Michigan School Sued for Ignoring Sexual Assault »« Religion Kills Another Child

Rubin to Bush’s Rescue

Jennifer Rubin, the tiresome hack and Republican Party shill who writes for the Washington Post, does her best to revive the legacy of George W. Bush. And by doing her best, I mean making shit up and rewriting history to the point of being utterly delusional.

Aside from the “memories fade” point, many of his supposed failures are mild compared to the current president (e.g. spending, debt).

*shaking head* Seriously? He launched two major wars while simultaneously cutting taxes, which is as fiscally irresponsible as it is possible to be. Trillions of new and mostly unjustified spending coupled with tax cuts that reduced revenue by trillions more turned the first surplus we’d had in decades into $5 trillion in new debt. The bulk of the deficit today is still a result of those bad decisions. Making a case for Bush by pointing to his record on spending and debt is like trying to argue that the Washington Generals were the greatest basketball team ever by pointing to their record against the Globetrotters.

Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11.

Well that’s a convenient starting point. Hey, OJ Simpson didn’t kill anyone after he killed Nicole, amirite?

People do remember the big stuff — rallying the country after the Twin Towers attack, 7 1/2 years of job growth and prosperity, millions of people saved from AIDS in Africa, a good faith try for immigration reform, education reform and a clear moral compass.

The president that established a torture regime that violated multiple federal laws and international laws had a clear moral compass? I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means.

He is responsible for one of the most popular and fiscally sober entitlement plans, Medicare Part D.

Umm. How exactly was that program “fiscally sober”? It was an entirely unfunded mandate that costs tens of billions of dollars a year.

Seriously, this is exactly the kind of mendacity that Orwell was so fond of pointing out, using language to obscure rather than communicate. If you think Bush was fiscally responsible and morally upright, you couldn’t see reality from Sarah Palin’s porch.

Comments

  1. jamessweet says

    Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11.

    That’s just stunning. They’ve each had one successful terrorist attack on US soil during their terms. One killed 3 people, the other killed nearly 3000. And we’re saying “Advantage: Bush”? Stunning. Jaw-dropping.

    you couldn’t see reality from Sarah Palin’s porch.

    In fairness, I don’t think anybody can see reality from Sarah Palin’s porch….

  2. Trebuchet says

    ..7 1/2 years of job growth and prosperity…

    Conveniently omitting the catastrophic last 1/2 year, brought on by 7-1/2 years of bad fiscal policy.

  3. DaveL says

    a clear moral compass

    Yes, under Bush America finally took a brave stand and let it be known it was OK to crush an innocent child’s testicles to get information out of his parents.

  4. Randomfactor says

    Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11.

    Guess she means from “outside.” Which excludes the anthrax letters, but also the Boston bombings…

  5. gwangung says

    Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11.

    If you ignore the anthrax attacks, the beltway sniper, the…..

  6. says

    I’m not aware of any succesful terrorist attack by foreign agents in “the [US] homeland” (a turn of phrase that I personally find reeks of the worst sort of nationalism) during Obama’s term(s) as President.

    Then again, I personally wouldn’t count terrorist bombings by US citizens in the US as “attacks against the homeland” – instead, I consider them as “crimes” – where perhaps Rubin is.

    But maybe I just missed the news about a bombing/shooting/violent action by a foreign national in the US undertaken for political reasons over the last 4-5 years.

  7. doublereed says

    7 1/2 years of job growth and prosperity

    Err… wasn’t the growth under Bush pretty mild? I mean, sure wealth inequality rose a lot, but I assume that’s not what she meant.

    And of course that massive financial crisis thing happened under Bush, but, you know, whatevs.

  8. says

    “How exactly was that program ‘fiscally sober’?”

    Look, tax cuts raise revenue. That’s just common sense. From this, it follows that not paying for things pays for things.

