Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with bush

Oil: More than Strategic and Corporate Interests

atmosphere — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:02:49 -0800

Please help me understand the role of oil in the motivations for the 2003 Iraq invasion. It's generally well known now that oil played some role in the US invasion of Iraq. I have been reading a lot on this subject, and when I get passed the superficial "the war was all about oil" type statements, I find the subject to be very complex, incorporating history, economics, regional politics, etc. I was reading an article titled Blood for Oil? linked in a comment on the blue, and I was trying to understand what the thesis of the article was when it said this:

American empire cannot forgo oil – its control is a geopolitical priority – but strategic and corporate oil interests cannot, in themselves, credibly account for an imperial mission of the sort we have witnessed over the last two years. Rather, what the Iraq adventure represents is less a war for oil than a radical, punitive restructuring of the conditions necessary for expanded profitability – it paves the way, in short, for new rounds of American-led dispossession and capital accumulation...It was intended as the prototype of a new form of military neo-liberalism

What, in laymans terms, is this saying? How did invading Iraq "restructure" the conditions necessary for "expanded profitability"? Who's making the profit? How does such a theory take into account the blowback from the invasion, such as the world getting pissed of at the percieved imperialistic aggression of America? Given that this was written 2005, has anything changed/been validated/disproved since then (oil contracts etc.)?

I know that is a lot of questions, but I guess overall I am just looking for help in understanding the complex role oil played. Additional or competing in depth analysis on the role of oil in the invasion (going past "strategic and corporate oil interests") would be much appreciated. Thank you hivemind.

Please, don't pee on the azaleas!

tryniti — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:00:30 -0800

How do I keep my dogs from peeing on the concrete? So we just bought and moved into a new house (hooray!). For the first time since I've had my dogs (about 8 years), we have a beautiful and quite large yard for them. Problem is, between the back door and the actual grass is a large concrete area, leading to a small slate paved area. There are flower beds with border grass, azalea bushes, and assorted landscaping along the patio-type area. So far, every time I let the dogs outside, my male dog runs outside and pees on the first green thing he encounters, which results in a large puddle of dog pee on the concrete. I can see that this is quickly going to result in a stinky patio. The female is doing marginally better, but I've caught her peeing on the slate tile a time or two as well.

Now, we've only been in the house since Saturday. So far my plan of attack has been to run outside with the dogs and try to yell "No!" when I see one of them peeing in the non-grass, along with praising when I see them pee in the grass. It's not working at all. I am fairly dog savvy, but I admit, I'm totally stumped as to how to keep the dogs from doing this.

Additional information: the dogs are a nine and eight year old male and female doberman, respectively. They are spayed/neutered, and are indoor dogs. I've always lived in homes where the back door basically opened into grass, so they are not used to having a 'patio'.

Is there a special trick to preventing a dog from peeing on concrete? Should I just keep going with the "No" and the positive reinforcement for peeing in grass?

Help me identify this tree!

thermonuclear.jive.turkey — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:54:55 -0800

What is this tree? Hi, please help me try to identify this type of tree (bush? shrub?).

photos are here:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Thanks in advance.

What responsibility does the Bush administration bear for the current financial crisis?

Lownotes — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:27:28 -0800

What responsibility does the Bush administration bear for the current financial crisis? When I visit my father, we usually argue about politics.

He's a big Fox News fan, and I think it's drivel. He tends to parrot what he sees there, and I often find myself explaining how things really work to him.

Since Obama was elected, these arguments have been far less frequent - until the last two weeks when suddenly the Republican spin machine began to pound Obama's budget plans in light of our financial crisis.

I keep telling him, "Bush was president for the last eight years."

He keeps saying, "This is not Bush's fault."

So, hivemind, what sort of responsibility does the Bush administration really bear in all of this mess?

Links to source material are welcome.

Mutant rose bush?

Burhanistan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:53:27 -0800

What's up with my rose bush? One of our "Knockout Rose" bushes has sprouted a large and straight runner that has blossomed in less than two months. The leaves and stem are much larger than the older part of the plant, and it just looks a bit weird. What happened here? Was the rest of the plant a graft and this is the original stem re-establishing itself? It does look rather unsymmetrical now. Would I be hurting the plant if I nipped it? (Please excuse the poor light balance in this picture)

What does the old POTUS say to the new POTUS?

