Philips noted that both father and son Bush have seen their approval ratings fall by 50 points. And both have allowed either MidEast or economic problems to make a wreckage of their administrations.

By issues, George W. Bush, started out with a misguided vision that he was alone somehow wise enough to reshape the entire MidEast, but instead has created serious enough of instability in the region that Iran is now far stronger than ever in the region, and may eventually lead the area into the start of WWIII in future years with a future nuclear weapons showdown, and this nuclear weapns and increased military clout of Iran also further threatens the national security of Israel in the shorter run.

The Bush Doctrine failed goal of MidEast democracy has also given Islamic religious extremists new clout in Iran, the terrorist organization, Hamas, a victory in the Palestinian Authority region, and removed many moderates in Iraq in favor of increased clout by the Badr Brigade militia, Shiite religious elements with close ties to Iran.

There was no wisdom to look into the failed efforts of Britain that formed Iraq in 1922 from defeated portions of the Ottoman Empire after the Turkish defeat in WWI. Britain tried unsuccessfully from 1922 to 1958 to stop insugent violence and ethnic struggle between Sunni and Shiite ethnic groups. In 1958, British soldiers finally withdrew after a bloody revolt. What little vision of history for the U.S. to enter into a brewing ethnic conflict that Britain could not even contain years after the end of WWII. Eventual U.S. success is highly unlikely in Iraq because there has been no ethnic peace since the 1922 British creation of this artificial state. And Mr. Bush even notes that it will be up to the next president to determine how the U.S. will exit Iraq.

And while Bill Clinton balanced the federal budget, Mr. Bush has engaged in reckless spending principles with the U.S. national debt climbing from $5.7 to $8.2 trillion dollars during his rule. Nations such as Japan, China, South Korea, and even banks in Caribbean where money from big gambling interests own hundreds of billions of U.S. bonds, and now even dictate some of our trade policies because of this clout. More and more debt to foreign bondholders is the only glue that holds the American government together, preventing our collapse as a society. And just like individual credit card or other debt, when another owns your debt, they own your freedom to choose for yourself. The U.S. increasingly must compromise their own economic goals for the goals of their debtor nations.

Outsourcing of jobs has hit critical levels in the U.S. Imports or foreign ownership are now such a major portion of the U.S. economy that as much as 97% of some major U.S. industry segments are foreign controlled now. The U.S. is now down to just two U.S. owned automobile producers, both with serious economic problems that threaten their future survival.

No world nation has ever degenerated from a major producer economy economy down to mere “vender economy” of service related jobs that merely act as salespersons for foreign products and survived for very long. The decline and fall of major world empires of the past has always folllowed nations that stopped producing their own goods and instead simply offered the goods of other nations for sale in their marketplaces. Even social sciences such as anthropology note that even the most primitive of past world societies at least produced their own “pottery” type items. Today the U.S. merely sells the “pottery” in mass quantities of China, Taiwan, South Korea in big box stores such as Wal-Mart that do not pay a living wage to most workers.

The U.S. also faces an immigration crisis because “free trade” policies such as NAFTA have miserably failed, and reduced many of the wages in Mexico, where large corporate U.S. agriculture industries dumped low priced corn and wheat on Mexican markets, reducing local wages by at least one third, creating a huge wave of economic refugees to the United States who compete for the lower wage American jobs. And these workers earn little in job benefits such as health care, so state governments are hard pressed to offer health care and other services to many of these immigrants, both legal or not. This has created major state budget problems in some states such as California, making the state nearly unrulable for any governor. Neither a Democratic or Republican governor can rule successfully in a state like California where a U.S. economy problem such as misguided “free trade” policies create a wave of economic refugees with a high dollar demand for state social services. The problem is beyond the control of the state itself. You cannot grow a state economy fast enough in the short term to pay for such a serious large scale economic refugee crisis such as this.

The current George Bush is unlikely to have a role much outside of a mere footnote role in future history books. The closest comparison I can think of is Nero’s role in the decline of the Roman Empire.

Great food for thought here in comments.
Especially by so many of “us” that are considered Bush apologists and zombies when most Bush supporters I know have a few of the same peeves and state so.

