Joan of Arc Was a Loser [Reader Post]

Loading

joan_of_arc_saved_france_sm.jpgYes, Joan of Arc was a loser. Moses was a failure. Churchill was an outcast and then an outcast again. The Lord Jesus himself was defeated. This is an important thing to remember at times like this. The election has been lost. But even the defeated never lose – even when they do – if they preserve that core of self deep within that no one but our Creator can touch.

Yes, as we probably all know, Joan of Arc did have some success. [Her story is one of the best and well-documented of any medieval saint (save Francis of Assisi, perhaps) in historical terms and would be worth anyone’s time to investigate further. Mark Twain devoted 14 years of his life to research his version of her story under another pseudonym and considered it his best work.] By 1428, the Hundred Years War had been going on since 1337 and the social and moral effects were devastating to the country in countless ways as war usually is (mercenary war in particular!). Then along came this young girl from Domremy. Within a few months, she energized the ‘useless’ Dauphin, handed two major defeats to the English and Burgundians and got Charles crowned at Rheims. She accomplished more in this short time than had been done in a century, and with relatively little loss. This seems like success to us, but we have the benefit of seeing from afar and knowing what followed. Yes, by 1453, the ‘cowardly’ Charles would personally lead the conquest of Calais and complete the eviction of the English invaders; and we can look back to what Joan did as the crucial turning point.

But in 1428, that was far in the future. What did it look like to those at the time? Joan’s influence at court was quickly undermined after her initial success and she was looked down on as an uneducated country rube, despite the fact she had just given the country a new start. A whispering campaign motivated by this disdain and jealousy, defeated her insights and probably prolonged the war for many years more. (By the way, I think there are parallels with Sarah Palin, who was despised by insiders for her appearance and demeanor and lynched in a media show trial. And Palin, unlike her persecutors, actually accomplished things worthy of praise and, I feel, has good insights for going forward!) In any further efforts to lead within the court, Joan was seen, and rightly so, as a failure.

Joan tried to keep fighting, with little support, and without the benefit of her supernatural directions, but she was betrayed and tragically captured by the Burgundians. She was the victim of a rigged, political show trial by the English and burned as a ‘heretic’, bringing shame and defeat to her name. Many in France did see her as a hero but her name would not be totally cleared, even by the Church, until the 20th Century.

It may be that right now all the powers that be, the media, the educational system, etc. seem to be arrayed in favor of things that we, the minority, can see are not good. Much of what we have seen has seemed ‘rigged’ against us, and we have been ‘defeated’ like the inner and outer enemies of Joan defeated her. In this time, we should remember we cannot possibly see with an infinite eye. We should leave that for the One who is competent to do so. It can’t be our goal to only ‘win’ arguments or technical victories. It is our job to live lives worthy of our calling, graced as that young woman was so long ago; we must show faith, hope & charity which are the true powers of this world as John Nash, Einstein and others have noted. If we do that, and leave the results for the future, it may be that our personal defeats may be, in fact, turning points for the general good. No good deed or good word is ever for nothing. Americans, don’t forget Joan of Arc!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I agree with you that Bush was a loser. But to compare him to people who did great things and still met with some measure of defeat is silly. Bush and his policies (and the people who have followed him blindly) have created great harm to millions of people. This harm will not pass quickly and his willful ignorance will not be forgotten. There will never be a George Bush statue anywhere. There will be no great book called “The Gathering Storm” about Bush. He fucked up. He continued to fuck up. Just cause he believed in God, especially your God, doesn’t make him a hidden success. Just like Palin didn’t lose in order to win another day. She’s stupid. You guys should put forth better Christians, like Obama. That’s your only hope to contribute to a great society.

Joan of Arc helped create a French aristocracy which bankrupted the peasantry and led to the terror of the French Revolution and the despotism of Napoleon. Oh, and the Catholic priesthood that venerates her as a saint was sexually abusing as many minors back then as it is now.

Sarah Palin = Joan d’Arc? Please, Sarah Palin would have shot Joan of Arc from a helicopter.

Wow. George Bush as Joan of Arc. That’s pretty bold.

You got one thing right though . . . sorta.

Faith, Hope and Charity are the true Powers of the World – and are exactly the reasons why Iraq was such a mistake, and precisely the reasons that the GOP, the conservatives and the so-called Religious Right got crushed over the past two election cycles.

George Bush and his Neo-con brethren didn’t have Faith that God had a plan for Iraq, and instead thought that they knew better than God. They put their own selfish plans ahead of God’s Plan.

Your theology is misguided, your ideology is selfish and your worldview is myopic, and I don’t expect that to change. The Fundamentalist mindset is steadfastly and diametrically opposed to fundamental and objective reality – and frankly, I hope it stays that way, because it will ultimately lead to a complete collapse of political viability and we might finally be able to put some true Faith and Godliness into our society.

So please, keep it up.

God willing the day will come when you will recognize that your celebration of bullet holes in people’s heads (even the heads of evil people) is not something Jesus would ever, ever endorse or approve.

I love Joan of Ark; comparing Sarah Palin to her is ludicrous. Can you tell me one thing Governor Palin has actually accomplished?

@oddjob: I love your point. How on earth is it that “Onward Christian Soldiers” and the militaristic battle mentality evolved from what Jesus taught? Whatever happened to love your neighbors and love your enemies and turn the other cheek?

