we have this debt shows the government has been plagued by a chronic inability to exercise anything resembling fiscal restraint or responsibility. And you believe this same government can responsibly and successfully throw hundreds of billions of dollars more at a national health care program? You are not playing in the realm of reality here.

"BTW, technically, no country “fell.” Their communist regimes may have been ousted from power, but no country lost their power to govern their own territory. Your wording is bad."

East Germany (or to be precise Deutsche Demokratische Republik). Go find that on a map today.

The Soviet Union "fell" as well, since when the Soviet government disolved, the state broke up into smaller constituant parts, such as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. Therfore the central government based in Moscow lost the ability to govern large areas of what had been it's territory.

As to Reagan's role in th collapse of communism, there are many factors and individuals who had a heck of alot more to do with it than Reagan. First off, and inarguably the most importantly, you have the flawed policies of the Soviet Union itself. Gorbachov's willing ness to reform, and unwillingness to reign in the reforms when they started getting out of his control were massively important. Then you also have groups like KOR, Solidarity, Civic Forum and people like Lech Walesa, Adam Michnik, Vaclav Havel, amongst a great many others. Those people earned their own freedom, it wasn't given them by Reagan.

It's really sad that you think so little of the United States ,John W., and it's form of government. What type of government would you prefer since you think our current form is so hopelessly and irredeemably inept that it cannot do what the governments of every other industrialized country are able to?

Tony:

The constituent parts of the Soviet Union all became separate sovereign countries based on governmental structures that pre-dated the breakup. Thus, Russia and all the other countries retained their powers to govern. East and West Germany became one country as the result of an orderly political process, in which case there was never a failed "state" involved. You are now playing word games in suggesting, at all, that any of them became failed states.

As for the reason communist countries fell, you are right in saying that the main reason communism fell was the flawed policies in each of those countries. That policy was communism itself. The economies in each of these countries were failing, and predictably so, because of the inefficiency of centralized planning and the strangulation of individual initiative and motivation. Ronald Reagan exploited these weaknesses by bringing more political and economic pressure to bear. He knew their paranoia would keep them building up their military structure as long as we built ours, and that they couldn’t afford to maintain a civilian economy while they tried in vain to compete. That’s plain.

Furthermore, I have never claimed that Reagan and his policies were solely responsible for the collapse of these communist regimes. I said that he was responsible “in no small measure” – which means to those of us who regularly communicate in English that he played a significant, but non-exclusive role in the result. Of course I recognize that patriots in each of these countries substantially contributed to the demise of communism in their homelands, but that was never in doubt. If they hadn’t risen up against communism, some of those regimes might still exist today. However, it is still clear that Reagan helped to weakened those regimes well enough for those patriots to rise up and bring freedom to their lands.

Finally, you grievously misconstrue my words when you suggest that I object to the “form” of our government. I do not. Nor have I ever claimed that our “form” of government is defective. We are in trouble, and have been in trouble, because the people who occupy our government make bad decisions and lead us astray. Our bad governors, whom we, as a people, elect out of ignorance and a perverse sense of entitlement, have piled up this debt in the firm conviction that the welfare state is a panacea for all problems, and to prove how much “plunder” they can bring home to their constituents to garner re-election. In addition to all of the spending, the government is just downright wasteful and inefficient. Billions upon billions of dollars simply go unaccounted for as if they just vanish into thin air. If you don’t believe me, just go ask the folks at the GAO and OMB.

Until this attitude changes, the introduction of a medical health care system or medical insurance system is bound to provide little more than fertile ground for plunder and pork. That is why I am firmly convinced that this government – e.g. its occupants – are perfectly incapable of delivering such a large health care program – costing hundreds of millions of dollars – with any sort of efficiency or accountability. It is also why I am equally convinced that it will cost much more than anticipated. That you wish very hard this is not the case doesn’t change the behavior that history has proven. That you refuse to believe it just shows how unrealistic your expectations really are.

"You are now playing word games in suggesting, at all, that any of them became failed states."

WWell, first off you are the one that challenged the word "fell", not I. Secondly, how did we now get to "failed states"? That's a whole different thing. Governments often fall without resulting in a "failed state". The word games are all yours my friend.

But thank you for calrifying that you don't disdain our form of government. It is simply that all of our politicians are worse than everyone elses politicians. In our system of government that would be the voters fault, right? How do you explain that John W? Are americans stupider than europeans? More corrupt? In what way do you think we are inferior to europeans?

It's even sadder that you hold americans as a group in such such disregard.

John D:

You really had to ask me why I believe Bush doesn't believe in the American Dream and the blessing's of liberty? I'll tell you.

But first, allow me to make the balance of your post irrelevant. I didn’t make that comment because of Iraq, or because Bush’s chose to fight against Islamic extremism. Nor is it a comment on his policies on immigration or cutting taxes – as you have framed those issues. And, if anyone cares, this isn’t about minority rights, employee rights, health care and patients’ rights, student rights, poor and homeless rights, animal rights, bicycle owners’ rights, Elvis impersonators’ rights or any of the other rights contrived by those trying to jump on the gravy train.