And why not compare to Reagan? He’s the example of the highest standard to aspire to.

I see you’ve again sidestepped the issue: that of the self-confessed, self-renounced citizenship of Abdullah al-Mujahir before he left for Pakistan and his meetings with al Qaeda operatives. Instead, you’d like to read into each statement on the matter made by federal judges without the benefit of context. Context, Tim –like with Buckley’s comments you read to be “cut & run” or “get out now” or “give peace a chance”– depending on which reduction of yours one uses. Abdullah al-Mujahir is not a US citizen; but SCOTUS could decide that isn’t material.

My point about getting the facts right, Tim, is that blogs on the Left have taken snippets of this story and played fast and loose with reality –helping to spawn an inaccurate take of the story, allowing many on the Left and some nutjobs on the far Right to see this case as central to the health, safety, welfare and constitutional rights of ALL Americans… and it’s anything but that. The issue is whether, in a very limited and discreet fashion, an enemy combatant can be detained by US military forces and farmed for intelligence or denied access to other terrorists for a prolonged period of time. You are safe in your home. I am safe in my home. The govt isn’t going to haul us in and detain us on a gay concentration camp… it’s ok.

I do give you credit tho, at least you didn’t try hoisting that last urban myth of the Left that Abdullah al-Mujahir is actually the 2nd or 3rd unaccounted for terrorist in the Oklahoma City bombing and a rouge CIA operative. That’s refreshing because it sure is part of the concerted effort of the Left to spread disinformation on this case.

And your final assertion “The facts establish that the Bush administration has imperiled the constitutional rights of individual citizens” is really more a political statement intended to take this issue, as with others well documented here and in other blogs, and massage it into an anti-Bush indictment. John Conyers hasn’t been able to get that dog to hunt with all his powers of persuasion and stack of tin foils hats… it’s a political statement you make Tim. For partisan gain.

The “facts” you rest your argument upon are collected for that purpose: partisan gain. And, for me, it’s a sickening attribute of the Left and Democrats these days.

Well, yes, my point was that Padilla’s indefinite detention without trial would be unconstitutional either way. It’s a violation of the Sixth Amendment, which applies to the good and the bad alike (and for that matter to citizens and non-citizens on US soil).

That said, Padilla is a US citizen, a basic fact which you’ve striven in vain to deny. As to the Miami jail, you’re correct — I had forgotten that. But this factoid has no effect on your own case, or for that matter on mine. Even Padilla’s citizenship doesn’t affect my case, except that it makes the actions of the Bush administration that much more egregious.

Floyd’s ruling is about as strongly worded as judicial rulings get. The judge claimed that a verdict against bringing Padilla to trial would “totally eviscerate the limits placed on Presidential authority to protect the citizenry’s individual liberties.” Again, the citizenry — Floyd, too, is aware that Padilla is a US citizen. Your speculation in #42 about the ruling’s provisional quality seems at radical variance with the available evidence, as is almost everything you’ve written in the past three posts (the one factoid about the Miami jail excepted).

To get back to the original thread: Representatives of the Bush administration have argued, before federal district courts, that the administration has the power to detain anyone, indefinitely, without benefit of trial, simply because they suspect this person of terroristic or treasonous activity. (Can you imagine what Clinton would have done with this power?)

The facts establish that the Bush administration has imperiled the constitutional rights of individual citizens. That’s why Bush flunks.

Probably not, eh?

He’s now in a federal prison in Miami, Tim. And he’s changed his name again –probably on instructions from his lawyers so that it sounds more American. Kind of what you were doing, eh?

Tim, the point was that you tried to spin the discussion away from the key facts — whether Abdullah al-Mujahir is a good or bad is immaterial to his incarceration in the brig and transfer to a federal jail. I-M-M-A-T-E-R-I-A-L and you knew that, Tim. That’s intellectually dishonest.