To put things into perspective, you might be interested to know that Joan of Arc is now (and has been for decades) one of the major emblematic figures for the French xenophobic far-right.

Congratulations and welcome to the big leagues. You have been mocked by andrew sullivan at the Atlantic. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-logic-of-bu.html

As for your misguided comparison of modern conservatism and the defeats of Joan of Arc et al– let me quote Gandhi on why he rejected Christianity. Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.” That is also a perfect description of the Christian conservative wing of the Republican party. You weren’t defeated for your faith. You were defeated for your hypocrisy.

Just for the record I am not a fundamentalist and I do not support militarism as an end in itself. I am making a spiritual point about not giving up when things don’t seem to be going well.

Many normal Catholics also revere St Joan of Arc because she was a saint not a xenophobe.

All true Christians look forward to the day when war will be unnecessary.

I don’ propose a straight equivalency between Palin and St. Joan; that’s ridiculous. My point about Sarah Palin was she has been a ‘doer’ not a ‘talker’ and that many of the same kind of people are opposing her for very similar reasons.

Also, I suspect that for the keepers of this site, profanity and vulgarity are not welcome here. You ought to respect someone else’s place as their own home.

Jesus Christ, mlajoie2….you sure do know how to rake in the moonbats.

@Kevin:

Congratulations and welcome to the big leagues. You have been mocked by andrew sullivan at the Atlantic. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-logic-of-bu.html”

Welcome to FA, Sullivanites!

@jay severin has a small pen1s:

You guys should put forth better Christians, like Obama

Please tell me how Obama is a “better” Christian than Bush. And I’d also like to hear precisely where it is you think Bush….

He fucked up. He continued to fuck up.

….on.

@David Lauri:

@oddjob: I love your point. How on earth is it that “Onward Christian Soldiers” and the militaristic battle mentality evolved from what Jesus taught? Whatever happened to love your neighbors and love your enemies and turn the other cheek?

We did turn the other cheek….that got us 9/11. With Saddam, we- meaning the “United” Nations- not only did that for 12 years, but stuck our heads in the sand, spread both cheeks, and sent a message to the Butcher of Baghdad, “Go ahead and wreck it.”

Using Jesus as a sorry endorsement of pacifism is just as misguided as using Jesus for warmongering:

Matthew 10:34 – “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword”

So tell me, has Bush and his supporters been engaged in warmongering?

Not only was she a loser, but the man she believed in got himself crucified. Out of evil comes good, out of failure comes success -all that matters is which side you choose -but that’s a “choice” liberals loathe and don’t wish to discuss.

One more thing…I wasn’t even talking about George Bush! Bush has been a big disappointment to a lot of people on this side of the argument too. You may notice I didn’t even mention him. I’m no political strategy expert. My point is a general one on how to handle defeat spiritually.

Damn! I must have missed something. I thought it was a damned fine article; with a point and a lot of truth. Keep it up.

You guys sure seem to attract a lot of leftard trolls. I wonder why they feel the need to wander so far off their reservation?

Don’t despair. Handle the defeat with grace and “spiritually” as you say. Every good leader has successes and failures to their name. It’s how you pick yourself up after you get knocked down that matters.

As for Palin, I don’t oppose her because of who she is or because of how the media has portrayed her. To me, she shared many of the negative characteristics of Bush. She doesn’t know much about the issues facing the country right now and practices a politics based more on loyalty than on competence. Yes, she’s done a few things right in Alaska, but I don’t think she’s qualified for the “big-time” of national politics. If she knows more about national issues than it seems, she and McCain campaign sure did a terrible job proving otherwise.

As for Obama, I think you have much less to fear than you may think you do.

Thanks for your post. I had to work out my own sadness with a similar logic. Nothing man makes lasts forever. The greatness of what we were recognized that man was flawed and our founders wrote a Constitution that left room to eventually correct whatever we screwed up along the way. They knew man was not the ultimate authority. Post number two points out what I think just happened to us. I’ll bet practically all of the commenter’s that were attacking you all knowingly use the old Pogo quote,” I have met the enemy and it is us”.

There is no explanation for life except as you said, to live it to the best of our ability. A friend gave me a prayer that keeps me sane, relatively speaking (not to be confused with the John Dewey relativism), that I repeat many times each day.

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

Thanks again mlajoie2.

Your quote from Matthew is hilarious. So now you’re equating yourself with Jesus?

You conveniently leave out the following verses:
35 For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36 your enemies will be the members of your own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

The point here is NOT raising your sword against your fellow man, but putting Jesus and his teachings above all other people, including one’s own family and their teachings. It has nothing to do with going to war, but Jesus knew well that in demanding so much respect, he would create strife. That’s what the sword HE (and he alone) is bringing stands for.

As for other people bearing swords, he has this to say -also found in Matthew, in 26:

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

That’s precisely how a lot of the early Christians lived – they chose rather to be marthyred than to resist.

Matthew 5
39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

9/11 had nothing to do with “turning the other cheek” – quite the contrary. And your talk about Saddam, sorry, is an insult to both the dead US soldiers and the dead Iraqis, since you still have no shame spreading the propaganda drivel that brought that mess upon them.

But then again, since you have no hesitation to ignore all the inconvenient bits in the Bible, it’s not surprising that you ignore all the inconvenient facts as well.

I have to disagree with most of the ignorant comments here.

From my perspective as a chinese money manager in SEAsia and ex-officer in the military, I think your Bush did a passable job as POTUS and a very good one in terms of achieving security for the economic world against the threat of islamic terrorism.

