Seeing as we now are heading towards the end of the second presidents terms after 9/11 can we see George junior in a slightly better light now? As I see it 9/11 forced George's hand. A leader of a country cannot have such a braise and callous attack on it's sovereignty and not do anything. His attempts at action may have been misguided as some have claimed but now with the war on terrorism still raging on in its second decade can we think better of him now?
So basically what you are saying is: "Sure, he may have attacked the wrong country, but at least he did a thing"? And how is the ongoing war on terror a point in the win column for GW? A win would have been if he had somehow helped to make the Middle East less of a breeding ground for terrorists. He was a terrible president who started a pointless war that distracted us from the real threat, then left us on the brink of economic disaster.
Well I just like to tell you Obama did not stop that pointless war nor did he do anything do avert the economic disaster. Maybe you should also remember that the idea that every American should have a house loan even if he cannot afford it was an idea originally formulated by Clinton.
Presidents who preside over major disasters - military or economic - tend to be loathed by their contemporaries but then forgiven somewhat by history. Nowadays the blame for the Great Crash tends to be lain more at the feet of Harding and Coolidge than Hoover, who it is recognized was basically just handed the controls of an already-runaway train. LBJ is now remembered more for the Voting and Civil Rights Acts than the Vietnam War. (Kennedy, who might have caught the retroactive blame a la Harding for the War, usually gets a pass for having been assassinated.) And of course nobody even cares how much of a monster Jackson was. I expect the same phenomenon will happen to Bush. The level of hate simply can't be maintained forever or passed to the next generation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think Bush will be remembered as one of the worst presidents solely because his "war on terror" may singlehandedly end up destroying the basis for a global presumption of American ideological superiority (which, I'd argue, was a necessary component of effective foreign policy), and that's before said policy gets condemned for its utter inefficacy in solving the long term problem with Islamic extremism. Though there may be apologist historians he will claim he's given bad rap because of the "improbability" that any leader could have effectively dealt with the situation.
Connecting with this, the Iraq invasion will also be viewed negatively because of the utter absence of any sort of post-invasion planning. I can't be the only one who was flabbergasted that there was basically no reconstruction or security plan for what to do when the Hussein regime fell. I remember there being weeks of looting while our forces kind of sat around deciding what to do next.
I actually think the historical perspective on this era might end up considering all of the leaders poor, but focus on the electorate and a "partisan" disconnect with objectivity as the source of said issues. The question will be whether the American form of government prevents effective crisis response with any sort of long-term strategic vision. It will likely be a specter hovering over both the Obama and Bush presidencies as their policies have been so similar. (Perhaps there will also be secondary consideration for whether representative government of any form can effectively deal with certain forms of crisis.)
Also, this is a tangent RE Blinking Spirit, but I personally despise Jackson, even if that's not how he's broadly remembered. Really, outside of Lincoln many of our most famous "good" presidents have somewhat flawed dark sides. I mean look at the Japanese Interment, or the Sedition Act of 1918. I suppose to a certain extent we can't expect people to escape the mores of their time, but it's certainly what we none the less hope for in great leaders.
Connecting with this, the Iraq invasion will also be viewed negatively because of the utter absence of any sort of post-invasion planning.
I don't think anyone is going to view the Iraq invasion positively. The cooling effect of history goes both ways - partisan support for him and his decisions evaporates at the same rate as partisan hatred. He's certainly not going to get on any presidential top ten lists. But it's a long way from there to "worst president ever". And for all the very real harm done, all the lives lost, one casualty I don't think we can attribute to the Iraq War is America's reputation. We never had a "global presumption of American ideological superiority" to destroy. Nobody was ever like, "Wow, those Americans... they're just better than us." What we did have was ideals that we shared with other nations - and we still have that. We were and are allies with the European nations, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and so on, because we were and are all liberal democracies. The Iraq War didn't change that basic alignment in the slightest. For all the acrimony exchanged, in the end, France is still on our side and we're still on France's side.
I suppose to a certain extent we can't expect people to escape the mores of their time, but it's certainly what we none the less hope for in great leaders.
Jackson and Wilson seem to have been worse than the mores of their time. (But FDR was probably motivated by expediency rather than anything fouler.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
About the only thing Iraq has going for it over Nam is the climate. That said, I think most of the hate for Bush has already faded. Despite how we all have this idea that politics is nastier than it's ever been, I don't think there's been a "Laura Bush is a whore" advertisement campaign yet, so we're clearly nowhere near worst political climate territory. Also, neither Bush nor Obama have gotten shot at yet (unless you count shoes).