  9. Abby Normal says

    Successful terrorist attacks in US after 9/11 and before Obama took office:

    2001 Anthax attacks
    2002 Mailbox pipebomber
    2002 Beltway sniper attacks
    2003 Ohio sniper attacks
    2006 Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack
    2006 Jewish Federation building shooting
    2007 Bombing of the Mexican Consulate in NYC
    2008 ELF burns down 4 multimillion-dollar show homes
    2008 Time Square Recruiting Center bombed
    2008 San Diego State Courthouse bombed
    2008 Knoxville Unuitarian Universalist church shooting
    2008 Cyber-attack on power grids, water, and sewage systems

  10. says

    @ Trebuchet,
    I’ve seriously had a number of Republicans, including some halfway reasonable ones, claim that the recession at the end of Baby Bush’s term was due to the Democratic majority that was elected in ’06.
    When I ask how that led to the recession, they sputter and at best offer the excuse that houses were sold to people who couldn’t afford them.
    I then point out Bush’s multiple statements, dating back to LONG before 2006 that it was his policy to have as many Americans as possible own their homes. Also, it was banks that made the bad loans and passed them off to investors creating the perfect shitstorm.
    At that point they usually call me a liberal. (Translation: “I’ve run out of talking points.”)

  11. says

    “Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11.”

    Not only bullshit, but Rubin writes this as if 9/11 was a trivial matter. “Other than detonating a couple of pressure-cooker bombs and maiming hundreds, the two guys in Boston from Chechnya are really pleasant fellows.”

    (I’m not saying Bush is uniquely responsible for 9/11 or the other stuff, just pointing out how moronic this sentence is.)

  12. alanb says

    No, Ed, it is you who doesn’t understand what a moral compass is. Clearly what it means is not getting a blow job in the Oval Office. All the rest of the stuff you mention is trivial in comparison to that.

  13. D. C. Sessions says

    30 years ago, Krauthammer was a stand up guy. Now he’s a piece of shit.

    That’s kind of a low blow. Worse, it’s not even remotely funny.

  14. mobius says

    Bush certainly had a clear moral compass. He just looked which way the arrow was pointing, and then went South.

  15. addiepray says

    Our American Cousin had a remarkably successful theatrical run with few to no accompanying assassinations after April 15 1865.

  16. mishcakes says

    sigh… if only Gore had been rightfully elected, how different this world would have been.

  17. sugarfrosted says

    @15 other than 10 I agree with that list.

    “10. “My Pet Goat.” He kept reading a picture book to grade-schoolers for seven minutes after his top aides told him that the World Trade Centers had been attacked in 9/11. Then Air Force One flew away from Washington, D.C., vanishing for hours after the attack.”

    First part is debatable, but the second part ” Then Air Force One flew away from Washington, D.C., vanishing for hours after the attack.” is stupid. The idea that after an attack they wouldn’t evacuate the president seems bizarre to me.

  18. Infophile says

    I suspect Rubin is trusting her readers to blame 9/11 on Clinton, not Bush. Yes, it’s complete bullshit, but it’s the line that’s been sold in the right-wing media ever since 9/11 happened that Clinton didn’t do enough to stop Bin Laden, and there was nothing Bush could have done to stop him. Whatever happens, it’s never a Republican President’s fault; if it’s early, blame the previous guy, if it’s late, blame the next guy, if it’s neither, blame the nearest concentration of Democrats.

  19. iangould says

    “I then point out Bush’s multiple statements, dating back to LONG before 2006 that it was his policy to have as many Americans as possible own their homes. ”

    Don’t forget the bit about how Democrats were opposed to expanded home ownership because they wanted to keep Americans dependent on welfare.

  20. coffeehound says

    @ 21, o.k., so what the article indicated to me was that he may have been smarter than Keith Hennessey, but he did nothing to prove his point. Despite personal anecdotes (and the hurrahs of a bunch of little sycophants that followed ), he failed to show how this mediocre student wound up at Harvard and Yale in the first place. He takes his presence there as evidence of intelligence itself and completely ignores his actual academic history, which while not terrible, certainly isn’t at all distinguishing in any way. The man dreads reading and has the intellectual curiosity of a coat rack and now is canonized as not just great, but smart? Jeez

Leave a Reply