Christmas Present: A Response to the "Bush Resume"
Awhile back, liberal sites started posting what they called the “Bush Resume.” We swapped challenges with one such blogger in which we cited the seventeen UN resolutions that the Bush administration cited for the justification for the IRaq war if he would provide objective evidence that supported the liberal propaganda piece.
We took ten of the sixteen points we agreed upon with that liberal blogger and responded to the statements in the “resume” and the evidence he supplied. The first three points are addressed by MaestroMatt and the rest are attended to by Mark.
1. “After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.”
Liberals like to pretend that the President of the United States is just like you and me. He isn’t. The President never gets a “vacation” like you and me. The President is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. It is foolish to think that when the President is away from the White House, he is somehow “out of touch” or “out of the loop” in matters of importance.
The August 2001 trip to Texas was planned to coincide with a congressional break but you won’t hear liberals mention this because they want you to think that the President was not on top of the game. Source:
We agree that 9/11 was the worst security failure in US history, but liberals make it sound as if the President was actually responsible for the event. The Clinton/Gore administration had several opportunities to eliminate the Osama bin Laden/al Queda problem and either passed on such opportunities (offers from Sudan) or take inadequate actions against the terrorist leader (cruise missile strikes). Minter’s Losing Bin Laden illustrates the Clinton/Gore administration’s failures with great detail.
2. “I set the record for the most campaign fundraising trips by any President in US history.”
According to this article, President Bush took 28 fundraising trips in the first sixteen months of his presidency. I’m with those who think records are made to be broken, particularly when the fundraising goes to Republicans, but our man Bush can’t compare to President Clinton who, according to this commentary by Sen. Larry Craig, took 37 fundraising trips in just one year (1998).
3. “I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other President in American history.”
Let’s shed a little light on the Unemployment Insurance (UI) problem. In most states, you can be eligible for UI for up to 26 weeks (that’s half a year!) and can qualify for an additional thirteen weeks (another quarter of a year!) Now, I’ll admit finding a job can be tough, but if you can’t find a job in 39 weeks (9 months!) you aren’t trying hard enough or have other issues preventing you from wanting a job. Liberals will tell you that Americans don’t want “McJobs” and that every American is entitled to a job that they want. Because that job doesn’t exist (yet), liberals think that the government should subsidize these people’s lives forever. Why is that? Could it be that the handout, while this safety net is important for Americans, can become a way of life (like welfare) and that by limiting how much of a safety net the program is, conservatives are actually interfering with the Democratic base? Isn’t it better for Americans to get a job, any job, and start contributing to the economy rather than being a burden on that economy as soon as possible? Wouldn’t it be better for the families of the unemployed if they took a “McJob” than to rely on UI? Wouldn’t the unemployed person feel better about himself/herself if they were actually earning a living rather than living off the system?
According to the U.S Department of Labor , UI is intended to be temporary financial assistance. I think 26 weeks is more than enough of a safety net, the additional thirteen weeks is overkill for the American taxpayer.
I was unable to confirm or deny that the President actually cut unemployment benefits more than any other American President in history, but I get the impression that Sen. Pelosi (D-CA) is up in arms over the extended benefits and not the actual benefits themselves. And I believe that is really what this point is all about, but the liberals didn’t clearly identify their real problem because the point doesn’t have the same “sound bite” quality when you talk about extended benefits.
4. “I Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.”
Oh, use up our reserves so liberals can say he bankrupted them. Of course, these same liberals who were concerned about low prices are the same ones “protecting” the caribou at ANWR, even though drilling in similar areas with caribou have led to more caribou flourishment. No, we cannot drill at ANWR, it would make us too self-sufficient and our foreign contributors wouldn’t like that, would they, Mr. Gore?
In my concluding thoughts to this, time has shown the President to be correct in not using the reserves. Gas prices have stabilized, and in fact have been going down.
Related Links:
EIA-DOE Primer on Gasoline Prices
U.S. Retail Gasoline Historical Prices
Weekly Premimium Gasoline Prices
5. “I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.”
One of the sites mentioned as proof by a rodent liberal was commondreams.org, a liberally slanted site of pure commentary, and this was his main site for “proof.” Wow, really credible source there. Let’s look at the issue more closely, shall we?
[Matt chimes in: The reality of this claim is that the administration wanted to cut benefits for veterens who could afford their own healthcare. I don't think it was a matter of access to the facilities or procedures, but rather who was going to pay for it - the overburdened taxpayers or a retired military man making more than $39,000 a year.]
6. “I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. “
OK, what organization took a census? And simultaneously? You mean folks on the other side of the world contacted everyone else and they all went out protesting? How many of the people protesting were forced or coerced to do so, like in Arabic countries, Communist Countries like China, North Korea, etc? No mention is made of this. Of course, no one ever looks at these things on the liberal side. They just like to say, see, people do not like this person.