Realistically, I'm more concerned about Obama going down as the affirmative action president than anything else.
What we did have was ideals that we shared with other nations - and we still have that.
This is what we lost. We don't share the same ideals as our other allies. Torture? Freedom? Justice? We don't have that moral ground to stand on any longer. Our ideals of truth, JUSTICE etc, all that patriotic stuff that we market to the rest of the world, has been shown to be a rhetoric and nothing more. That's what I think has been lost.
This is what we lost. We don't share the same ideals as our other allies. Torture? Freedom? Justice? We don't have that moral ground to stand on any longer. Our ideals of truth, JUSTICE etc, all that patriotic stuff that we market to the rest of the world, has been shown to be a rhetoric and nothing more. That's what I think has been lost.
This pessimism is what's rhetoric and nothing more. Seriously, look at the current world order. What has been lost? Our alliances are still strong. We're coordinating with the Europeans to mount a principled opposition to Russian imperialism and other threats. What you cavalierly dismiss as "patriotic stuff" are not just ideals, but very tangible shared interests that are strong enough to survive the occasional act of hypocrisy, however abhorrent. Because the other side of this argument is that America is hardly unique in its hypocrisy; we share not just our interests but spotty records. Do you really think the liberal democracies never spy on each other or their own citizens? Do you really think there are no current or former "black sites" - run by Britain during the Troubles, perhaps? I say this not to excuse the actions of America or any other country, because they are of course inexcusable. But your argument rests on the assumption that America's actions set it apart from its allies - a perverse form of American exceptionalism. And I just don't see that. What puts the nations of the First World on Team Freedom is not that we are always perfect, but that we show a real and sustained commitment to self-correction and improvement. Look at the response by America to the torture revelations. I have no doubt we'd see a similar response in Britain or France or Canada or Germany, because of these values we share. In contrast, China tortures people routinely, and Russia is actively in the process of getting worse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
My grandfather is actually one of the country's most renowned historians and is of the opinion that FDR was one of the worst presidents, along with LBJ, Wilson, and Kennedy, IIRC, contrary to what a lot of people say about FDR and Kennedy (who I agree seems to often get a pass for having been assassinated).
I don't think W. was a very good president, but I think at that point, we ended up with the lesser of two evils (and have been given the choice of terrible candidates, since). I'm not a huge fan of our bipartisan house system because it basically paves the way for radical progress (or reversion) in one direction or the other, which makes pretty much nobody comfortable. But I suppose that's a bit of a tangent to the point at hand. While it's true that our recession began during W.'s presidency, that was largely due to Clinton's time in office - but what's also true is that W. didn't do anything to fix it, and now we see things becoming even worse with Obama. I don't think either of these men will be remembered particularly fondly by anyone who's actually aware of what policies got instituted during their terms.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
The only thing that GWB did right during his tenure was quickly engaging after 9/11, and even then he ended up going to war against the wrong country, based on faulty evidence(at best..it's in the realm of possibility that our government just deliberately mislead us because they really just wanted to go to war with Iraq). And how he handled everything else in the aftermath of 9/11 was completely disastrous. The Patriot Act, the overzealous current nature of TSA, giving corporations so much freedom that Citizens United was ultimately able to occur, and the fiasco in Iraq directly led to the creation of ISIS. Etc. Obama has been a bad President in many ways, but GWB was a miserably bad President, because he let our country ruin itself in response to 9/11. 8 years hasn't changed this at all. If anything, everything that started during his term has only gotten progressively worse during Obama's.
I still stand by my belief that Clinton was a good President, but I think he is the last one that will meet that determination for a long, long time. We are just in such a bad way right now, and things seem to just be consistently getting worse.
Honestly, my opinion on W has mellowed somewhat in the years since he's left office. Not because I think that he was a good president, or even a mediocre one. I do still think he was an overall majorly negative influence on the entire country. However, in the time since, the republican party has stepped up their awfulness. It's like they've taken every single thing I hated about W's policies, that were the most radical and far-right of his beliefs, and made them core tenets. Seeing candidates like Romney, Santorum, Palin, Cruz, and etc makes me long for W again. At least he had brief periods of centrist policy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
The only thing that GWB did right during his tenure was quickly engaging after 9/11, and even then he ended up going to war against the wrong country, based on faulty evidence(at best..it's in the realm of possibility that our government just deliberately mislead us because they really just wanted to go to war with Iraq).
