George W Bush's Legacy

[brvheart 1,752]

I would assume they find a way into the revenue figures for 2009 and 2010, so yeah, I bet Obama looks a little better at Bush's expense. Remember that massive amounts of bailout money are still with Citi, GM, et al. The revenue numbers don't seem consistent with the earnings we saw in 2009, so I don't really know. I don't understand how revenue could be unchanged between 2008 and 2009, then only drop 11% in 2010. I'm not making an accusation here, just expressing some confusion.

Citi already paid it back. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...WaTfoE-PAUzzKkQObama is spending way too much. I hope we can agree on that.

I don't have a real solid opinion on what should happen to the budget during recessions. What is clear as day to me, however, is that we should almost never run a deficit when times are good, as they were for most of #43's reign.To get back on topic... I really, really hope we look at GWB as a huge step back on civil liberties. I'm not holding my breath.

You are quick to say that Obama gets a pass because of the 'economy', but don't mention 'the destruction of the World Trade Center & Pentagon by an attack of a foreign people' as a reason that Bush might have been running a small (in comparison) deficit.

So do you guys think the economic crisis will be part of Bush's legacy? I didn't think of it before because it happened so late in his term that it seems like it is more Obama's issue now, but it definitely meant that his presidency ended on a low and some amount of blame can be assigned to him in not doing more to prevent it (note: I'm not looking for an argument about who was to blame, please don't go on a tangent with that). What do you think? Will he be remembered as the president under whom the country suffered the worst economic crisis since the great depression? Or will people associate it more with Obama since it got passed onto him?

I think SB hit the nail on the head when she mention that 'history' is written by academia, and academia is liberal. That is enough to assume that it will be blamed on Bush... even though the majority of the blame lies on Greenspan and Congress for forcing banks to lend to people in the name of 'equality'.Let's all remember Braveheart: "History is written by those who have hanged heroes."

[strategy 4]

Citi already paid it back. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...WaTfoE-PAUzzKkQ

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/091224/c8-k.htmlSomeone had told me C owed way more than $20B, and that they were the only ones using common rather than treasury. Good to know.

You are quick to say that Obama gets a pass because of the 'economy'

I'm generally against spending regardless of who is at the helm. My hesitation to take a hard stance on recessionary spending is basically pragmatic in nature. I am not so confident that balancing the budget and foregoing any stimulus is politically feasible when the populace is convinced we're on the brink. see: herbert hooverIf Obama had run a deficit (as president) from 04-08, I would denounce him just as loudly as I do Bush. And there's still some time to do some denouncin' during Obama's current term, too.

but don't mention 'the destruction of the World Trade Center & Pentagon by an attack of a foreign people' as a reason that Bush might have been running a small (in comparison) deficit.

I won't try to convince you that Bush's philosophy would have led to massive deficits regardless of what transpired. Instead, watch IOUSA and pay attention to David Walker.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walk...ller_General%29

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Thanks for this insight, SB, you said quite similar things to what my lecturer said in our class on Clinton today. I would like to hear more of your opinion on what Bush's legacy will be, it would be great if you looked at the questions in my 2nd post and provided your perspective.

Worst.President.Ever.That was too easy to pass up.Seriously, though, I truly believe we won't be able to guage his historical legacy for at least another twenty to as much as fifty years. As Faulkner said about the South, "The past isn't really dead. It isn't even really past." Bush is still current news, in terms of the long view of history. Any "analysis" now is just reaction, not analysis.For example, right now I think going to war against Iraq was the wrong enemy (one who had nothing to do with 9/11), on dishonest grounds. However, if, 15 or 20 years from now Iraq has a strong, peaceful, moderate, stable government, then the war to topple Hussein will have been a good idea. On the other hand, if Iran has gone nuclear and threatens the stability of the whole region while Iraq is still chaotic, then it will have been a bad idea. Truman's Marshall Plan was bitterly attacked by Republicans for spending millions to rebuild Europe while we had needs at home (especially for rebuilding West Germany). But it turned out to be a great idea because it kept all of Europe from falling under Soviet control due to poverty and postwar chaos. Reagan's arms race was bitterly attacked by Democrats for nearly bankrupting the US, but it turned out to be a good idea because it bankrupted the Soviets first. We've yet to see the long-term effect of the Iraq war. Right now it looks like it's leaning the "bad" way, but that chould change, and if it changes dramatically, so will Bush's legacy.

