Les Jones

With Bushco in office, the US scores at least 5 of 7. Fortunately, the centuries of slavery and colonization have provided us a big buffer of accumulated wealth, credit, and arms with which to bend markets to our advantage.

Aw, c'mon. Do I have to guess the five or are you gonna tell me?

Let's see, what's the standard line on Bush. Oh, right. He's part of the American Taliban. So that's one.

- Domination by a restrictive religion.

Patriot Act. That's two.

- Restrictions on the free flow of information.

So what do you think are the other three?

A low valuation of education.

We've certainly got a high valuation on passing fucking standardized tests. But not so much on the edjumacation.

This isn't Bush's fault so much as a general malaise throughout the country that he just is reflecting. We have a citizenry that either actively wants to kill public education by setting it up to fail in order to lower their taxes, or has decided that we should devote the entire educational process to training kids to jump through one low hoop after another, with the thought that that will be the key to a bright future.

I wish Bush wasn't doing the standardized testing thing for one reason: I wish the Federal government wasn't in the K-12 education business to begin with. K-12 education is the ultimate local issue. The Feds shouldn't have anything to do with it.

I agree the feds should not have anything to do with the k-12.

i also have no problem with teaching towards the test. If the tests are good, then the teaching will be good. To increase value of education when teaching toward the tests you only have to fix one thing, the tests.

whereas in other modesl you have to fix the teachers and the tests.

The most obvious one is "Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure," the most glaring example being 9/11.

His cabinet is a clan. Rumsfeld and Cheney have either been rewarding or receiving military contracts for their entire careers, and their assistants all derive from Halliburton or Carlyle pedigree.

#5 is low prestige assigned to work. See W's long history of being a slacker and a failure.

But I don't think Bush was responsible for 9/11. Mohammad Atta signed up for flying lessons during the Clinton/Gore administration. There's no reason to think 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore had been elected.

Somebody's got an axe to grind here, sounds like.

Obviously the hijackers are responsible for 9/11.

There are plenty of reasons to think it could have been prevented, however. Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? Even that whitewashed document makes it clear there were plenty of warning signs. Revelations since that report was published further underscore that point.

Richard Clarke was held over from the Clinton administration because he had an al Qaeda attack plan ready to launch in December 2000. Clinton chose to hand it over to the new administration, but they dragged their feet. They gave Clarke the go-ahead on September 4. Gore would not have blown that opportunity.

That's all beside the point, however. It is Bush's refusal to admit to any mistakes in his interview with Tim Russert and in one of the debates last year that prove he is unwilling to accept responsibility for failure, and his stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation shows it is not just a personal moral failing, but an institutional weakness as well. He is so scared of responsibility that he would only testify before the 9/11 Commission with Dick Cheney there to hold his hand and all audio and video recording devices disabled.

Even now, as Bushco is lamenting the lack of intelligence on Iran's nuclear activities, has anyone been held responsible for leaking the fact that we had broken Iran's encryption? Avoidance of responsibility is a hallmark of the Bush administration and W's whole life.

Gore would not have blown that opportunity.

Come on. Ok, we get that you hate Bush, but I mean...come on.

Thibodeaux, is there any substance to your protestation?

Everything in that paragraph is straight out of the 9/11 Commission report. Gore would not have procrastinated nor dismissed the many warnings of an al Qaeda attack because he was part of the Clinton administration, knew what sort of threat al Qaeda represented, knew what efforts had been taken against them and what efforts were planned.
He wouldn't have needed months to be convinced of the urgency, nor months to be familiarized with the strategic options at his disposal.

There is nothing farfetched about what I am saying, but if you actually have a coherent objection, I'd be happy to hear it.

I object to your assertion that you know what Gore would have or would not have done had he won office.

I object to your assertion that you know what Gore would have or would not have done had he won office

Wow. You're a real man. I'm hot for you now.

Well, excuse me. I thought you were trying to discuss things seriously. I see instead you are just here to rant at Les about how awful Bush is.

I'll butt out. Please continue.

Inability to accept responsibility is a trait Bush shares with far too many of his supporters. Run away, Thibodeaux, before anyone notices it is actually you who is incapable of serious discussion. Run away while there is still a chance of passing off your failure as triumph.

hellbent: if you're willing to blame Bush for not taking out Al Qaeda in eight months, are you willing to blame Clinton/Gore for not taking them out in eight years?

When the evasions and distractions wear thin, blaming Clinton is certainly a favorite means of avoiding responsibility. In this case, however, it wouldn't make much sense, given that Clinton handed Bush a fully formed al Qaeda attack plan and made considerable efforts to impress upon him the importance and immediacy of the threat. Clinton's success in stopping a New Year's Eve 2000 attack also proves that at least in the final years of his tenure, he took terrorism very seriously.

No, I'd say blaming Clinton for failing to prevent 9/11 would do little more than prove that Bush and his supporters will go to any length, however irrational, to avoid admitting failure.