No he didn't. Moving into Afghanistan was the correct move, and was the correct country. Iraq was a separate issue (albeit very close in timing), and I think it's a fair criticism that he was trying to finish his dad's war when it wasn't necessary. But the administration at least never tried to make it about 9/11. It was about the WMD's (that turned out not to exist).
Which is another point -- W had faulty intelligence. That combined with Saddam's play of "calling our bluff" when we demanded to inspect, led to an (incorrect) certainty that wmd's actually existed. In other words, yes it was a bad move and was predicated on false konwledge, but it wasn't made up knowledge and W wasn't "lying" to the country.
The Patriot Act, the overzealous current nature of TSA, giving corporations so much freedom that Citizens United was ultimately able to occur, and the fiasco in Iraq directly led to the creation of ISIS.
Lets be fair here, of those things the only one that is directly W's responsibility is the Iraq situation. The patriot act and the overzealousness of the TSA are both the result of sweeping bipartisanship, and Citizen's United was a supreme court decision.
I guess the summation is: Just like I don't think everything that is happening now can be blamed on Obama (Thanks Obama!), I don't think everything that happened then can be blamed on W.
that's not to say W was a "great" president. Or even necessarily a "good" president. I just don't think he was a "bad" president.
The only thing that GWB did right during his tenure was quickly engaging after 9/11, and even then he ended up going to war against the wrong country, based on faulty evidence(at best..it's in the realm of possibility that our government just deliberately mislead us because they really just wanted to go to war with Iraq).
No he didn't. Moving into Afghanistan was the correct move, and was the correct country. Iraq was a separate issue (albeit very close in timing), and I think it's a fair criticism that he was trying to finish his dad's war when it wasn't necessary. But the administration at least never tried to make it about 9/11. It was about the WMD's (that turned out not to exist).
That is false. The administration actively used 9/11 to justify the invasion. Look at the number of times Iraq and Al Qaeda are mentioned in the same breath (hint: it's a lot). Bush himself directly links Iraq to 9/11 in his "Mission Accomplished" speech. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001" Bush (5/1/2003)
Which is another point -- W had faulty intelligence. That combined with Saddam's play of "calling our bluff" when we demanded to inspect, led to an (incorrect) certainty that wmd's actually existed. In other words, yes it was a bad move and was predicated on false konwledge, but it wasn't made up knowledge and W wasn't "lying" to the country.
Bush had faulty intelligence, sure. Because that's what happens when you fix intelligence around your desired policy instead of writing policy based on intelligence.
My grandfather is actually one of the country's most renowned historians and is of the opinion that FDR was one of the worst presidents, along with LBJ, Wilson, and Kennedy, IIRC, contrary to what a lot of people say about FDR and Kennedy (who I agree seems to often get a pass for having been assassinated).
Kennedy was a terrible president. But really? LBJ, Wilson, and FDR among the worst?
No he didn't. Moving into Afghanistan was the correct move, and was the correct country.
You misread what Cyan said. Cyan said GWB moving against Afghanistan swiftly was a correct move. He said that moving on Iraq was a blunder. Which it was.
Iraq was a separate issue (albeit very close in timing), and I think it's a fair criticism that he was trying to finish his dad's war when it wasn't necessary. But the administration at least never tried to make it about 9/11.
Was it ever in question that Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction? I mean, Sadam was hanged specifically for using them against the Kurds (and probably for other things as well, but that's the part I remember).
Now, we didn't find any Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction, but I think chemical weapons count just fine.
Was it ever in question that Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction? I mean, Sadam was hanged specifically for using them against the Kurds (and probably for other things as well, but that's the part I remember).
That was years ago. Before and after the invasion there were no WMD found by either UN or US weapon inspectors. A government commission formed to study the issue found that they never had any, and that the intelligence saying they did have them, was just plain wrong. But that's not even really the point. After 9/11 they could have gone after the people responsible, instead they used it for political gain to support an unnecessary invasion of a totally different country.
No, the utter lack of still-effective chemical/biological weapons was exactly the problem.
Once upon a time he did use such on the Kurds, but at the time of invasion he was mostly lacking them.
Did he have them, or not? Mostly not having something means that he had them.
He didn't have them to the extent that the intelligence as trumped up to make us believe he had.