- What will Bush be remembered for?

In order, I think:Iraq [dishonest about motives and intel, unpopular around world]9/11 [good initial response, but squandered world sympathy and goodwill]Recession [inherited balanced budget and left us with Great Depression 2.0 anyway]To a lesser extent, Katrina. It will be mentioned, but mostly it will be a footnote to his presidency.

- Which of his policies will prove to have a deep and lasting impact on American politics?

The polarization between partiesThe Iraq WarLikely, nothing else will have a lasting effect. As much passion and pixels get expended on anything during a president's term, a hundred years later very little of it matters anymore.

- Has he changed the style/power of the Executive in the long term, e.g. by expanding "inherent powers"?

Yes. The fact that Obama has continued Bush's secretive policies and high-handed power plays shows that once power is seized it is not ever given up willingly. The presidency will likely continue to be imperial, no matter which party is in power, until a crisis like Watergate knocks it back down again. But that's something that won't get a lot of public attention -- it will mostly be talked about in scholarly books.

- Will public opinion of him improve with time (for instance, as Reagan's has)? Or even sink lower?

The public will forget him in a couple of decades, as it's forgotten Ford, Carter, Bush I, and even Clinton. Sure we remember who they are, and those who are passionate about politics can still rant about things they did, but how much of the same fire is still burning as there was when it was just then happening? Public opinion of nearly every previous president is, "huh? who? oh, I guess he was okay."The opinion of historians, authors, professors, though? I think that will stay pretty low. He'll never be considered the lowest of the low, but I can't see him ever being considered even in the top 50% either. I think he'll shuffle around a bit right where he is now, bottom third or so. Which is to say, in some ways instant analysis is spot on, because it largely sets the tone for decades to come. It isn't the same as a long-term view, but it often reaches the same conclusions, because it defines the parameters.

[brvheart 1,752]

Worst.President.Ever.That was too easy to pass up.Seriously, though, I truly believe we won't be able to guage his historical legacy for at least another twenty to as much as fifty years. As Faulkner said about the South, "The past isn't really dead. It isn't even really past." Bush is still current news, in terms of the long view of history. Any "analysis" now is just reaction, not analysis.For example, right now I think going to war against Iraq was the wrong enemy (one who had nothing to do with 9/11), on dishonest grounds. However, if, 15 or 20 years from now Iraq has a strong, peaceful, moderate, stable government, then the war to topple Hussein will have been a good idea. On the other hand, if Iran has gone nuclear and threatens the stability of the whole region while Iraq is still chaotic, then it will have been a bad idea. Truman's Marshall Plan was bitterly attacked by Republicans for spending millions to rebuild Europe while we had needs at home (especially for rebuilding West Germany). But it turned out to be a great idea because it kept all of Europe from falling under Soviet control due to poverty and postwar chaos. Reagan's arms race was bitterly attacked by Democrats for nearly bankrupting the US, but it turned out to be a good idea because it bankrupted the Soviets first. We've yet to see the long-term effect of the Iraq war. Right now it looks like it's leaning the "bad" way, but that chould change, and if it changes dramatically, so will Bush's legacy.In order, I think:Iraq [dishonest about motives and intel, unpopular around world]9/11 [good initial response, but squandered world sympathy and goodwill]Recession [inherited balanced budget and left us with Great Depression 2.0 anyway]To a lesser extent, Katrina. It will be mentioned, but mostly it will be a footnote to his presidency.The polarization between partiesThe Iraq WarLikely, nothing else will have a lasting effect. As much passion and pixels get expended on anything during a president's term, a hundred years later very little of it matters anymore.Yes. The fact that Obama has continued Bush's secretive policies and high-handed power plays shows that once power is seized it is not ever given up willingly. The presidency will likely continue to be imperial, no matter which party is in power, until a crisis like Watergate knocks it back down again. But that's something that won't get a lot of public attention -- it will mostly be talked about in scholarly books.The public will forget him in a couple of decades, as it's forgotten Ford, Carter, Bush I, and even Clinton. Sure we remember who they are, and those who are passionate about politics can still rant about things they did, but how much of the same fire is still burning as there was when it was just then happening? Public opinion of nearly every previous president is, "huh? who? oh, I guess he was okay."The opinion of historians, authors, professors, though? I think that will stay pretty low. He'll never be considered the lowest of the low, but I can't see him ever being considered even in the top 50% either. I think he'll shuffle around a bit right where he is now, bottom third or so. Which is to say, in some ways instant analysis is spot on, because it largely sets the tone for decades to come. It isn't the same as a long-term view, but it often reaches the same conclusions, because it defines the parameters.