His strategic vision and conviction in the campaign against islamic terrorism will go down in history as calculated and effective. He did a great job given his difficult circumstances, and only immature and unrealistic people with no experience in worldly reality would say otherwise.

The majority of americans have never been out of america except on mentally vacuous tourist style trips, yet they presume to know better than their POTUS and his whole admin and military on how to handle the islamic threat. Come on, give me a break. Sometimes the stupidity of you americans(the liberal ones) is amazing.

I also think that GWB should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the extremely humane way that he conducted the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Last time when you americans fought us, you killed almost 2-3 million civilians by your bombing and almost 900K of our N.Viet soldiers, as against 60K of your KIA. Compared to vietnam, iraq was like tea with the flopsy bunnies. May I remind you that it was your democrats who started and prosecuted that war, and Nixon who ended it. At least in Iraq, you americans have already WON. In vietnam, I’m sorry to say this, but you LOST.

Some words on both Palin and Bush.

I may be arrogant to say that both do not fit the mold of so-called intelligent people. They don’t travel much, don’t speak english super smoothly, aren’t fluent in multiple foreign languages and did not have excellent records in school. But by their records and by their actions they have been effective administrators.

By contrast Obama speaks fluently(but far from greatly), and has a horrible record on what he has done, which is almost nothing so far.

If I had both Palin and Obama applying to work in my company, I would pick Palin without the slightest hestitation. Obama would talk alot but not be able to get the job done, and would probably end up cheating the company also.

@OH72:

Your quote from Matthew is hilarious. So now you’re equating yourself with Jesus?

I see your partisanship supercedes your reading comprehension skills. Here’s what I wrote:

Using Jesus as a sorry endorsement of pacifism is just as misguided as using Jesus for warmongering:

Glad to see Bush isn’t the only one supposedly “quick on the trigger”.

9/11 had nothing to do with “turning the other cheek” – quite the contrary.

Let me clarify the point: 9/11 was the culmination of not facing down the growing threat of Islamic terrorism with the level of attention and seriousness that it deserves.

And your talk about Saddam, sorry, is an insult to both the dead US soldiers and the dead Iraqis, since you still have no shame spreading the propaganda drivel that brought that mess upon them.

Don’t purport to speak on behalf of the dead. Please tell me what the “propaganda drivel” was that “brought this mess” upon them. What about the propaganda drivel from your side, that did its own share of damage in the war effort?

But then again, since you have no hesitation to ignore all the inconvenient bits in the Bible, it’s not surprising that you ignore all the inconvenient facts as well.

I see: A is B and D is G….therefore A is G. Nice.

Please tell me what these “inconvenient facts” may be so that I may recalibrate my knowledge. Thank you in advance for your time in educating me.

to mlajoie2:
I thank you, too, Mark, for the great post. I realize and do believe as well, that spirituality has a lot to do with how people vote, and what we do with the results, I.e., Obama. I’m sure that in Jesus’ day, the people who crucified Him thought they had a victory, too, and He was surely defeated on the cross. Surprise! C’nest pas possible! I’m not saying the Republican Party is perfectly analogous of Christ, except in the actual principles conservatives espouse. It is the principles that some (even in so-called Republican forums) say are dead amongst conservatives, or at best, lacking ability to effect change, and we should conform ourselves to the left’s ideas in order to gain more votes from the other side of the aisle next time around. In other words, compromise. Nay, I say!! These principles are the glue that holds our society together, even if many refuse to believe it; these are the principles that cannot fail, nor be defeated. They are integrity, honesty, loyalty, real optimism, and love for our fellow man. I also believe the reason Sarah Palin has had such a strong reaction, both positive and negative, is because she espouses these very beliefs…to some, she epitomizes real hope for our country. To others, she threatens their leftist agenda to the core.

By the way, is this the troll hay day?!? Golly gee!

Mark,

Let me know if you’d rather not see this comment stream derailed (so soon) and if you disapprove of me steering your post off-topic by baiting for moonbats.

Dear Esteemed Mr. (Aptly named) Wordsmith,

Be my guest to do as you wish. I am Flopping Aces and so are you.

Heading out to another Thanksgiving affair….ta ta!

Wordsmith, I hope I wasn’t contributing to the derailment in some way…I do try to stay “on topic” even if a slightly different perspective on the topic! Thanks! 😉

Nah, you were on topic.

*sign*

Listen to the words of Mamba 1-0 “You guys sure seem to attract a lot of leftard trolls. I wonder why they feel the need to wander so far off their reservation?”

Think it has anything to do with the post Thanksgiving moonbat buffet Wordsmith is laying out?

Hey, as long as you keep them in a cage I don’t care.

Andrew Sullivan didn’t sick ’em on my post. 🙁

And I tried soooo hard to wave raw meat in front of them.

Remember the good ol’ days when all you had to do was type in “Ron Paul” into a post, like saying “Bloody Mary” in front of the mirror three times, and you’d find your post bombarded with indignant Paul Bearers?

To just push forward because you think God is on your side is a problematic philosophy, because it makes no allowance for being wrong and for possibly misinterpreting God’s will. George Bush is a failure not only because he refused to learn from his mistakes, he even refused to admit he had made any. If you cannot consider the possibility you are on the wrong path, then your first mistake will be your terminal one.