BobbyVan — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:39:53 -0800

Are the contents of the letters from US Presidents to their successors available in the National Archives or Presidential Libraries? I'm intrigued by the "From #43 to #44" letter that former President Bush left for President Obama in the Oval Office, and was wondering: are the contents of earlier outgoing-to-incoming POTUS letters available for historians and the public-at-large to review?

Obviously, you want Presidents to be completely frank and candid in their intimate conversations (so I would expect there to be a significant period of time before such correspondence would be made public), but it would be fascinating to read what previous US Presidents wrote to their successors.

(And please don't waste my time or yours by injecting your own political opinions.)

What will outgoing President Bush be doing during the Obama inauguration?

gregb1007 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:13 -0800

What will outgoing President Bush be doing during the Obama inauguration? I basically want to know what role Bush will be playing in the Obama inauguration. As far as I can tell, the outgoing president has some ceremonial functions to perform. What are these exactly?

Terrorist Fist Jab, Hooray!

InsanePenguin — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:52:58 -0800

Did the terrorists want Obama to win? Actually, though, I'm curious. As an Obama supoporter, during the election I heard many times from non-Obama supporters that "the terrorists want Obama to win," and I have two questions:

1) Is there any evidence that these ambiguous "terrorists" wanted Obama to be President, and

2) If they did, why? I would think that after 8 years of Bush invading their countries and committing war crimes, they would actually welcome a US President that was going to pull the US troops out of their countries, so it makes some semblance of sense that they would be happy (meaning, not wanting to kill us all because they hate our freedom /sarcasm.)

Also, wouldn't it be ironic if after 8 years of a War on Terror, Bush's political opponent (in policy, anyway,) ended the supposed terror attacks on the US just by being elected?

Where are the online sources for (relatively) high quality video of George W. Bush acting ridiculous on camera?

jeremias — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:30:23 -0800

Where are the online sources for (relatively) high quality video of George W. Bush acting ridiculous on camera? There's lots of footage around, but most is low quality, you-tube compression. Are there any sources on-line for higher quality versions of clips like these:
http://wonkette.com/359290/george-bush-dances-in-africa

Can Bush Refuse an Obama Pardon?

Ironmouth — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:45:05 -0800

May George W. Bush refuse a pardon from Barack Obama? Imagine that Barack Obama's first act is to pardon George W. Bush for all the illegal acts he committed during his term. Could Bush refuse such a pardon? Would his refusal mean that he could still assert his Fifth Amendment right to not be required to incriminate himself? Or would he be required to testify before any committee to call him up? (assuming Bush fails in his inevitable assertion of executive privilege).

For that matter, can any other pardon-refusing potential witness before Congress or other body with subpoena power still claim Fifth Amendment rights to avoid incriminating themselves and thereby avoid testifying?

I'm a lawyer, so give me hard details if they exist. Google is no help.

Looking for a Kerry/Gore SNL sketch

rustcellar — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:42:13 -0800

Does anyone else remember this SNL sketch with Gore and Kerry commiserating about losing to Bush? My wife I and both vividly remember a sketch (we think it was Saturday Night Live but it might have been Mad TV) with Al Gore and John Kerry both talking (in the beginning) about how they're not bitter about losing to George W. Bush. Kerry keeps his cool, and when he's done saying he doesn't hate Bush, Gore says "I also hate him. I hate his squunched-up face." Also something like "You lost but I won. I should be president."

Anyway, we'd love to see it again but it seems like NOBODY else in the Google-verse picked up on it because I can't find any part of the quotes I mentioned or anything else with Gore and Kerry together. I've looked on Hulu.com and Youtube to no avail.

Did anyone else see this, or did we completely make it up?