I enjoyed this post very much. It might be my favorite post of yours ever.I still don't understand why liberals continue to come right out and say that Bush lied about the Iraq intel. That is just mind-numblingly stupid. He obviously wasn't lying. His intel was the same as all the other countries that joined us in the fight.

[gobears 0]

I enjoyed this post very much. It might be my favorite post of yours ever.I still don't understand why liberals continue to come right out and say that Bush lied about the Iraq intel. That is just mind-numblingly stupid. He obviously wasn't lying. His intel was the same as all the other countries that joined us in the fight.

It's more of a case where Bush/Cheney were pre-disposed to going into Iraq. Also, they tried to link Iraq to 9/11 in many ways as just googling that shows a USA Today article showing 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attack. This type of propaganda made it easier to sell the average US citizen on going into Iraq.So they highlighted all supporting evidence and basically set aside any intelligence that said that it was likely that Saddam didn't have any WMD.If the US didn't push for the war in Iraq, none of the other countries would have headed up the effort. We had 100% support against Bin Laden, much less than that when we went into Iraq.Did Bush "lie"? No, more of the case where a CEO had made up his mind on a decision and any conflicting arguments by his staff are set aside.I agree with most of SB's statements about GWB's legacy with the exception of the economy. I blame the Fed and Greenspan for most of those problems - too much easy credit created the biggest housing bubble ever.

[brvheart 1,752]

I blame the Fed and Greenspan for most of those problems - too much easy credit created the biggest housing bubble ever.

yep.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I enjoyed this post very much. It might be my favorite post of yours ever.I still don't understand why liberals continue to come right out and say that Bush lied about the Iraq intel. That is just mind-numblingly stupid. He obviously wasn't lying. His intel was the same as all the other countries that joined us in the fight.

Sweet Saint Molly Ivins, what have I done?!Kidding -- I poke at you a lot in the religion forum, but I appreciate this. Thanks.

It's more of a case where Bush/Cheney were pre-disposed to going into Iraq. Also, they tried to link Iraq to 9/11 in many ways as just googling that shows a USA Today article showing 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attack. This type of propaganda made it easier to sell the average US citizen on going into Iraq.So they highlighted all supporting evidence and basically set aside any intelligence that said that it was likely that Saddam didn't have any WMD.If the US didn't push for the war in Iraq, none of the other countries would have headed up the effort. We had 100% support against Bin Laden, much less than that when we went into Iraq.Did Bush "lie"? No, more of the case where a CEO had made up his mind on a decision and any conflicting arguments by his staff are set aside.I agree with most of SB's statements about GWB's legacy with the exception of the economy. I blame the Fed and Greenspan for most of those problems - too much easy credit created the biggest housing bubble ever.

I was thinking more of the 9/11 "links" than WMDs. As for the economy, it's not a question of who bears blame for structural and policy weaknesses, but how will history remember it and whose name will they put it under. Right or wrong, the buck has to stop somewhere, and unless you're writing an economic history of the Fed, the buck generally stops with the president. There were a lot of underlying reasons why populations were being pushed out of Turkey and into Eastern Europe and why mounted archery was an advantage in warfare and why broken Roman tributes led to events. But do we remember all that? No, we remember Attila the Hun.

