That’s Stephen Colbert’s description of a book by former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega: “United States v. George W. Bush et al.” Here’s her description:
“I was pretty appalled at the level of discussion, especially about legal issues, and about the prewar intelligence and whether or not it had been unintentionally misrepresented,” said de la Vega, who lives in Los Gatos, Calif. “It was clear to me that the conduct of the Bush administration was exactly the same as the type of fraudulent conduct that’s prosecuted around the country every week.”
Well, it does sound like fun.
I will say that it’s fascinating to see the President at 28% in the polls … just reaching the lows of Jimmy Carter in 1979. Say what you want about Carter, but you have to wonder: What the hell did Jimmy Carter ever do to sink as low as Bush? Or alternatively: How is George Bush doing as well as Jimmy Carter?
Honestly, he should be doing worse. And de la Vega’s point is that he’s lied on purpose, not that somehow the intelligence was botched, or that the attorney firings were “mishandled”, or whatever. No, we need to be clear that they’re straight-up crooked, straight up to — and especially — the top.
And semi talented comics are passing (in some quarters) as the primary sources of deep thought and political wisdom.
Simply put;
Jimmy Carter didn’t have the balls to confront our enemies.
George Bush had the temerity to confront our enemies.
<
p>
My, how times change.
Beyond that you can just look at youtube videos on meet the press pre 9/11 where Dick Cheney, Condi, and Colin all say Iraq posed no threat, had no WMD’s, the intel didn’t change merely the opportunity. And that 28% is fairly diehard, showed a wingnut those youtube tapes and he just said “well we couldnt take a chance after 9/11” what chance? Cheney said Iraq wasnt a threat there is no chance.
<
p>
Also anyone with a brain should no that WMD’s were not a threat from Russia, China, or any other country that actually possesses them because of our unlimited assured destruction capability. There are days when the survivors still say their son died for freedom, and I’m almost glad that they remain ignorant since that bliss is truly better than the despicable cruel truth.
It is disgusting to say that those who have lost their sons & daughters in Iraq remain “ignorant” of what their kids die for. I know you don’t understand the real stakes that those brave men and women made the sacrifice for, but how dare you project your own ignorance onto the families that have watched loved ones make that sacrifice. You should be ashamed of yourself, but clearly you are far too superior to the rest of us to feel shame…
I suspect that this was merely a parroting the professor comment.
<
p>
And judging by the grammar and spelling, it was probably written after an exhausting team workout.
Jimmy Carter’s low point wasn’t just about Jimmy Carter, it was about a generational shift in American politics. Under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter Americans were getting tired of feeling down about the country. From Vietnam to the Iran Hostage standoff, from Watergate to the rise in drugs and violent crime, the feeling was that the country was headed in the wrong direction and fast.
<
p>
Reagan was able to seize onto that sentiment and create “Morning in America”. Maybe his game of chicken with Gorbi only worsened the collapse of the Soviet Union, and maybe his “trickle down” economics exacerbated the economic divide, but he projected a vision.
<
p>
George W. Bush hasn’t achieved low ratings by playing both sides as his father did, he has stuck to his base and done everything that they asked him to, except make their theories work in the real world. My hunch is that his low approval isn’t just about George Bush the man; as with Carter, it is a major shift in the political landscape. The 50:50 logjamb had been broken and we are ready for a new vision.
The unpopularity of Jimmy Carter was very much fueled by the press who just didn’t like him. Similar to what they did with Clinton – reporting only on the negatives; completely ignoring the positives – they excoriated Carter for anything he did.
<
p>
For example, he carried one of his own suitcases into the White House on his first day, which the press characterized as ‘unpresidental’ because he was acting too much like an ordinary person. Then one of the White House butlers said he had only carried that one bag in, so all of a sudden Carter was ‘elitist’ for making his servants do the work. And it just went downhill from there.
<
p>
There was no way the guy could win. That experience underscores the need for a fair press as well as a free one. And by the way, let’s keep the internet free to act as a balance.