It was, instead, all about George W. Bush’s total disrespect for the rule of law and his maintenance of what has increasingly become a police state. Contrary to what Duh’bya thinks, the President has no power to nullify or suspend any part of the laws or Constitution, even in wartime. The Constitution only gives Congress the power to suspend one law in wartime (habeas corpus), and then only under certain conditions (none of which currently exist). The express grant of Congress’ power to suspend one law, means that only Congress has that power, and not the President. Also, the fact the Constitution gives Congress the power to suspend one law, means that it forbids Congress from suspending any other law. If laws are to be disregarded, they must be repealed.

The consequences of this constitutional framework are plain: The President has no power to suspend the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” and “warrant” requirements, the rights to due process or a speedy and public trial guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, or the rights to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Not only does the president have no such right of suspension, Congress has no right to infringe on these rights either. But all of this has happened.

The President’s blanket order – relieving the N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies of their duty to get warrants – effectively sanctioned violations of the Fourth Amendment, and was an act beyond his powers. The “people” of the United States and its lawful, domestic resident aliens have an expectation of privacy in their telephone conversations that cannot be legitimately intruded upon without a warrant based on probable cause, or exigent circumstances, or consent. So said the United States Supreme Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). This isn’t liberal pabulum either. The duty of the President to follow the Fourth Amendment domestically was reaffirmed by the “Burger” and “Rehnquist” courts (dominated by Republican appointees). This draws into question the legality of the many of the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act (permitting warrantless searches) the FISA laws (which permit searches to be justified by after acquired warrants), as well as the recent expansion of wiretap powers authorized by Congress and signed into law. The Constitution always trumps a contrary law.

The same is true of the rights of citizens to due process and a speedy and public trial, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Mr. Padilla, who finally got his trial, had to wait three or four years in custody? Even then, he had to fight his way to the Supreme Court twice before the administration decided to treat him like a citizen. The constitutional traditions of this country (except in the Fourth Circuit) are all quite to the contrary. The rule laid down in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), is that martial rule cannot exist where the civilian courts are open and functioning in their proper and unobstructed exercise of jurisdiction. As such, it is improper to subject a citizen to military law where the exigency of war or insurrection has not actually close the civilian courts or their functions.

Against this, one may argue that Mr. Padilla was subject to military law based on his status as an enemy combatant. That’s nonsense. However counter-intuitive it may seem, being an enemy combatant is not a crime. And further, absent a clear congressional mandate, the President has no power to detain a U.S. citizen on American soil for a non-crime. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) provided, at the time of Padilla’s arrest and detention, that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Mr. Padilla was detained on U.S. soil without congressional authority, and not on a foreign battlefield. Moreover, if he was an enemy combatant, why did it take the government so long to come up with this ground, and why was he never charged over the space of three to four years with a violation of the laws of war? The inability to satisfactorily answer these questions is some evidence that there are no good answers to them. That is some evidence that the United States government, under President Bush, exercised despotic and unconstitutional power in its handling of Mr. Padilla’s case. And Mr. Padilla isn’t (and wasn’t) the only one either.

And what about the gag orders in National Security Letters used by the government under the Patriot Act? Subjecting a person to an investigation is one thing. But to then turn around and tell those who hold a person’s account information that they can’t say anything about the invasion – not even to the person who has been targeted? The ability of a free people to challenge the government is at the very core of why free speech is protected. Thus, there can be no clearer violation of the First Amendment than to censor speech that is needed to criticize the governmental. Furthermore, the Patriot act also tried to strip the courts of the power to adjudicate First Amendment issues that might arise from such violations. That in itself is unbelievable.

And then we have the problem of GWB’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws. He is duty bound under the Constitution to “. . . take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (See U.S. Const., Art II. Sec. 3.) Go figure how anyone could believe he lived up to his duty regarding immigration when he both: 1) explicitly refused to enforce the laws as written; and 2) instead, argued for a different law before he would enforce it. Now just remember that this same GWB is the fellow who is at the head of the government designed, in large part, to protect your rights. If he can engage in wholesale disregard for the law in one area, what are we to expect of his regard for other laws important to our safety? That he will enforce them if he thinks they’re good?

There is nothing freedom loving, much less “conservative,” about running a police state in public view. Indeed one of the basic principles of conservatism is that “the end of government is freedom.” Freedom, and not repression, is the prize we win from good government. Besides, any President who puts his “policies” above the Constitution and laws isn’t acting like a President. He’s acting like a dictator. No one, including you, should be happy with that.