Over here in the UK we were partially sold the war on claims that he could get Chemical WMD operational within 45 minutes. That particular claim and several others have pretty much been comprehensively refuted in the years since the invasion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
To me I still see tons of faults. 9/11 did force our hand as a nation to deal with terror more so than we had, but I feel that we didn't think of the consequences and make the proper preparations prior to taking action. Wars against terrorist cells are always going to be messy because you are dealing with psychopaths who don't value human life and live based off of beliefs and ideologies. Not to mention they aren't tied down to a specific land/country or populace. This makes invading and ground wars pretty complex and very inefficient. Terrorism isn't a concrete enemy either. You can continually fight terror with war, but you will never kill the ideology or the beliefs. You gotta delve into the underlying causes of terrorism which tends to be hardship, unbalanced power, and lack of education to actually put a dent into it. Thus I feel that even in the Afghan war we royally screwed up.
WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE INVADED IRAQ.
We had zero justification to actually go into Iraq. Hussain was a bastard(one that the CIA help put into power by forcing a coup of a democratically elected president) but Iraq was pretty stable. The cost in money and human lives was immense not to mention the damage to some of our diplomatic relations around the world. We all now know that the instability we caused led to ISIS coming to power which again our fault and completely unnecessary.
The NSA
Most of us on here will probably agree the NSA is out of control not only prying into our lives and into our civil liberties, but is costing our country an insane amount of money for almost no benefit. There is some amount of power they should probably have, but when they are building massive data centers to collect information on all US citizens it is beyond the scope of itself which the patriot act enabled.
The Economy
We have still yet to recover from the damage done when from the wars, the popping of the housing bubble, and the default of some of the largest banks because of predatory loans. US conservative monetary policies(typically know as trick-down economics or Reaganomics) which he touted have led to the largest disparity in wealth distribution since the great depression.
Other Stuff
Education policies that he had some hand in implementing were a joke and further widened the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. I can't think of anything else atm but left this section vague so I could add more later.
TL;DR
While the president isn't all powerful like many of Obama's critics seem to thing because the president obviously doesn't control law making everything that Bush stepped in turned to crap and overall we are much worse off now than we were prior to his tenure. Every president has plenty of opportunity to lead our country into a more modern and intelligent direction based off of science and data. Some choose to do very little, but bush chose to destroy much of the work we had done not only in our country but also in the world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Thomas Jefferson
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seeing as we now are heading towards the end of the second presidents terms after 9/11 can we see George junior in a slightly better light now? As I see it 9/11 forced George's hand. A leader of a country cannot have such a braise and callous attack on it's sovereignty and not do anything. His attempts at action may have been misguided as some have claimed but now with the war on terrorism still raging on in its second decade can we think better of him now?
Discuss!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Especially when that level of hate is fueled almost entirely by partisanship that won't be relevant in the next generation.
Connecting with this, the Iraq invasion will also be viewed negatively because of the utter absence of any sort of post-invasion planning. I can't be the only one who was flabbergasted that there was basically no reconstruction or security plan for what to do when the Hussein regime fell. I remember there being weeks of looting while our forces kind of sat around deciding what to do next.
I actually think the historical perspective on this era might end up considering all of the leaders poor, but focus on the electorate and a "partisan" disconnect with objectivity as the source of said issues. The question will be whether the American form of government prevents effective crisis response with any sort of long-term strategic vision. It will likely be a specter hovering over both the Obama and Bush presidencies as their policies have been so similar. (Perhaps there will also be secondary consideration for whether representative government of any form can effectively deal with certain forms of crisis.)
Also, this is a tangent RE Blinking Spirit, but I personally despise Jackson, even if that's not how he's broadly remembered. Really, outside of Lincoln many of our most famous "good" presidents have somewhat flawed dark sides. I mean look at the Japanese Interment, or the Sedition Act of 1918. I suppose to a certain extent we can't expect people to escape the mores of their time, but it's certainly what we none the less hope for in great leaders.
Jackson and Wilson seem to have been worse than the mores of their time. (But FDR was probably motivated by expediency rather than anything fouler.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Realistically, I'm more concerned about Obama going down as the affirmative action president than anything else.