But it’s consistent with your comments about judges Mukasey and Floyd on the central question of whether Abdullah al-Mujahir was a US citizen or an enemy combatant of indeterminate citizenship. If you’re as familiar with J Mukasey’s decision as you project, you’d also know that the judge did NOT –that’s N-O-T– find it necessary to determine whether or not Abdullah al-Mujahir is a US citizen. He wasn’t making a statement of fact as to Abdullah al-Mujahir’s citizenship. That’ll be an issue that SCOTUS, the lower federal courts as trier of facts, or others will determine later.

The quote you employ to deceive actually makes the point that POTUS has the power –unequivocally– to detain unlawful combatants whether a US citizen or captured on American soil. Judge Mukasey’s point was in response to the defense’s inadequate assertion that Abdullah al-Mujahir was: 1) a US citizen and 2) captured on US soil and 3) held on US soil. That’s about as intellectually dishonest as they come, Tim. Hence my characterization –both truthful and correct.

If you take issue with it, make your case but don’t try to weasel out of your losing argument by suggesting that it’s just name calling. First it was “he’s in Gitmo”… then he’s a US citizen per J Mukasey’s own words”… then what, Tim? What prevarication is next?

Even though you may not deserve a reasoned rebuttal with evidence, you’ll get one anyway. (How generous of me. :^P ) According to US District Court judge Michael Mukasey, who supported the Bush administration’s power to declare Padilla an enemy combatant and hold him without benefit of trial, “it matters not that Padilla is a United States citizen captured on United States soil.” Note: He’s stating that Padilla was a US citizen at the time of his arrest. And he’s on your side, MM.

A federal District Court judge in South Carolina, Henry F. Floyd, ruled more than a year ago that the Bush administration acted illegally in subjecting Padilla to indefinite detention. (Floyd is a Bush appointee, by the way, and he’s no liberal — his written opinion even accused the Bush administration of “judicial activism.”)

It’s difficult to argue that the Bush administration served the national interest by holding Padilla for more than three years without benefit of a trial. The idea that the president can unilaterally declare someone an “enemy combatant” shouldn’t sit well with us conservatives — even (or perhaps especially) if we believe that the Bush administration is acting from the best, purest and noblest of motives.

Are you suggesting, rightwingprof, that mere dissent now constitutes sedition or treason?

The law on both is clear. It’s not I, but liberals who believe, however, that the First Amendment covers sedition and treason.

So Patrick, can I assume your alternative would have been to allow those terrorist cells to continue unabated? Typical of the left’s position, you not only wouldn’t have retaliated, but now offer no viable alternative.

Eric in Hollywood

Actually a lot of the War on Terror is taking place out of the sight of the American public, conducted by special forces in the Philippines, and other places in Asia. That is a good thing Bush did do. However there is no denying that Iraq is Bush’s war and that it has provided Osama with justification in the eyes of many in the Middle East. Not to mention its has provided a place to obtain weapons, munitions and to conduct terrorist Training as well. Which is why we are starting to see more IED’s in Afghanistan, the technology and personnel are being imported from Iraq. If we had not invaded Iraq we would be able to devout more resources to the actual War on Terror rather than on Iraq.

Saddam was a snake and had to go. We were going to have to take him out sooner or later, but if we had done it later, it would have been better for the WoT.

His name is Abdullah al-Mujahir; his choice. He renounced his US citizenship in Afghanistan before traveling to Iraq. He is not entitled to U S Constitutional protections. He is an enemy combatant. Only liberals seeking to humanize his crimes against humanity will call him Padilla –in contravention of what he wants.

I wrote nothing about his being a good or bad man. That’s immaterial to your assertion that he deserves protection under the US Constitution.

Go back and try again, Tim. This time be intellectually honest.

Please explain this remarkable position further, lest I be compelled to conclude that the only thing distinguishing you from your fellow academics is that they would have those who disagree with them fired, while you would have those who disagree with you shot.

31: You’re right — Padilla was (and is) held in a South Carolina facility. Even though Padilla is a bad man, he possesses Constitutional rights, among them the right to a fair and speedy trial. And he was held for over three years in a South Carolina military prison without being charged of any crime. It’s going to be very difficult to argue that this wasn’t a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Are you advocating a retroactive repeal of the First Amendment?

The First Amendment does not include sedition or treason.

Oh, it was a parody. Sorry, nevermind.