A coherent, succinct history of the failures of the Bush Administration

idb — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:20:36 -0800

Help me rationally and calmly document the Bush administration to a friend who thinks history will hold it in "high regard"? It feels self-evident to me and I'm sure it's self-evident to many here, but a friend watches Fox News and thinks it really is fair and balanced. She just forwarded me this article, and she seems to think "they're all the same" so she's intending to make her choice in November based on "character" (remembering that she gets her news from Fox).

My incoherent rage doesn't seem to be working...well, actually I'm holding it in check. What I would like to do is put together something that covers the issues of the last eight years in a fairly succinct and rational fashion, e.g. goes through each issue (cabinet post?) and provides a page or a couple of paragraphs on each, covering the failures and screw-ups with references.

Does such a thing already exist? Bonus points for added explanations of why more of the same policies won't help. Points off for references to "evil", regardless of however tempting it may be.

What Makes a Dubya 2000 Vote an Understandable Decision?

WCityMike — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:38:18 -0800

I'd honestly like to know why half of America voted for George W. Bush in 2000: what their reasoning was. Please note right off the bat: I'm not asking this in order to encourage mockery of, or lambaste, those people who voted for George W. Bush in 2000. Quite the contrary: I am actually asking this in order to try to fuel an attempt to get rid of a mindset that does mock and lambaste them. (2004 was a different matter, as far as people's reasoning was concerned: the terrorist attack introduced the meme, appropriate or not, that Dubya was needed to continue to be tough on terror, that it was patriotic to vote for him, and so on. So that meme was there and can explain among other things the 2004 win.)

But in the 2000 election, patriotism while under attack was not a theme available to Dubya yet. Yet he got a huge part of the country. The precise vote count and the election controversy doesn't matter for this question: he convinced nearly (or over) half the country that he would be a good President.

My question is: why? Is there a way that this question can be modeled where that half of America doesn't come off as looking bad?

A few days ago, in order to write a comment in a thread (that ended up being deleted), I ended up digging up via the Internet Archive an old web post I wrote the first weekend of December 2000.

That made me realize this question was in my mind and had never been answered, and that it was really coloring my opinion of the people who live in this country with me towards the heavy negative. All that evidence was available before the election took place, if I was able to write that essay a few weeks after the election. Why didn't it count in the public eye? There's about ten to twelve good and even media-juicy stories, any one of which you would think would have sunk his campaign. Why didn't it?

Since the 2000 election, so for eight years now, my answer has been one that paints an extremely nasty picture of HALF of the country. "Those who voted for Bush in 2000 are fucking dumbasses who didn't bother to research their vote." Complete with the hostile anger implied by "fucking dumbasses."

I imagine some of you are going, "Yeah, that's exactly how I feel, they are dumbasses." But that's not what I want your answer to be! I don't want this thread to be a pile-on for Bush voters. I don't want to think that half of America are fucking dumbasses. I have walked around with anger and with cynicism, and while I'm not seeking to swing all the way over to the other pole of things ("Charrrrliiiiieee!"), I am trying to get a better framework — free of preconceptions made angrily a long time ago — of parts of my worldview. I think the world is filled with a lot more kindness and nobility than I gave it credit for, and I think I need to start thinking better of the world in general.

So in order to do that, I want to figure this out. I want to know why people thought about it and decided to themselves that George W. Bush would be a good President, a better one than Al Gore would. And, moreover, why that decision was made with such evidence as to have that decision repeated in such massive numbers that the 2000 election was so damn close. I don't want my explanation to be "nation of dumbasses" or "sheep led by media trends" or "neocon manipulation" or other cynical nastiness anymore, so I am trying to get a different perceptual framework of the event.

It doesn't necessarily mean that media trends or neocon manipulation wasn't at play. But I just want to get a handle on why it would be a understandable decision for half of America to make back in 2000.

Anyone?

Searching for Schuster

king walnut — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:00:00 -0800

Looking for a segment composed by MSNBC's David Schuster in which he compiles a montage of clips showing Bush repeatedly insisting he would get warrants before eavesdropping on phone calls of American citizens. It was aired just before the big FISA circumvention story broke. Used to be on YouTube, but I can't find it now. Surely it's around somewhere?