Well, let me tell you a little story. Ronald Reagan was protested vehemently as he went to Europe during his Presidency. However, in 1989, during his farewell tour of Europe, he was hailed as a conquering hero, at this time and in subsequent visits, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Some of the people coming out to support him had protested earlier. Why is this relevant? It is relevant because current protests do not make someone a bad President. History must judge their actions, their actions must be judged on results, not spinning by liberals. Reagan has been judged by history to be successful, and to have helped millions cry out for and receive freedom from totalitarian Soviet Aggression. Thankfully that is over. Who knows? Ten years from now, Bush might be hailed as having ushered in a new era of democracy in the Middle East. We cannot just look at protests and say, see, I told you he was a bad guy.
7. “I dissolved more international treaties than any President in US history. “
Let’s look at some of the treaties Bush has refused to get involved in or dissolved. Keep in mind that most of these treaties have been shot down by the Senate, who has to give advice and consent to the President on Treaties for Ratification. So, it is not all at the feet of George W. Bush, liberal propagandists.
Kyoto
In regards to Kyoto, there are many reasons why we pulled out. Even the Russians pulled out of the treaty. The Kyoto Accords would have hurt American business, and hurt the economy. Bush’s plan of incentivizing industry with $$$ for environmental compliance would work so much better, and would lead to even more productivity with less environmental cost. By incentivizing things, you get better results. No, lets force mandatory demands down people’s throats and see how well they will do. Also, the whole treaty was ineffective and this article discusses the harm the treaty could have done to the environment. Also, the Kyoto Protocols would have unjustly punished the US, who has been curbing emissions, while not doing anything to serious and habitual violators like China and North Korea.
Here are some more links:
This article details how Clinton Administration incorrectly calculated the cost to American farmers, etc., and how more accurate information was available. Thisarticle is a commentary by Robert Novak, himself not a big fan of the Bush administration, discussing the problems with the Kyoto accords, among others.
Remember, Congress killed it before Bush said no. Just for your own information.
Speaking of UN treaties about the environment, see what they had to say for themselves here:
And here is the Russians’ repudiation of Kyoto:
ABM Treaty
The main reason for leaving this treaty behind was so we could develop a missile defense system. Also, the nation with which we had the treaty, The Soviet Union, no longer exists. Besides that, we are friends now. Why do we need such a treaty? Right?
Same goes for START II
The reasoning is simple. We need to develop better homeland defenses. This treaty was standing in the way, so we opt out of it. It is not a case of thumbing our nose, it is protecting our security.
Land Mine Ban
Bush is upholding the same lack of action that PRESIDENT CLINTON discussed in being against the ban. It places too much intrusion on sovereignty issues and conducting a war.
International Criminal Court
Here is a link to the Rome Statute of the ICC. As one can plainly see by reading, much of this authority oversteps bounds of sovereignty, and accords too much power to an international body. Also, some of the charges are so vague that any group claiming such charges could get a hearing in the international Criminal court. This is a badly flawed document, which was signed by several human rights abusers, yet they are not being tried for some of the very crimes described in said document and signed by the same abusers. It further shows the hypocrisy and lack of foresight on the part of the UN.
Let’s look at the first filed case for the court: to try Israel of War Crimes?!? Hello!!!!!
This link discusses the dangers to American liberty that could happen under the auspices of the International Criminal Court.
Koffi Annan has tried to dispute this by saying that those countries with “fair and good” justice systems have nothing to fear from the ICC. Who defines good? The Syrians? The Iranians? The Italians? What does this mean? Could this be a threat to any nation who does not fall into UN lines, etc., or who does not bow at those who would seek to ransom justice for favors for countries?
CEDAW Treaty
This treaty has been called an international women’s bill of rights. However, there are two problems. One, it would give too much potential oversight to international bodies, some of which contain some of the worst abusers of women in history. Also, there is no enforcement provision, so why sign it in the first place. Besides that, this treaty would enable folks to seek redress because they felt women’s bathrooms should be unisex, etc. In other words, it has many of the same flaws as the ERA of the 1970s and 1980s. In other words, it is useless.
Another reason the treaty was not approved was the issue over Reproductive rights. While the debate rages here in America, it is perfectly acceptable across the world to force women to have abortions. Take China for instance. It has not been punished for what we have heard many times over about forced birth control, etc. Here is another great article discussing the reproductive issues in the treaty.
Here is a useful link.
And another.
And here is a critique.
[Matt chimes in: a number of those treaties were ones that the United States NEVER ratified to begin with. The statement in the "resume" says that the President "dissolved" more international treaties. Howver, our research did not indicate which treaties the "resume" referred to and neither did the proof provided by the liberal.]
8. “I am the first President in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt. “
First of all, aren’t state finances the STATES’ RESPONSIBILITY? I believe one can construe that from the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It is not the federal government’s fault that the states go bankrupt. It is poor management on the states’ parts, probably due to relying on overcharging the citizens and Clinton hush money for pork barrel that kept flowing in, but was stopped by the Bush Administration.
