While Bush surged in Iraq, a financial crisis surged in America.

Most non-partisan political pundits now agree that the Bush administration is the worst in modern American history, some say ever. Many were saying that even before the financial meltdown in recent weeks.

Could the meltdown have been prevented? Many economists say if action had of been taken as recently as a couple of years ago most of the economic problems we're now experiencing could have been avoided. Why wasn't anything done?

The Bush administration since even before September 2001 is reported to have been fixated and engrossed with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Was it oil? Was it fear of Saddam attacking America? Was it lingering bitterness from the Bush 41 Iraq war? Whatever it was, their distraction, even what some might call obsessive-compulsive thoughts on Saddam and Iraq caused a vacuum in attention to domestic issues. That vacuum of attention to domestic issues led to many failures including the response to hurricane Katrina and has now led to the American economy falling apart.

While George Bush was focused on what he called a "surge" of American troops to the sands of Iraq his neglect on domestic issues led to a surge of failures in America, most of all our economy.

The damage is done and sadly will continue long after the Bush administration is gone. If there is any good to come from this senseless and foolish mistake it is that hopefully future presidents and administrations can learn from it and never again so appallingly neglect the real business and the real issues of the American people.

----------
Cross posted at SteveEverettBlog.com and Daily Kos.

Subscribe to the Steve Everett Blog Rss feed.

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Geeks! to add comments!

Join this Ning Network

Comment by Steve Everett on October 17, 2008 at 4:28am: So you've never heard a political pundit critical of Bush? Let me take a guess, Fox News?

Political party means nothing to me. Competence does.

Comment by Dan on October 17, 2008 at 4:23am: Steve, I suggest you read MorbiKedec's comments again and again until it sinks in. By the way, who are these non-partisan political pundits to whom you refer? If you're going to make blanket statements like 'most non-partisan political pundits now agree', you'd better back it up with some references. My guess is that the 'pundits' you refer to is actually just you, and you alone. It's so easy to attach all of the world's problems to the sitting president. Had there been a democrat in office when all of this came down, what would you're reaction have been then. Leave the political commentary to people who know what they're talking about

Comment by Steve Everett on October 16, 2008 at 4:40pm: Sorry Morb, I just didn't see anything you wrote that in my opine had enough credence to even discuss.

Comment by MorbiKedec on October 16, 2008 at 7:58am: Oh, I get your gig now... don't discuss, just ignore all arguments that you think you will loose! WOW that is a level of maturity I would expect from a 10 year old. You are a intellectual light-weight and a joke. Get another couple of decades of "life" under your belt and then you might be able to defend your opinions!

Comment by Steve Everett on October 16, 2008 at 7:18am: Yes, the Iraq war is a historical fact... and a historical BLUNDER

Comment by MorbiKedec on October 16, 2008 at 7:09am: Yea, based upon your previous posts that does not sunrise me. I will admit that it is difficult to lead someone into the sunlight of knowledge when they chose to flounder in the darkness of ignorance. Agree with it or not, my post has one redeeming quality... its backed up by historical facts.

Comment by Steve Everett on October 16, 2008 at 6:55am: Morbi, you wrote a lot but I don't think I saw anything in your post that I agree with.

Comment by MorbiKedec on October 16, 2008 at 6:18am: Your ignorance and lack of historical context is amazing!!

The thin line you try and weave linking the war on terrorism with the financial failure is weak at best! Bush is a President not a king, the financial crisis is more related to the fiscal policies of Allan Greenspan and the global fiat monetary system then anything that George Bush has done or not done. If you haven't noticed this is a world wide failure!!

So you think the Bush administration was fixated on Irag... perhaps that is because Hussein had ignored more then a dozen UN resolutions and was continually firing missiles at coalition planes as they enforced the no-fly zone. Oh, and there is the small issue of Desert Storm, they signed the surrender agreement which said if you don't do these things we can come back over here any time we want and kick you ass! So even before 9/11 we had all the moral and legal reasons we needed to go back to Iraq. Before 9/11 the policy against Iraq was one of containment... 9/11 changed all that, not the fact that there was oil there!

Oh, I have heard this oil defense/excuse before... there's no oil in Afghanistan or Bosnia?? why did we go there? In your myopic world view, America only goes to war over oil right!!?? Stupid really stupid. Bush stated clearly the reasons that we went into Iraq. Your reasoning indicates that you have not spent any time to do the most basic research on this question. So let me help you out... do some research on these items and you will better understand at least part of the big plan!

- drain the swamp
- change the culture that produces terrorism
- fight them over there with our military instead of over here with our police

If you are still confused about the use of military power in geo-politics...

Consider this: in WWII the first place the American's landed to defeat Germany was North Africa... WOW imagine that, we invaded a different continent to defeat Germany!! That's the heart of it... if you don't understand strategic military planning and how that is shaped by geo-politics, then you will forever be confused about how we engage islamic terrorism.

Let me put it like this... if you don't understand why we went into Vietnam to save India, then you will never understand why we went into Iraq to defeat Iran. Ponder that!!

Comment by Steve Everett on October 16, 2008 at 6:08am: John, you did your job and I admire that but I have a question. What was accomplished with the extra troops that was worth ONE American losing their life in Iraq?

What has been accomplished in Iraq the past 5 years that was worth one American life?

Comment by John Edwards on October 16, 2008 at 5:52am: Steve, Are you kidding me? Why cant people admit that the surge worked? That's a slap in my face. We busted our ass on the ground in the Anbar Province to bring peace to that region. Now it is controlled by the Iraqi Police. Did that make the news? I didnt see it. Yes I think we would have been there if Iraq didnt have oil. Have we benifited from Iraq's oil. But I do see your point. Answer this, right now can we or any other country live without oil? No. I dont need to read anybody's book. I could write my own damn book. These hi-tech procedures are worthless without intel and ground troops.