His other major shortcoming is his monetary policy. True, he gives some people a break on their taxes, as you have pointed out. But then you have to ask just how long is that going to last when he has added 3.2 trillion dollars to the public debt just since 9/11? That makes our total public debt nine trillion dollars. Do you know what the annual debt service on nine (9) trillion dollars is in real money? Who is going to pay for that? Well, I’ll tell you. If it ever gets paid for, it will be paid for by Joe Taxpayer – because the government gets all its spending money by appropriation, and appropriations are funded by taxes, imposts, duties and the like. But we will pay for it three times over. We will pay for it first because we have to pay for the debt service on all of the paper we floated to cover the debt. That means less money for the government to do the stuff its supposed to do. We will pay for it a second time because of the inflation it creates. Creating more money causes inflation – and that is exactly what happens when the government prints more treasury bonds to cover its debts. And we and our children and our grandchildren will be paying for it in taxes in the years to come to retire the principal and interest when the debt service and inflation make it too difficult to bear.

And you call all this belief in the American Dream and love of liberty? I’m sorry. I don’t.

But thank you for calrifying that you don't disdain our form of government. It is simply that all of our politicians are worse than everyone elses politicians. In our system of government that would be the voters fault, right? How do you explain that John W? Are americans stupider than europeans? More corrupt? In what way do you think we are inferior to europeans?

It's even sadder that you hold americans as a group in such such disregard.

Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2007 6:06 PM

Yes, Tony, that’s absolutely right. Our politicians are worse than everyone else’s. That’s pretty clear.

How do I explain it? Do I have to? The results speak for themselves. If we didn’t have bad politicians, how else do you explain the sad financial shape we are in? How else do you account for our precarious political situation abroad? How else do you explain how most people in Congress and the White House seem to spend more time fighting each other than working together to get something positive done? Bad politicians sounds as good as any other explanation out there for all of this.

Do Americans elect these clowns because they are dumber than the other peoples of the World? No. I don’t think Americans, as a group, are dumber (or “stupider”) than any one else. But they are desperately ignorant of the workings of laws, government, political parties and the consequences of certain policies. And that, in my opinion, is why they end up electing bad politicians.

I’m serious. If you want a little shock, go ask a dozen people why we have separate federal and state governments. No, make it even simpler. Ask them if they know the length of a Senator’s or Representative’s term of office. You will be surprised to find out that most of them don’t know the answers. If something as simple as federalism and term lengths never gets explained in school, and the average voter doesn’t thereafter take the time to inform themselves of how things work, how can we reasonably expect people to think for themselves about their political choices? Apparently, the answer is that we can’t, because they don’t.

When people are that ignorant, it’s easy for politicians and their parties to lead them astray. The most readily available and easy to consume information on politics and government comes from people with some partisan axe to grind. It is easy to consume this stuff because it is broken down into “issues” chosen by the parties to be featured in an election campaign, as well as an explanation of the party’s and politicians views on those issues. With such pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped political product, its pretty hard to go wrong. Right?

Well, just look at the result. The proof is in the pudding.

In reference to the use of the term "socialized medicine."

I live in Canada, where the quality of health care for every citizen is as good as what Americans get at the best hospitals, and far better than what they get at the worst ones.

No-one up here ever refers to "socialized medicine." We just think of health care, medicine. Period.

"Socialized medicine" is a catch phrase fed to you by the Pentagon/right wing press, just as "Shock and Awe"
(deliberately/inadvertently kill thousands of innocent people), "smart bombs" (bombs), "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (use of 9/11 as a pretext to invade sovereign country to get their oil), "Surge" (troop escalation).

The unfortunate problem is that the American educational system (in sharp contrast to the Soviet one) is so bad that the country is filled with dumb shmucks who don't know squat about the world outside of their county, don't know history, and are suckers for this type of simplistic buzzword propaganda.

Stephen (Toronto):

You are wrong. Socialized medicine is not just a catch phrase to be used to manipulate the American Public. It has real, objective meaning.

“Socialism” is generally descriptive of any system of collectivism which subordinates individual rights to the collective good, and which is funded by a commonly owned pool of capital, or from periodic wealth redistribution.

As applied to the field of health care, “socialized medicine” is any system of delivering medical services where its participants are collectivized (as in Canada, where everyone is signed up), and where the funding for the services comes from a central system (which, by gosh, is just like that in Canada, where the government pays for the whole shmeer out of revenues).

And, lest there be any doubt, the Canadian system does sacrifice the rights of individuals to the interests of the collective. As originally configured, the Canadian system forbade any competitive private medical system. That’s why all those Canadians flowed south across the border into the United States. They were looking for a way to actually get the care they needed by paying for it, instead of having to stand in line and wait forever for it. That is why, when the Canadian system was finally challenged in the Canadian Supreme Court, the Court determined the monopoly was unlawful because (and I paraphrase), “the right to health care is not the same as the right to stand in line and wait.”

And YOU have the unmitigated audacity to say the United States is filled with “dumb schmucks?” The only reason you couldn’t figure out why Canada has socialized medicine is that you are clueless about socialism. It takes a lot of gall for someone to accuse others of being dumb when the accuser doesn’t even know the plain meaning of English words. It sounds to me like you are very happy with being fooled by the propaganda the Canadian press and government spew. Why don’t you just go have some maple syrup, bugger a couple lumber jacks, and stay the heck out of our business. Eh?