Gee, after reading the first 8 comments, I thought for sure that this blog has been hijacked by the Obamatons… lol

Why not? After all Google is doing a good job right now in destroying the good work of conservative sites. It is normal, because Google is in the tank for Obama and donated over a million dollars to him.

Eric Schmidt “owns” Google. Google owns “Blogger” blog-site system, GMail, You Tube and they cooperated with Communist China to censor searches in and out of China. And Google CEO Eric Schmidt advises Obama.

GOOGLE CEO ERIC SCHMIDT TO ADVICE OBAMA

“US President-elect Barack Obama has appointed a 17-member high-level team of advisors including billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt to guide him in channelising the economy, a media report says.”
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Google-CEO-Eric-Schmidt-to-advise-Obama/382689/

Some very strange things are happening in the USA nowadays. We still haven’t heard from MSM about the 3 cases in the Supreme Court regarding Obama’s eligibility to become POTUS. Silence! A general silence! And the conservative blogs are NOW flooded with leftists moonbats.

sigmundringeck,
I really appreciate all of your comments. I agree with your opinion on Bush and Palin.

mlajoie,
Thanks for this great article on Joan of Arc. I share your views.

Wow, who left the troll door open and released all their crazy Aunts & Uncles from the attics?! Interesting how many idiot moonbats can be churned up in the prop-wash of a brief and taken totally out of context note by Andrew Sullivan. No, Mlajoie2 made no mention of Bush and no idea how he got that disinformation rolling. And it is apparent that many of those chiming in didn’t even bother to trouble themselves with even reading the post and understanding the points being maken.

It was also interesting how those who are naive in theology love to wag a finger at people the presume to be Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians and demand they profess, “What would Jesus do?” In reference to the political trials we are enduring now. OH72 is so ignorant he doesn’t even bother with giving Chapter Numbers with his verses.

To the libs, socialists, atheists, and others. just so you don’t look like fools, if you are going to quote the Bible, the standard method to do so for centuries has been to give the name of the book, chapter, and verse. For example; John 3:16.

If we are indeed in the end-times of this epoch of man, as many believe. The messiah and his forces, according to the Judeau-Christian prophecies, will not come as a “turn the other cheek” pacifist. The task before them will be to combat all the forces of evil, corruption, temptation, and others that have been given their time to prey upon mankind. That was part of the problem with the prophecies during Jesus’ time. The Jews didn’t accept him as their messiah then due to their own prophecies of a conquering king. Yet he said himself, that he didn’t come to them, but to bring the gentiles into the fold. Jews and Muslims alike still think of Jesus as being a wise and very holy man.

Then we have “an obama voter”, who felt this was another thread where they could “rub conservatives faces in” the fact that Obama won. Sorry, but that had nothing to do with the topic at hand you idiot. But I had to laugh at your comment:

Don’t despair. Handle the defeat with grace and “spiritually” as you say. Every good leader has successes and failures to their name. It’s how you pick yourself up after you get knocked down that matters.

Please elucidate for us how gracious and spiritual, the Dems were following the 2000, 2004 elections when they were screaming; “Bush stole the election” and “Impeach Bush” even before he took office and since. Your gloating over an election, where crimes of an actual substantive nature were committed on a national scale, rather than vaguely alluded to as in Dade County, FL by the Gore folks and yet Dems were given a total pass by the vast majority of the media.

Angela;
We could give you pages on what Sarah’s done, as we’ve gone over that question here numerous times. Yet I expect you would probably just dismiss them anyway. I don’t feel like wasting too much of my time going back over the facts for kool-aid drinkers who may never even return to this site. Yet since you asked… For one, how about Palin putting the squeeze on the oil companies in Alaska to turn over more of their windfall profits over to the people of her state. Now I counter-suggest you name one actual instance where any other politician has successfully tried to do something similar. I doubt you can, as politicians on both sides of the aisle are in big oil’s lobby pocket. Sure Dems talk a good game about going against big oil, but that’s all it is; just talk, intended to get sheople to vote for them who don’t bother actually examining their own candidates’ records.

sigmundringeck;
Fair observations as usual. Thanks for the opinion from China.

Don L;
Sorry, got lost in your pronouns… You’re referring to Joan of Arc or Palin, & Jesus or who exactly?

Wow, I thought I was in another universe.

How many crazies can you fit into a comment section?

There is nothing more futile than talking to the left. Banging your head against a brick wall would be easier and more gainful.

Typical of the mentally ill left they post opinion as though it were fact, but have nothing to back it up with other than their elitism, hate, and condescension.

Bush protected America, liberated millions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and until the dem economic handiwork came to fruition, had a good economy and better unemployment rates than your hero Bill Clinton.
Keep thinking we lost because of the “religious right”. That way when obama is a one termer you’ll be more shocked.

@michael:

To just push forward because you think God is on your side is a problematic philosophy, because it makes no allowance for being wrong and for possibly misinterpreting God’s will. George Bush is a failure not only because he refused to learn from his mistakes, he even refused to admit he had made any. If you cannot consider the possibility you are on the wrong path, then your first mistake will be your terminal one.

What mistake should Bush acknowledge? The decision to invade Iraq?

And do you believe Bush invaded Iraq because God told him so?

Please…..Bush is a devout man, but liberal secularists in the media have twisted and distorted meaning in purported statements to paint him as a religious nutcase. This is a man who has embraced people of all faiths- Muslims included. It’s BDS scaremongering.