Someone took a picture / of Kate Moss doing lines / Now she's being victimized / for imaginary crimes

TheNewWazoo — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:33:23 -0800

Does anyone have a good download link for the entirety of thepartyparty's tracks? I remember I used to have 8 or 9 different remixes, but the website seems to have whittled that down to only 5, and with no clean download links. I need my "Dick is a Killer"!

Has The Simpsons ever attacked President Bush directly?

Effigy2000 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:47:21 -0800

I haven't watched The Simpsons regularly since about season 12 or 13, but in those episodes I did happen to catch on TV, I have never seen them directly attack President Bush. I do remember back in the 'golden age' they used to regularly poke fun at Clinton (to name but one example, Clinton playing the sax and Moe telling him to "get back to work"). I'm wondering if regular watchers of The Simpsons can point me to episodes from season 13 onwards where they did directly parody or attack Bush.

What stereotypes do Americans have of Massachusetts and New England?

gregb1007 — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:49:43 -0800

What stereotypes do Americans have of Massachusetts and New England? Ever since hearing President Bush's derisive reference to John Kerry as a "Massachusetts" liberal, I've asked myself whether Americans who live far from the bay state have negative stereotypes of Mass (and New England) in general. I've also had some foreigners tell me that they think that Mass is overrun with rich wasps. (That impression apparently derived from viewing law sitcoms.) Anyhow, my question is: What stereotypes, if any, do Americans have of Mass?

Is the bear already in the house?

Funmonkey1 — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:35:36 -0800

I have just spent the afternoon watching stocks around the world decline partially based on sub prime market fallout. My question is how can things be so great when the Fed is handing out stacks of cash to keep things stable (34 Billion USD and counting, not including the international bail out)?

Hi-res Bush Photos

jpoulos — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:28:07 -0800

Where can I find hi-res images of George W Bush--especially candid pics? I've checked all the usual places (google images, whitehouse.gov, etc). I'd even pay a few bucks if necessary.

Removing stubborn bush from rear subframe on car

aqueousdan — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:23:16 -0800

How do I remove stubborn rear subframe bushes on my 2003 MK3 Ford Mondeo? I dont fancy using a blowtorch down there but any efforts with a sharp pointy tool are in vain as the old bush rubber pulls it back into place.

How to celebrate Dubya's birthday?

Ash3000 — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:59:02 -0800

Celebrating George W. Bush's birthday ironically - any ideas for party games, trivia questions or otherwise? Hey all,
I'm part of a group of progressives putting together a totally ironic birthday party tonight for President Bush, including party games like pin the tale on the donkey, bobbing for war rationalizations, etc., and I need your help. Part of the party will be a Bush trivia contest, hopefully with questions which are either multiple-choice or number-answers, and even better illuminating just how awful the Bush presidency has been, all while being not too tough, not too easy.

ANY trivia questions, ANY ideas for the party (there's still time), ANYthing else related would be much appreciated - thanks!

Executive Branch Power

jimmyjimjim — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:25:25 -0800

Why is the presidential administration working so persistently to bequeath extra powers to their likely Democrat successors? Though this question delves into sensitive political waters, the question itself is fairly neutral - it's about strategy rather than idealogy, and I hope people will respond as such (rather than launch diatribes):

The current administration has been doing everything it can to expand the power and autonomy of the executive branch. But why would they want this, when the executive branch is just as likely to be inhabited by Democrats? I can't imagine Bush/Cheney and Co. would be pleased to see a liberal president acting unchecked....so why this push, with its long-lasting implications?

I do understand that at the beginning of this administration, Republicans were confident they'd hold the executive branch for decades...so the play for executive power made sense at that time. However, the future is now considerably less assured. So why is this power play not just continuing but accelerating (e.g. Cheney's latest)?

I'd like to discourage replies ala "they're simply insane" and other such useless ranting.

Libby v. Nixon?

spiderwire — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:26:03 -0800

Is there a parallel between the Special Prosecutor problem in US v. Nixon and the commutation of a sentence imposed pursuant to a Special Prosecutor investigation, as in the case of "Scooter" Libby? [more inside] I've been asking this question around to anyone I thought could answer it -- to no avail -- so I decided I might as well bring it here, as well. I'm honestly curious what I'm missing here -- either the question is critical to the Libby issue, or I'm nuts, and if I'm nuts, I'd like to know why. I'd like to make it clear up front that I'm not trying to bait anyone here -- I'm going to be defending this position, and I need to test if its tenable.

