Skip to content

Learning from History?

I never would have believed it if someone told me back in 2008 that the Republicans would nominate someone for president who makes Dubya look reasonable in comparison.

This country elected Dubya, and during his watch 9/11 happened. Then he started two disastrous wars from which we are still trying to recover (and deliberately lied us into the second one). The US committed war crimes like torture, and helped radical Islamic terrorists gain power. He started the prison at Guantanamo, a black eye on our country. He totally botched the response to Hurricane Katrina. He exploited anti-homosexual bigotry to bolster his popularity and attract social conservatives. He ignored the environment, gutting the Kyoto Protocol. Then, as icing on the cake, he presided over the destruction of our economy and made tens of millions of people lose their jobs and/or homes.

Daily Mirror

And now, people are thinking of doing something even worse. Before anyone casts their vote for Donald Trump, I hope they think long and hard. It happened before, and it could happen again. Or it could be an even bigger disaster.

The Republicans say that Clinton would be four more years of Obama, but would they really rather have four more years of Dubya (or worse)?



  1. ebdoug wrote:

    You say he started two disastrous wars. I’m trying to think of the first one. are you talking of our invasion of Afghanistan which started around 1984 when Reagan hired the Saudi Arabian Princes to go in and get the Russians out? Which gave rise to the Taliban, destroyed Afghanistan, We went in to get Bin Laden, but also to return freedoms to particularly women and children in Afghanistan.

    Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 5:09 am | Permalink
  2. Redjon wrote:

    I’m reminded of this prescient Onion article, written days BEFORE Dubya took the oath of office and which turned out not to be any kind of joke at all:

    Do so many people truly not remember what our economy was like during the last two years of the Bush administration… failing banks, failing auto makers, failing businesses all over… the results of years of deregulation and allowing everything to go into freefall in the name of lower taxes and supposed military superiority? And the resulting deficit caused by all of it?

    Maybe a balance of power, even with the resulting gridlock, is not such a bad thing. The last eight years under Obama have been WAY better than the previous eight under Bush… unless you’re one of those still recovering from the Bush nightmare or were wounded in one of his wars or have a family member who was wounded or killed in one of his wars.

    Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
  3. Iron Knee wrote:

    So, let’s look at the evidence. As you pointed out with the Onion article, the US did pretty well under Bill Clinton, followed by the unmitigated disaster of Dubya, followed by steady recovery under Obama.

    You posit that a balance of power is not such a bad thing. We have multiple data points against that argument. The first two years of Obama, when the Dems also controlled Congress, got us Obamacare (which was a vast improvement over what we had before, even if not perfect), the economic stimulus, the rescue of two automakers, Dodd-Frank financial reform, and big improvements in student loan programs. My question would be, was there any downside you see in those two years of Democratic control?

    We also have the data point of what happened in California after the Democrats completely took over both the governorship and the legislature, and managed to right the economy and fix the state budget problems. Compare this to states where the Republicans took over, like Kansas or Wisconsin.

    The current gridlock gave us an understaffed Supreme Court, no action on the Zika virus or climate change, and a slower than necessary recovery from Dubya’s financial crisis. It also led to frustration with the government, and the rise of Trump.

    No thanks.

    Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
  4. Sam Foster wrote:

    @REDJON: Calling what we have today a balance of power is an absolute abuse of that phrase. Being the “Party of No” is not a check on an opposing agenda, it is the behavior of a petulant child who wants everything exactly his* way.

    *use of his intentional due to make up of obstructionist party.

    Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
  5. Wildwood wrote:

    I suspect many of those wounded in the Bush wars still think it was a good idea. The alternative is to realize that you backed the wrong horse and as a result are maimed or traumatized. It’s better to feel like what you did was protect this country and that you are a hero. The military, (which is much needed by this country in spite of my dislike of some of their tactics), is still a major user of brain washing. It’s not easy to undo that.

    There are still people who think “The Shrub” is a wonderful man and president. Probably the same core voters that are voting for Trump.

    Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 3:34 pm | Permalink