Read:

HH: Now Jon Meacham, do you think the reason that’s been forgotten is that it was little noticed at the time, so unexceptional was the language, or that simply it was obscured by the brouhaha? I think it’s the former, really, that only in recent times has the nerve ending begun to tingle, collectively, when presidents use God talk. I think it was very common up through Ford’s presidency. Your thinking on that?

JM: I agree with you mostly, I think. I think it’s been from…I think Carter did it, I think Reagan did it, George Herbert Walker Bush opened his inaugural address in 1989 with a prayer. Didn’t close it, didn’t just say God Bless America, he said let us bow our heads in prayer. And because he was an Episcopalian, and I sometimes joke, perhaps badly, that George H.W. Bush thinks of being born again as a mulligan on a golf course. You know, he’s not intensely interested in these matters. And Clinton…you know, the best speech Bill Clinton ever gave was that extemporaneous talk in Memphis in 1993, when he talked about what would Martin Luther King say about black America today if he came back, did it in a Church to a group…I think it was a gathering of AME bishops. So I think President Bush the second, I think the 43rd president, is completely within the mainstream of presidential religious expression, and I think people who attack him, and say he’s overly religious, or too much God talk, I think are wrong.

HH: Now you do have the line in here, which I agree with, it’s a very sound observation, that such an understanding, such as Ford had, naturally has hardly been unanimous, and many Americans are reasonably uncomfortable with the idea that our leaders think they are either communing with the Divine, or carrying out God’s mission. Do you think Bush has given off more indications of that? Or is that simply being layered on to him by political opponents?

JM: I think the latter. I really do. I have asked people who have been in conversations where he might have said something like ‘I feel God put me here’, or ‘I feel ordained for this’, and no one’s ever said they’ve heard him say it. So I think there’s a kind of urban legend about Bush feeling…at least being explicit about being God’s agent. Now he did say to Bob Woodward that he would not appeal to his own father in terms of strength, but to a higher Father. I actually think that’s more about paging Dr. Phil about a very odd family dynamic within the Bush clan, than it is about George Bush wandering the Rose Garden, thinking God is telling them what to do. That’s my personal view.

HH: Whenever anyone tells President Bush that they’re praying for him, he always says thank you, I appreciate that. He refers to it a lot. I think he’s sincere when he says that.

JM: I’m not saying he’s not sincere. I’m saying that his opponents who think that he is some kind of religious nut, who’s on a holy mission, are wrong. I think President Bush is completely serious about his faith. I have no reason to doubt that whatever. And in fact, one of the most moving notes I ever got was I had asked President Bush 41 for an interview right after September 11th, about the coming crisis, and the crisis we were in. And he wrote me a very kind note saying that he wouldn’t do it. And the last line was please say a prayer for our beloved son, the President. And it was…I got it maybe on the Tuesday or Wednesday after the attacks, and it just grabbed my guts in a way, because you realized at once that these are human beings who are fathers and sons, who are believers, who do have moments of doubt and moments of great faith, and they have the destinies of nations in their hands. And I think that in the American experience, we have done very well at striking a balance between our sense that we are on a journey, in an Augustinian sense, a national journey, in Jefferson’s phrase, as Israel of old, heading toward something, you know, whereas Ford once said, and Reagan used to always say, we never become, we’re always in the act of becoming. Well, that’s a theological idea, and I think it’s effused the presidency from the very beginning.

Keep in mind that a translation of a translation of a translation are being used in relaying Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and then-foreign minister Nabil Shaath’s statements, laced with the cultural divide.

I really see no substantiated evidence that Bush thinks he’s on a mission from God; not in the sense that paranoid BDS-injected secularists want to believe. Someone please cite me an actual speech of his where he waxes biblical, ala Moses.

It really does take a leap of faith for the liberal mind to believe such media myth-making….kind of like believing that Elvis is alive somewhere at a gas station in Tijuana.

Found this sitting in my files:

Bush God comments ‘not literal’

A Palestinian official who said the US president had claimed God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan says he did not take George Bush’s words literally.

Nabil Shaath said he and other world leaders at a Jordan summit two years ago did not believe Mr Bush thought God had given him a personal message
.

Mr Bush’s spokesman said the original allegation, which will appear in a BBC documentary next week, was absurd.

Scott McClellan said the comments had never been made.

The comments were attributed to Mr Bush by Mr Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, in the upcoming TV series Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs.

Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was “driven with a mission from God”.

“God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq… And I did.

“And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I’m gonna do it.”

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: “I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.”

‘Strong faith’

But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president – who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East.

“President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny,” he said.

“We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted.”

The TV series charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from former US President Bill Clinton’s peace talks in 1999-2000 to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year.

It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers.

There is an enormous difference between saying “God told me to” and believing that God guides your decisions.

As a religious Christian, he does pray to God to help him with his decisions, and believes that God provides him with guidance. That’s what Christians do. So what?

BDS sufferers would prefer to believe the caricature of the man, however.

Then there were the Flat-Earthers, slaveowners, Whig Party members, and so forth and so on. They lost and disappeared and were never heard from again. They lost permanently because their views were out of touch with reality. Kind of like today’s Christian fundamentalists and other right-wing extremists, I’d say.

See http://www.bluecorncomics.com/enemy.htm for more on these long-term losers.