The question is: How does commuting Libby's sentence square with U.S. v. Nixon? According to the GAO, Fitzgerald's appointment by Comey reads:

"By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.

In February 2004, Acting Attorney General Comey clarified Special Counsel Fitzgerald's delegation of authority to state that the authority previously delegated to him is plenary. It also states, 'Further, my conferral on you of the title of Special Counsel' in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.'"

That seems to me to directly track Nixon, which reads, in relevant part:

"So long as this regulation is extant it has the force of law. In United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), regulations of the Attorney General delegated certain of his discretionary powers to the Board [418 U.S. 683, 696] of Immigration Appeals and required that Board to exercise its own discretion on appeals in deportation cases. The Court held that so long as the Attorney General's regulations remained operative, he denied himself the authority to exercise the discretion delegated to the Board even though the original authority was his and he could reassert it by amending the regulations. ...

Here, as in Accardi, it is theoretically possible for the Attorney General to amend or revoke the regulation defining the Special Prosecutor's authority. But he has not done so. So long as this regulation remains in force the Executive Branch is bound by it, and indeed the United States as the sovereign composed of the three branches is bound to respect and to enforce it."

That was the rationale for why Nixon couldn't escape the Special Prosecutor's investigation -- I don't see why the same rationale doesn't apply here, particularly given that Knute and a few other cases explicitly limit the pardon power when it interferes with vested rights, which Fitzgerald has under Nixon and Marbury at the very least.

But this can't be right. I haven't seen this discussed elsewhere in the Libbystorm. What am I missing here? I'd like to go talk with some of my profs about this later in the week, so for the sake of my preparation, any pontifications y'all have are most welcome.

Durable Tropical cotton pants

birchhook — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:52:14 -0800

Are there any good quality, tropical weight, 100% cotton pants for close to $50? My father has been wearing Willis & Geiger Bush Poplin Cotton chinos for the last 30 years or so. I just visited him in Venezuela and noticed that his last pair (he’s had them for 10 years) has finally worn through the thigh. Ever since W&G was sold, I’ve been searching for the perfect tropical chino, but I can’t find anything that looks as good or wears as well as the ones I’ve seen my dad wear.

Bush Poplin was made for WW2 soldiers, from lightweight poplin, but woven tightly to 340 threads per inch. It's so tight that it repels mosquito bites and light rain.

I don't have to have those exact pants, but it seems that when I find a good quality pair they are either heavyweight cotton twill or $100, like Bill's khakis. They need to be just standard chinos (no cargos, etc) and medium khaki color.

Thanks

Where can I find the most thorough indictment of the Bush administration and its activities to date?

Lockeownzj00 — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:33:21 -0800

In light of a recent mefi post, I'd like to ask a question I've been meaning to ask for a long time. Where can I find the most thorough indictment of the Bush administration and its activities to date? I'm looking for a complete rundown of the crimes and corruption of the administration (and the GOP). I'm looking for where they've been taking this country and why it's the wrong way. I'm looking for what they're doing right under everybody's noses.

I'm looking for something that goes beyond making fun of Bush's funny face or stuttering or what have you. I want to dig deep and get my hands dirty with this stuff, but I don't want to read dense paragraphs of technical language and minor discrepancies in laws. I want it to be systematic, with as little extrapolation (that is to say, as much hard evidence) as possible. I want it to be relentless and scathing, but not obstinate or unreadable.

And I don't want it to be too long (man, am I idealistic or what?).

What I mean to say is, preferably something I could find online. I'm pretty swamped as far as books go. Obviously you can't do all this in a paragraph--but I don't want a 500 page book on my hands right now . I'm thinking more, "exposé of anywhere from 10 to 30 pages."

So, ask mefi: where can I go? Where can I turn? Maybe it would be a compilation of sources? Help!