The one thing Cheney couldn't convince Bush to do. . .

[Guest EXPAT]

It will be interesting to see if history views George W Bush as a puppet of Dick Cheney. But of all the things that Cheney convinced Bush to do, there was one thing that he couldn't convince Bush to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/magazine/the-final-insult-in-the-bush-cheney-marriage.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=MG_TFI_20131014&_r=0&pagewanted=all

[AdamSmith]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting this.

[RA1]

I agree with much of the article. At least publically, it seemed obvious that Bush was diverting from Cheney, especially during the second term.

BO started by trying to have some experienced cabinet members and others as advisors but now seems intent on ignoring them and getting yes men entirely. Not that he followed the advice given in the first term.

I am very sorry to say that as time goes on, more and more of us will realize how really poor a leader, politician and President BO really was/is.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

I am very sorry to say that as time goes on, more and more of us will realize how really poor a leader, politician and President BO really was/is.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no.

If you told me that the 2008 recession had continued unabated and that the DJIA was still at 8000, I might agree with you. But it didn't and it's not.

If you told me that unemployment was still at 10%, I might agree with you. But it isn't.

If you told me that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still going full bore, I might agree with you. But they're not.

If you told me that DADT and DOMA were still on the books, I might agree with you. But they're not.

If you told me that GM was out of business, I might agree with you. But it isn't.

If you told me we hadn't signed a new START treaty with Russia, I might agree with you. But we did.

If you told me we still had an Axis of Evil featuring Iran, I might agree with you. But we don't.

If you told me we're still the only developed country that doesn't consider universal health care a basic right, I might agree with you. But we're not.

If you told me his Democratic party was eating itself alive, as the Republicans seem to enjoy doing, I might agree with you. But it isn't.

If you told me he was leading a charge for us to become a less compassionate society, I might agree with you. But he's not.

If you told me we were still waterboarding alleged terrorists, I might agree with you. But we're not.

Even his failure to close Guantanamo, which still rankles me, isn't quite the abrogation of a promise I had assumed it was. According to this article today, Obama's administration has quietly and successfully prosecuted 125 foreign terrorists in U. S. federal courts, on U. S. soil, since 2009. This has been done even while many Republicans have been swearing up and down that it was impossible, and even while not a single military court prosecution of a Guantanamo detainee has even been completed, let alone resulted in a conviction. If he wasn't able to close it with the stroke of a pen, he's certainly been building a case that there's not much value in keeping it open.

Don't get me wrong. I've got some beefs. For example, I think he's on the wrong side of the privacy issue. But I also think he'll listen to the hue and cry and make some adjustments before he's out of office.

Still, I have no doubt that many will continue to insist, until the end of time, that the Obama presidency has not a single redeeming feature. But they'll have to ignore a lot of publicly available information to maintain their position.

[RA1]

Some of what you say is open to interpretation and some of it will have to be evaluated in years to come.

As you know, I have little good to say about Republicans; it is just I have more or less the same to say about Democrats. BO is their chief exponent. I would say leader but he isn't leading.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

As you know, I have little good to say about Republicans; it is just I have more or less the same to say about Democrats. BO is their chief exponent. I would say leader but he isn't leading.

I often feel the same way. As I often feel that Pelosi isn't leading and that Reid isn't leading. And yet the Democrats are holding together and, for the last few weeks anyway, looking somewhat less disheveled than the Republicans.

If he's doing that without leading, then perhaps overt leadership is overrated.