But even the defeated never lose – even when they do …

~~~

It can’t be our goal to only ‘win’ arguments or technical victories. It is our job to live lives worthy of our calling, graced as that young woman was so long ago; we must show faith, hope & charity which are the true powers of this world as John Nash, Einstein and others have noted. If we do that, and leave the results for the future, it may be that our personal defeats may be, in fact, turning points for the general good.

Okay Mark… you’ve somewhat lost me here. There are defeats and losses… and there should be. For without errors and loss, there is no progress… no advancement. Sometimes kids need to get burned, touching that hot stove so they equate “no… *hot*” to reality, and not just discipline. Sports teams need to lose in order to strive for higher achievement in their next endeavor.

So I’m still not sure what the point of Mark’s post is. That’s okay. Judging by the tangents taken by the comments here… some seeing it relating to Bush, Palin, or Obama adoration – others to religion and whether or not any religion’s God involves themselves in the politics of mankind… I’d say I’m not alone. But if I had something to say, RockyB’s just about done it for me.

Other than that, I swore to Wordsmith off forum that I wouldn’t touch this post with a 10 ft pole… oops….

At least not until somebody officially veered out of Mark’s original post’s point far enough to make it relevant to Elvis….

From my perspective as a chinese money manager in SEAsia and ex-officer in the military, I think your Bush did a passable job as POTUS and a very good one in terms of achieving security for the economic world against the threat of islamic terrorism.

He did a passable job…

The rise of far left governments in our hemisphere, resurgence of Russia and the absolute destruction of our economy. Huge strategic threats grew during the time of George Bush, the “American Century” lasted all of 7 years. All capped off with payouts to the bankers to save them with our tax dollars. Yeah, gee thanks Bush.

Huge strategic threats grew during the time of George Bush, the “American Century” lasted all of 7 years.

Rather disingenuous when you consider the “huge strategic threats” that grew in the past two decades, and culminated in bombings of military barracks, mutilation of US soldiers in Somalia, two bombings of the WTC, a US warship.

BTW, Russia’s resurgence can be traced to their quest to control the oil in the region. This would have happened if Mickey Mouse were POTUS.

And yep… I’m with you on disgust for the bailouts. However that was a problem in the making prior to Bush’s tenure. The snowball was pushed off the cliff over 10 years before. Bush was POTUS when it turned into the avalance. See my comment to you on another thread. And you may also want to read my “Perfect Storm of Housing and Lending” post.

Rather disingenuous when you consider the “huge strategic threats” that grew in the past two decades, and culminated in bombings of military barracks, mutilation of US soldiers in Somalia, two bombings of the WTC, a US warship.

Sorry as bad as AQ is, it was not a huge strategic threat. Russia with a nuclear arsenal and army is a huge strategic threat to our security. And as to oil, why don’t you get a chart out and show us how oil has traded in the past 8 years, feeding the beast in Russia.

I’m with you on disgust for the bailouts. However that was a problem in the making prior to Bush’s tenure. The snowball was pushed off the cliff over 10 years before. Bush was POTUS when it turned into the avalance.

At what time does a president become responsible? How much time are you going to give to Obama? Bush has been in office near 8 years… this is not his first year, or first term. He has been in the Presidency for long enough to be responsible. He inherited a huge budget surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history. During his presidency the national debt more than doubled. So in this area, I agree with you, that Mickey Mouse and George Bush can be interchangeable as POTUS.

I’ll be sure to tell the families of those murdered by the jihad movement worldwide that they aren’t a “strategic threat”, blast….. And of course, we should just stand back and let them re-absorb Afghanistan, and allow them to take any other Arab lands for their Caliphate.

sigh…. It’s a good thing you aren’t in the position to handle US security, because you have one strange way of prioritizing “threats”.

At what time does a POTUS become responsible? At what point do you understand the way the US government is structured to understand what role Congress, legislation and regulations play in our economy and domestic policies?

POTUS have max 8 years. The first and last are often a wash for gearing up and ramping down. They only have so much power. Presidents do not appropriate money. They cannot spend what Congress doesn’t give them. All a POTUS can do is pass or veto Congressional bills and the budget.

I suggest you place too much blame on a position that doesn’t have the authority to take the brunt of it, and give the career Congress members a free pass.

And again with the Clinton surplus. Really blast, it’s just amazing how tunnel visioned you are. Especially that you believe that budget surplus was real and not just a temporary robbery from Social Security in the form of a paper loan…. i.e. the 2nd set of accounting books that the Clinton’ites don’t like to talk about. This is common practice in govt, mind you. But no one touts a false accomplishment like Teflon Bill.

Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don’t count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.

The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.

In addition, neither of these figures counts the financial deterioration in Social Security or Medicare. Including these retirement programs in the bottom line, as proposed by a board that oversees accounting methods used by the federal government, would show the government running annual deficits of trillions of dollars.

The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.

As for the increased spending? We didn’t have a 911 shut down Wall Street for a week and tank the economy for a couple of years in the 90s, did we? Clinton and the GOP Congress spent their time cutting the defense and intel budget in the 90s. Bush raised the defense budget 48% after 911. money well spent, IMHO.

Then, of course, the multiple natural disasters that occurred during this admin… both on our soil and in other nations… that the Clinton admin didn’t have as an expense.

You are comparing apples to oranges. And your partisanship is masking your ability to assess facts accurately.

INRE Russia, just what do you think Georgia was all about? That they wanted to annex a tad more to the motherland again?

I’ll be sure to tell the families of those murdered by the jihad movement worldwide that they aren’t a “strategic threat”,

Enough with the self serving vitriol. I did not say they were not a threat, but they are NOT a huge strategic threat.

At what time does a POTUS become responsible? At what point do you understand the way the US government is structured to understand what role Congress, legislation and regulations play in our economy and domestic policies?

I asked that question since you said, “However that was a problem in the making prior to Bush’s tenure. The snowball was pushed off the cliff over 10 years before. Bush was POTUS when it turned into the avalance.” I understand how our government is structured, I was asking you if you understood. Obviously 8 years is not enough for you to attach responsibility to Bush and his failure. Look at his past State of the Union addresses, when did he start warning us of the problem of the avalanche?

@blast:

The rise of far left governments in our hemisphere, resurgence of Russia and the absolute destruction of our economy. Huge strategic threats grew during the time of George Bush, the “American Century” lasted all of 7 years.

This is like blaming Carter for Elvis’ death, because it happened under his watch.

Hmm…you don’t think Chavez would be Chavez, if not for George Bush? That Russia would not be Russia if it were Al Gore or John Kerry as PotUS? That we should give Castro “a break”?

Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe Velez is probably our staunchest ally in Latin America.

Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva may be to the left, but he moved closer to U.S. President George W. Bush over ethanol output and criticized Chavez at an anti-American energy summit, a year ago.

How is George Bush responsible for any rise in anti-Americanism in the world, other than being attributable to the mischaracterization and misbelief (yes, a pseudo-bushism) of what he’s done negatively to the world? Anti-Americanism has always been alive and well regardless of the politician in office.

I think the belief that George Bush harmed our alliances with other governments of the world is mostly just that: a belief. Tony Blair (although note, conservatives thumped the ruling Labor Party throughout Britain, including turning out London’s anti-American mayor, “Red Ken” Livingstone) and John Howard may be out (just as 2008 is as much as referendum on the perceived failures of the Bush years), but Britain and Australia remain staunch allies. Then there’s the openly pro-Bush elected Sarkozy, as well as Germany’s Merkel and the return of Berlusconi (Rome also elected its first conservative mayor in 50 years), Canada’s Harper, the leaders in Ukraine, Denmark , Greece …I’d say Mexico’s Felipe Calderón is more favorable than Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as far as U.S. interests are concerned.

You know what has harmed cooperation with our allies? National security leaks by the likes of the NYTimes. Foreign governments aren’t sure that we can control our media and keep secrets.

This might be of interest, from the latest Human Security Report:

Fatalities from terrorism have declined by some 40 percent, while the loose-knit terror network associated with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda has suffered a dramatic collapse in popular support throughout the Muslim world.

The Brief also describes and analyses the extraordinary, but largely unnoticed, positive change in sub-Saharan Africa’s security landscape. The number of conflicts being waged in the region more than halved between 1999 and 2006; the combat toll dropped by 98 percent.

Finally, the Brief updates the findings of the 2005 Human Security Report, and demonstrates that the decline in the total number of armed conflicts and combat deaths around the world has continued. The number of military coups has also continued decline, as have the number of campaigns of deadly violence waged against civilians.

The trend for decades now, is that the world is becoming a more peaceful place to live….even during the last 8 years, and possibly ultimately because of it. Yes, we have future, rising threats; but those threats would be there to deal with, regardless of George W. Bush. He dealt with two places related to terrorism and wmd threat. Now it’s up to future leaders to continue the mop up and not drop the ball.

@blast:

Obviously 8 years is not enough for you to attach responsibility to Bush and his failure. Look at his past State of the Union addresses, when did he start warning us of the problem of the avalanche?

The bush adminstration in 4/2001 raised red flags, the 2002 budget requests declares Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
“Potential problem.. and can cause strong repercussions in the financial markets”

In 2003 the White House upgraded the warning to a systemic risk that could spread beyond the housing sector.
John Snow Treasury Secretary called for Regulations & Supervision of GSE’s.
Barney Frank (D-MA) denied there was any problem ” Fannie Mac & Freddie Mare are not in Crisis”
Encouraging the government to do more to get low income families into homes, Ultimately blocking the regulation.

Allan Greenspan , 2/17/2005 spoke about the dangers of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac “enabling these institutions to
increase in size -and they will once the crisis in their judgement passes-we are placing the total financial system of
the future at a substantial risk

Charles Schumer (D-NY) 4/6/2005 …”I think Fannie & Freddie have done an incredibly good job, and are an intristic
part of making america the best housed people in the world….if you look over the last 20 or whatever yrs. Theyve
done a very, very good job.

McCain (R-AZ) 5/25/2006 For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac…
and there sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market…the GSE’s need to be reformed without delay.”
That bill ( FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT) made it out of the senate banking committee with a party line vote all the democrats voted against it.
Senator Obama did not weigh in on the bill

He’s no Elvis, but he’s the king of blog ‘n roll:

Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

White House News

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market’s] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

•”Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

•”[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

•”Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Wordsmith, since you are good at siting examples, how about my question in my last comment, “Look at his past State of the Union addresses, when did he start warning us of the problem of the avalanche?”

OMG! I just got pwned! Epic fail!

I did notice your mention of SotU, but thought a better focus would be on

when did he start warning us of the problem of the avalanche?

blast: Enough with the self serving vitriol. I did not say they were not a threat, but they are NOT a huge strategic threat.

I stand corrected. I shall be sure to inform the families of those that have died in all countries at the hands of the global jihad movement that you said they were not a *huge* strategic threat. Better? I guess the 2388 Americans that died in Pearl Harbor… less than the 911 count… didn’t constitute a *huge* strategic threat either.

Still miss Congressional responsibility in the economic crisis, eh? When did Congress warn us, along with Bush? Just a few years into his term. It fell on the deaf ears of the majority of Congress, and the media. But it only counts in the SOTU? Okaaaaaay…..

Oh come on. Any fool can see that under GWB, threats to US national security were handled in a calculated, strategic and long-term manner, that will increase security for your america.

GWB was at his best at dealing with the islamic threat, he took unpopular but strategically correct decisions, that would necessitate going to war etc, doing unpopular things, and any person with basic intelligence can see he did them without regard to his popularity, or how the media would view him, because he knew they were the right things to do. He was fine with most of america hating and blaming him for the war and loss of life, as long as he knew from his conscience it was the right thing to do. You have to give him credit for it.

Whether he thought GOD was telling him to do it or not is irrelevant. It was the right path to go, and america is much safer and stronger for it.

People who denigrate Bush for saying that GOD is talking to him, are actually quite ignorant and don’t understand how religious people think. Religious people think and analyse, then they make their decision, but they attribute it to GOD guiding them. This doesn’t make the decision any more wrong than, let’s say Obama who is channeling KARL MARX or SAUL ALINSKY when he makes decisions.

At least Bush is channeling GOD(or what he thinks is GOD).

As an atheist, I am very comfortable with religious people like GWB and Palin, because they will make the right decisions, even if they attribute those decisions to god’s guidance.

Bush has kept america safe since 911. Only a fool would not give him credit for that.
—————————————————————————–

On your economy, I think GWB could have done a bit better. He did get it going after the disastrous Clinton bubble with his tax cuts, but perhaps he could have done a bit more to get spending under control and fight the dems while they were pushing Fannie and Freddie into the massive bust that caused your economic crash. His attempts at regulating Fannie and Freddie met with failure at the roadblock of a dem controlled congress, but on hindsight, he should have forseen the danger and tried harder to stop the coming disaster, that’s what a leader does.

He also should have gotten some better people to handle the SEC to stop unrestricted shorting on the NYSE which would have moderated the collapse.

He should have done something about the out-of-control spending and huge debt america owes to other countries which is becoming more and more of a problem.

Whatever the criticisms, I’m quite sure that GWB will go down in history as one of your better presidents and decent wartime leader, while Obama will surely go down in history as one of the most naive, foolish and poorly performing. With Obama, the only good thing is that america is able to elect a black guy as POTUS and thus shows it is not a racist country. After that, it’s all downwards, as he will soon prove that america made the worst choice it has ever made since Carter.

Wordsmith, seriously, if the Republicans could get both houses to vote on Terri Schiavo Bill and the President returned from vacation in Texas to sign the bill then why not this subject? If the Republicans and Bush were that interested in fixing the GSE’s (which is/was only part of the problem), why did not more action take place. What we did get over the past from Bush was the fundamentals of our economy are strong, every year in his State of the Union. Bush had a duty to tell us the truth EVERY STATE OF THE UNION and if the GSE’s formed such a threat to our economy he needed to make it plain to see.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

A case of a bit too little too late.

Both parties are up to their ankles in this, but the government was run by the Republican Party for the past 8 years.

MataHarley,

I stand corrected. I shall be sure to inform the families of those that have died in all countries at the hands of the global jihad movement that you said they were not a *huge* strategic threat. Better? I guess the 2388 Americans that died in Pearl Harbor… less than the 911 count… didn’t constitute a *huge* strategic threat either.

Of course the Japanese were a huge strategic threat, conflating 9/11 with the attack on Pearl Harbor is mind boggling. Japan attacked us with a capital force of Naval aircraft and military forces. Japan was a sovereign country with industry to produce the weapons of war that could be used to destroy our ability to defend ourselves. Strategic.

The 9/11 attack used aircraft manufactured my the US and operated by the US. They used box cutters and playdough bombs. Tactical.

You have made better arguments then this one, but don’t try to paint me as minimizing any loss of life or property in the US. I was deeply affected by 9/11 and supported the President until evidence of his poor decision making was plain to see. Going after and destroying AQ and killing Bin Laden should have been the paramount objective of his government.

McCain and others were trying to reform GSEs in 2005, with the support of Bush. It got nowhere. Which brings me to blast’s other statement:

Wordsmith, seriously, if the Republicans could get both houses to vote on Terri Schiavo Bill and the President returned from vacation in Texas to sign the bill then why not this subject?

Single word answer… money. No donations, payola and lobby money to Congress from the Schiavo issue. Big bucks from Fannie/Freddie and investment banking.

sigmundringeck,

Whatever the criticisms, I’m quite sure that GWB will go down in history as one of your better presidents and decent wartime leader, while Obama will surely go down in history as one of the most naive, foolish and poorly performing.

It is ironic with 8 years of actual evidence of failure of the Bush administration you are ready to rewrite history about him, but without ever taking office you are already declaring how Obama will be remembered. I might have doubts about Obama, but I am willing to judge him on his actions as our President before I begin to quantify his presidency.

Rob all you and blast do is show how deluded and out of touch with reality you are. Even when proven wrong you act as though nothing was said. The only ones who have been re-writing history and are doomed to disappear are those like you. Keep gloating. When you lose it will make our victory that much sweeter.