[strategy 4]

For example, right now I think going to war against Iraq was the wrong enemy (one who had nothing to do with 9/11), on dishonest grounds. However, if, 15 or 20 years from now Iraq has a strong, peaceful, moderate, stable government, then the war to topple Hussein will have been a good idea. On the other hand, if Iran has gone nuclear and threatens the stability of the whole region while Iraq is still chaotic, then it will have been a bad idea. Truman's Marshall Plan was bitterly attacked by Republicans for spending millions to rebuild Europe while we had needs at home (especially for rebuilding West Germany). But it turned out to be a great idea because it kept all of Europe from falling under Soviet control due to poverty and postwar chaos. Reagan's arms race was bitterly attacked by Democrats for nearly bankrupting the US, but it turned out to be a good idea because it bankrupted the Soviets first. We've yet to see the long-term effect of the Iraq war. Right now it looks like it's leaning the "bad" way, but that chould change, and if it changes dramatically, so will Bush's legacy.

I have trouble with this thinking. Eventual vindication is not always a signal that the person made the right decision. I'd make a poker comparison, but we don't have infinite alternate realities to re-play Bush's post-9/11 actions. Are there any instances where we recognize that a decision was poor based on the circumstances, but the president in question got incredibly lucky? This is something that's always bothered me about the way we interpret history.

[brvheart 1,752]

This is something that's always bothered me about the way we interpret history.

But it will keep happening... forever and ever.

[strategy 4]

But it will keep happening... forever and ever.

well, maybe. it would seem like it's getting less inconceivable to step into a president's shoes years later and see pretty much everything they saw at that point in time. I guess the spark that started this line of thinking came months ago, when wikileaks released a massive block of pager messages from the moments before and after the 9/11 attacks. It's just text, but it's pretty intense nonetheless. this guy sums it up nicely:http://womzilla.livejournal.com/273426.html

[Balloon guy 158]

It's more of a case where Bush/Cheney were pre-disposed to going into Iraq. Also, they tried to link Iraq to 9/11 in many ways as just googling that shows a USA Today article showing 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attack. This type of propaganda made it easier to sell the average US citizen on going into Iraq.So they highlighted all supporting evidence and basically set aside any intelligence that said that it was likely that Saddam didn't have any WMD.If the US didn't push for the war in Iraq, none of the other countries would have headed up the effort. We had 100% support against Bin Laden, much less than that when we went into Iraq.Did Bush "lie"? No, more of the case where a CEO had made up his mind on a decision and any conflicting arguments by his staff are set aside.I agree with most of SB's statements about GWB's legacy with the exception of the economy. I blame the Fed and Greenspan for most of those problems - too much easy credit created the biggest housing bubble ever.

I am not sure I agree that there was much intelligance that said Saddam didn't have any WMDs.Iraq had them, used them and had bought the lab equipment from the French to make it. All that as true during the first gulf war.Saddam himself was telling everyone who would listen that he had them and would use them when he needed to.There were missing centrifuges that we knew he had, but never found after the first gulf war because we later found out they buried them in the sand.This ruined them, but still they had WMD making stuff, and we never found out what happened to it.The UN was sending in weapons inspectors to findout if Saddam had any WMDs, not because they were fans of Reagan's "Trust but verify" policy, but because there was enough evidence to warrent insection.Then Saddam kicks them out, and makes clear threats to imply he would bring us to our knees.We found a building filled with chemical suits, brand new ones. We found generals who told us they thought they had chemical weapons.It seems now that the Monday morning quarterbacks have rewritten history and turned the truth into democrat propoganda laced sound bites.I trust that history will show this to be the case

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I have trouble with this thinking. Eventual vindication is not always a signal that the person made the right decision. I'd make a poker comparison, but we don't have infinite alternate realities to re-play Bush's post-9/11 actions. Are there any instances where we recognize that a decision was poor based on the circumstances, but the president in question got incredibly lucky? This is something that's always bothered me about the way we interpret history.

But it will keep happening... forever and ever.

I was thinking about this further myself. I agree with both of you. We interpret it that way because we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume that he had access to information we don't (i.e., classified stuff, policy analyses, etc.) and that he used that data that only he had in a wise, farsighted way. There are times when that is probably true, and times when it is probably false. Later events are shaped by sheer dumb luck sometimes -- history is full of dumb luck and random chance. But respect for the office and the ongoing "great man" theory of history means that we will continue to see it this way. Here's a blog by Dilbert creator Scott Adams:

I Want a Lucky PresidentAll of the major candidates for president of the United States are qualified. They know the issues. They’re smart. They’ve all shown leadership, and they obviously know politics. But which one is luckiest? I want the luckiest person as my president. That’s what I liked about Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. They were lucky people, and it seemed to rub off on the country. The trouble is, how do you predict who is going to be lucky?I have a theory that everyone is born with a similar quantity of luck, but it’s distributed unevenly over a lifetime. Some people have their bad luck early in life, followed by good luck for the rest of their lives, and vice versa. If someone “up there” is planning people’s fates, a few of those decisions must have gone like this:“You will have cancer, and one nut, but to even things out, I’ll let you win the Tour de France a bunch of times, and hump Sheryl Crow until it gets boring.”“You will be poor, and sexually abused as a child. But to even things out, you’ll be Oprah.”“You will be born to one of the richest families in America. You will be handsome and smart and eventually President of the United States. You will shag Marilyn Monroe and anything else with a skirt. But just to even things out, I’ll have some guy shoot you in the head.”“You will be over seven feet tall, and the greatest basketball legend of our time. You will score 100 points in a single game, and you will have sex with 20,000 women. But to even things out, I have to give you heart failure at the age of 63.”“You are the sexiest male movie star of all time. You are wealthy and desired by all women. But just to even things out, I’ll make you marry a woman who can’t stop adopting poor kids until you have to sleep in the garage next to the recycling bins.”See how this works? All we have to do is find the presidential candidate who had the worst early life experience. That’s the one who will have the most luck in the future.Senator McCain immediately comes to mind. He was a prisoner of war. But if you read his biography, it looks like he already used up his luck by consistently being the “guy who didn’t get killed.” And his misfortune of being tortured already helped him get elected Senator. I worry that he might have already achieved breakeven.Romney scares the hell out of me. That guy was born wealthy, handsome, and brilliant. And he keeps getting smarter, more successful, and better looking. Everything he touches turns to gold. Luckwise, he’s running on fumes. If he gets elected, I expect the moon to fall out of orbit and land in Ohio.Hilary Clinton had the massive good luck to marry Bill Clinton. But that was cancelled out by the massive bad luck of being married to Bill Clinton. She’s already ahead of the game by being Senator. The best thing Bill can do to get Hilary elected is to appear on The Today Show and molest Meredith Viera, thereby creating a luck surplus for his wife.Well, you see how the luck theory works. If you think you have a more reliable method for picking a president, you’re probably no more qualified to vote than I am.

[SweetDee 0]

We can say he genuinely cannot be blamed for passing the healthcare cluster****, good for him.

[Avaron 0]

I am not sure I agree that there was much intelligance that said Saddam didn't have any WMDs.Iraq had them, used them and had bought the lab equipment from the French to make it. All that as true during the first gulf war.Saddam himself was telling everyone who would listen that he had them and would use them when he needed to.There were missing centrifuges that we knew he had, but never found after the first gulf war because we later found out they buried them in the sand.This ruined them, but still they had WMD making stuff, and we never found out what happened to it.The UN was sending in weapons inspectors to findout if Saddam had any WMDs, not because they were fans of Reagan's "Trust but verify" policy, but because there was enough evidence to warrent insection.Then Saddam kicks them out, and makes clear threats to imply he would bring us to our knees.We found a building filled with chemical suits, brand new ones. We found generals who told us they thought they had chemical weapons.It seems now that the Monday morning quarterbacks have rewritten history and turned the truth into democrat propoganda laced sound bites.I trust that history will show this to be the case

that's circumstantial evidence. unless we find a stock with nuclear warheads, we'll never know if everything was just a huge bluff. iran kind of does the same thing now. everybody is pretty sure that they aren't able to built wmds right now, but ahmadinejad is talking big. that doesn't proof anything besides that the guy has a big mouth and is completely delusional.and yes, i know that we still mustn't allow him to continue with the research.

[Balloon guy 158]

that's circumstantial evidence. unless we find a stock with nuclear warheads, we'll never know if everything was just a huge bluff. iran kind of does the same thing now. everybody is pretty sure that they aren't able to built wmds right now, but ahmadinejad is talking big. that doesn't proof anything besides that the guy has a big mouth and is completely delusional.and yes, i know that we still mustn't allow him to continue with the research.