This is what we lost. We don't share the same ideals as our other allies. Torture? Freedom? Justice? We don't have that moral ground to stand on any longer. Our ideals of truth, JUSTICE etc, all that patriotic stuff that we market to the rest of the world, has been shown to be a rhetoric and nothing more. That's what I think has been lost.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think W. was a very good president, but I think at that point, we ended up with the lesser of two evils (and have been given the choice of terrible candidates, since). I'm not a huge fan of our bipartisan house system because it basically paves the way for radical progress (or reversion) in one direction or the other, which makes pretty much nobody comfortable. But I suppose that's a bit of a tangent to the point at hand. While it's true that our recession began during W.'s presidency, that was largely due to Clinton's time in office - but what's also true is that W. didn't do anything to fix it, and now we see things becoming even worse with Obama. I don't think either of these men will be remembered particularly fondly by anyone who's actually aware of what policies got instituted during their terms.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I still stand by my belief that Clinton was a good President, but I think he is the last one that will meet that determination for a long, long time. We are just in such a bad way right now, and things seem to just be consistently getting worse.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
No he didn't. Moving into Afghanistan was the correct move, and was the correct country. Iraq was a separate issue (albeit very close in timing), and I think it's a fair criticism that he was trying to finish his dad's war when it wasn't necessary. But the administration at least never tried to make it about 9/11. It was about the WMD's (that turned out not to exist).
Which is another point -- W had faulty intelligence. That combined with Saddam's play of "calling our bluff" when we demanded to inspect, led to an (incorrect) certainty that wmd's actually existed. In other words, yes it was a bad move and was predicated on false konwledge, but it wasn't made up knowledge and W wasn't "lying" to the country.
Lets be fair here, of those things the only one that is directly W's responsibility is the Iraq situation. The patriot act and the overzealousness of the TSA are both the result of sweeping bipartisanship, and Citizen's United was a supreme court decision.
I guess the summation is: Just like I don't think everything that is happening now can be blamed on Obama (Thanks Obama!), I don't think everything that happened then can be blamed on W.
that's not to say W was a "great" president. Or even necessarily a "good" president. I just don't think he was a "bad" president.
That is false. The administration actively used 9/11 to justify the invasion. Look at the number of times Iraq and Al Qaeda are mentioned in the same breath (hint: it's a lot). Bush himself directly links Iraq to 9/11 in his "Mission Accomplished" speech. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001" Bush (5/1/2003)
Bush had faulty intelligence, sure. Because that's what happens when you fix intelligence around your desired policy instead of writing policy based on intelligence.
You misread what Cyan said. Cyan said GWB moving against Afghanistan swiftly was a correct move. He said that moving on Iraq was a blunder. Which it was.
Yes, of course they did.
Now, we didn't find any Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction, but I think chemical weapons count just fine.
Once upon a time he did use such on the Kurds, but at the time of invasion he was mostly lacking them.
That was years ago. Before and after the invasion there were no WMD found by either UN or US weapon inspectors. A government commission formed to study the issue found that they never had any, and that the intelligence saying they did have them, was just plain wrong. But that's not even really the point. After 9/11 they could have gone after the people responsible, instead they used it for political gain to support an unnecessary invasion of a totally different country.
Did he have them, or not? Mostly not having something means that he had them.
He didn't have them to the extent that the intelligence as trumped up to make us believe he had.
Over here in the UK we were partially sold the war on claims that he could get Chemical WMD operational within 45 minutes. That particular claim and several others have pretty much been comprehensively refuted in the years since the invasion.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE INVADED IRAQ.
We had zero justification to actually go into Iraq. Hussain was a bastard(one that the CIA help put into power by forcing a coup of a democratically elected president) but Iraq was pretty stable. The cost in money and human lives was immense not to mention the damage to some of our diplomatic relations around the world. We all now know that the instability we caused led to ISIS coming to power which again our fault and completely unnecessary.
The NSA
Most of us on here will probably agree the NSA is out of control not only prying into our lives and into our civil liberties, but is costing our country an insane amount of money for almost no benefit. There is some amount of power they should probably have, but when they are building massive data centers to collect information on all US citizens it is beyond the scope of itself which the patriot act enabled.
The Economy
We have still yet to recover from the damage done when from the wars, the popping of the housing bubble, and the default of some of the largest banks because of predatory loans. US conservative monetary policies(typically know as trick-down economics or Reaganomics) which he touted have led to the largest disparity in wealth distribution since the great depression.
Other Stuff
Education policies that he had some hand in implementing were a joke and further widened the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. I can't think of anything else atm but left this section vague so I could add more later.
TL;DR
While the president isn't all powerful like many of Obama's critics seem to thing because the president obviously doesn't control law making everything that Bush stepped in turned to crap and overall we are much worse off now than we were prior to his tenure. Every president has plenty of opportunity to lead our country into a more modern and intelligent direction based off of science and data. Some choose to do very little, but bush chose to destroy much of the work we had done not only in our country but also in the world.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson