• Deana

    Malone’s piece is such an amazing read. I mean, he is not all that partisan.

    It also was painful to read. I can’t help but feel for him.


  • Mike Devx


    I can understand why you feel for him. As the Bush years mounted, I found myself more and more yelling at my TV the same way that journalist was yelling at his.

    The construction of immense and permanent military bases in Iraq even though we Americans were only to be there for “a short number of months or years”… made no sense. And so I yelled. That’s a LOT of money! Why are we constructing military bases of such magnificence just for them? If we were to be there permanently via a new shifting of our geopolitical resources and strategies from Germany down to the western-Asian south, I could see it, but Bush was emphatically denying *that*. And so I yelled.

    And the huge, massively, massively huge government programs began to soar, and the deficit began to explode in a nuclear fashion, and my yelling became louder and more shrill.

    And now with the bailout and the takeover of investment firms and banks, my yelling got so shrill that it became unseemly to the worst degree, and I’ve finally shut up in complete hopelessness.

    So, yes, I understand your empathy for him. He’s seeing much the same complete disillusionment in his media that I’m seeing in the Republican party, so that you will never hear me describe myself as a Republican – but only as a conservative – just as he cannot seem to find it in himself to say he is a journalist anymore.

  • Mike Devx

    Somebody here has got to like George Bush more than I do! No defenses yet…

    He’s a man of pure convictions (even if I don’t like his tendency toward huge government solutions to problems)

    Most importantly, he responded with strength to the 9-11 attacks, and the fight is occurring in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, not here. Under withering opposition and a collapse of support at home, he kept up the fight in Iraq, and his steadfastness allowed others to promote the Surge, and to his credit he allowed it to be tried – and it has succeeded wildly.

    On another note, if the polls have you down, here is a pick-me-up from Warshawsky at American Thinker:

    It’s all written in sand, and we’re still ten days out. Don’t forget to Donate to Russell over the execrable sickness that is John Murtha in Pennsylvania. If you can, it’s money well spent! (And could help McCain in PA as well.)

  • highlander

    Quite right, BW, definitely a must-read piece. Thank you for posting the link.

    But it’s sad, just so very, very sad — something like stumbling across a former heavyweight boxing champ sweeping floors in a flop house.

    How did journalism come to such a sorry state?

    Peddling the viral ideas of progressive Marxism, perhaps they have themselves become victims of the disease. These ideas are highly toxic, not just to those upon whom they are inflicted, but to the “inflictors” as well.

  • Ymarsakar

    When you can predict Bush’s actions ahead of time with near 100% accuracy then it is very likely you have his philosophy and character down pat.

    If your models also retro-actively predict with accuracy Bush’s actions, meaning his actions make sense given his previous actions and your previous predictions, then that is also good although not as good as predicting things in the future correctly.

    There is always the threat of confirmation bias if you look at Bush’s actions in the past and try to model something for him by way of explaining why he did certain things. The Left, for example, has a very inconsistent model for Bush’s actions which directly contradict certain previous and future explanations of theirs. For example, if Bush was like the Left and a master propagandist with Mission Accomplished, then why did Bush retract his Bring it On line given that no Leftist propagandist would ever apologize or retract such a thing without an Obamanation type evasion?

    To the Left, however, attacking Bush personally doesn’t need to be made consistent with their previous attacks. It just has to be made public.

    Why are we constructing military bases of such magnificence just for them?

    We do this for Germany and Korea too. We only “lease” the bases. That is part of the lease. We built it, we lease it by occupying it, and then we give it to the locals. That is what they agreed in return for military protection worth tens of billions of dollars. For that privilege, we get to pay them and they get the use of our bases after the US runs the lease out on them.

    Same for the Panama Canal. Same for Britain’s Hong Kong. Same for Western oil drilling in Arabia when they got nationalized. Same for everything in the world which can be taken by force or guile. You only keep it if you are worthy of it; it doesn’t matter if you built it or not if somebody can take it away from you and you can’t stop it or don’t want to stop it.

    Bush is doing nothing that previous generations of American Presidents have not done. Except this time he is doing it for an actual return gain on American security. The US gains nothing in South Korea or Germany except anti-Americanism, scorn, and the privilege of paying in blood and treasure for other people’s luxuries.