Also, the states problems were well under way before Mr. Bush entered the White House. In case some of you do not remember or choose not to, we were already in a recession when Mr. Bush entered the White House. This would have much bearing on state finances, as well.
Then, the rodent goes on to cite as his PRIMARY proof counterpunch.org, a liberal COMMENTARY site. Wow, great objective sourcing there... Real credibility, eh?
9. “I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.”
This statement should be that my administration uncovered the biggest stock market fraud …etc. However, the Bush administration takes a lot of blame over Enron. However, who was President during Enron’s comet-like success? Yep, you guessed it. William Jefferson Clinton. While Bush’s administration takes the blame when it should be hailed as finding this corporate scandal, it was Clinton’s administration that helped Enron tremendously to its meteoric rise, and they were paid well for it.
Link 1: This article discusses how Clinton gained 100,000 dollars for the DNC by doing some arm-twisting for Enron. It also discusses how a Clinton official left the government and went to work directly for: Enron. This is a drudgereport article accessed via the website listed. If you go to Drudge, you can find out also that Robert Rubin, after leaving as Sec. Treasury, made phone calls to buddies in the Treasury Dept. to get help for Enron as head of one of Enron’s banks, Citigroup. So, friends, you think the Bush and Halliburton thing is bad, go back and look at the Clinton/Enron deal. Enron manipulated both parties, but all we hear from the left and all the propagandists is how they are friends of Bush. What about all those golf games between Lay and Clinton?
Link 2: Again, accessed from above site, this is a Weekly Standard article. In this article, it further highlights the shady dealings between Clinton Admin officials and Enron, including how they would be asked to go on trade trips with officials. Also included is again the mention of Mack McLarty, Clinton’s first chief of staff, who went to work for Enron after helping broker some government assisted deals. Also, it ties together Clinton confidante Vern Jordan and also Robert Rubin, former Treas. Secretary, to Enron. In other words, Clinton, NOT BUSH, surrounded himself with Enron cronies and used every means to support this company and look beyond its shady dealings and finances.
Link 3: In this link, it is discussed further the shady dealings between Clinton and Enron. Therefore, this was not one of those conspiracies cooked up in Texas, as a certain Massachusetts Senator is wont to say. Rather, it is one cooked up in Arkansas, and nurtured in the White House, by William Jefferson Clinton. Therefore, writers of this so called resume are wrong.
Link 4: In this link, it is shown it even goes beyond the Clintons who are trying to revise the facts. Enron was involved in Sen. John Kerry’s wealthy wife’s affairs, this article talks about. Yet the candidate frequently cites them as the evil indicative of business under the Bush Administration. Well, Johnny boy, where were your charges as your heiress wife (I guess she isn’t giving money, since you had to put a lean on your house for campaign $$$)had them sit on boards of organizations she was involved in? Hmm…Are you folks beginning to see? More attempts at revisionist history. Rather than give the Administration credit for prosecuting and trying to reform the system, the liberals are trying to lay the blame of Enron at Bush’s door, even though the bulk of transgressions happened under Clinton’s watch and with his tacit endorsement. And John Kerry, the supposed crusading Senator, allowed his wife to consort with such shady officials. Hmmm? Could that be hypocrisy I smell? You betcha!
10. “I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any President in US history.“
Check this one out….the rodent boy did our work for us….In the “proof” he cites for this gross misstatement, I would direct you to this lovely gem: “…the figure is closer to $1 million. That's about half the amount Clinton spent during his first year…” Therefore, by using his own article, Mr. Bush IN FACT DID NOT SPEND MORE ON POLLING THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.
The article listed above goes on to make rather blatantly unprovable statements about how Bush uses his polls, and how questions are worded. Nothing is wrong with polling. However, if Bush’s strategy, as the author of the piece cited supposes, were really about having poll numbers to back him up; then why isn’t he and his groups of supporters out there trumpeting them? Why isn’t he going to reporters with his poll numbers, of how much they support his policy? It makes no sense. In other words, never let logic or the truth get in the way of a good smear. Love it when they do the work for you…..Hoo-ah.
Also, I have never heard of polls being used by Bush to determine where to vacation, where to sit, where to have the kids, etc. To let polls determine that much the minutia of your life are despicable and irresponsible. Of course, that is the Clinton Administration for you.
Also, there are the little matters of his supposed DUIs, etc. There is not one shred of evidence for there ever being a DUI offense. NONE! Not even anecdotal sources are available to give credence to this garbage.
Also, they claim Bush’s papers as Governor are locked in his Dad’s library; they are PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FROM THE STATE LIBRARY IN TEXAS. ANOTHER LIE REVEALED. However, Howard Dean is embroiled in a lawsuit to keep his governor papers in Vermont sealed and classified? Who is trying to hide something?
***
There you have it folks, have a fun, safe, and Merry Christmas! And remember the hamster mantra, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good smear." as this so-called "Bush Resume" clearly was.