But Iran hasn't already used them, hasn't spent tens of millions with the French and Germans to buy laboratory equipment that has only one purpose, to make chemical weapons.There is a big difference between a nation that talks about it, and one who has done it already then talks about it.

[Jeepster80125 0]

But Iran hasn't already used them, hasn't spent tens of millions with the French and Germans to buy laboratory equipment that has only one purpose, to make chemical weapons.There is a big difference between a nation that talks about it, and one who has done it already then talks about it.

Is it chemical weapons or WMDs?There's a pretty big difference.

[Balloon guy 158]

Is it chemical weapons or WMDs?There's a pretty big difference.

How?Other than chemical weapons have more potential to destroy the entire population of the earth.

[Jeepster80125 0]

How?Other than chemical weapons have more potential to destroy the entire population of the earth.

Seriously?OK. As I understand it, WMDs are things like nuclear bombs or components. Agreed? Chemical weapons are things like mustard gas, etc. Nowhere near a weapon of mass destruction. You referred to weapons of mass destruction when discussing iraq, then a couple of posts later you say chemical weapons.Please clarify, or are you arguing semantics?

[Balloon guy 158]

Seriously?OK. As I understand it, WMDs are things like nuclear bombs or components. Agreed? Chemical weapons are things like mustard gas, etc. Nowhere near a weapon of mass destruction. You referred to weapons of mass destruction when discussing iraq, then a couple of posts later you say chemical weapons.Please clarify, or are you arguing semantics?

A weapon of mass destruction means it can kill lots of people, destroy cities, disrupt global economies.Chemical and nuclear weapons both meet those requirements.Just because you try to describe chemical weapons as WW2 vintage mustard gas doesn't mean you can ignore the reality of weaponized neurotoxin being placed in a transportation hub by a guy who drops a beaker in a bathroom and kills hundreds of thousands of people around the globes after shutting down international trade for months.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I have a feeling that a lot of people would disagree with you.I would say that most people, would consider chemical weapons to be things that actually exist or are a threat, today. I guess we could argue the potential threat for 'weaponized neurotoxins', whatever those are.I think most people would agree that Bush was pushing nuclear weapons/components more than 'weaponized neurotoxins'.I don't think anyone will disagree that there were chemical weapons in iraq. I think you're lumping things together to advance your agenda in this discussion. You get too many of your talking points from rush.I'm not going to continue this back-and-forth with you out of respect for LG and her OP.

[Balloon guy 158]

I have a feeling that a lot of people would disagree with you.I would say that most people, would consider chemical weapons to be things that actually exist or are a threat, today. I guess we could argue the potential threat for 'weaponized neurotoxins', whatever those are.I think most people would agree that Bush was pushing nuclear weapons/components more than 'weaponized neurotoxins'.I don't think anyone will disagree that there were chemical weapons in iraq. I think you're lumping things together to advance your agenda in this discussion. You get too many of your talking points from rush.I'm not going to continue this back-and-forth with you out of respect for LG and her OP.

There you go.The Bush legacy will be based on the narrow interpretation of what constitutes a WMD.Although we actually didn't find chemical weapons in Iraq, other than some old stuff that was mostly worthless.And Jeep, you better update your threat calendar, because chemical weapons are a much bigger threat than nuclear bombs are to the stability of the world.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Are there any instances where we recognize that a decision was poor based on the circumstances, but the president in question got incredibly lucky?

Interesting question. I'm trying to think of an example (or an example of the opposite).

[Balloon guy 158]

Interesting question. I'm trying to think of an example (or an example of the opposite).

There is a really good example of this in 14th century Spain but I think most people would not get it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There is a really good example of this in 14th century Spain but I think most people would not get it.

Maybe if you made an ice cream analogy it would make more sense to us.

[Balloon guy 158]

Maybe if you made an ice cream analogy it would make more sense to us.

Seems there was this guy, in Mexico, who was having some money troubles. He wanted to do right by his father and stay out of the drug trade, but the pressures to make enough money for his sister's needed back hair removal surgery were crowding out the voices in his head telling him to kill whitey. But it also drowned out the voices telling Juan not to join the drug cartels.Luckily for Juan that at this same time, there was a TV writer who was telling a story on a popular sitcom about coffee flavored ice cream, right at the same time as a journalist for Fox news was telling about how the 2010 elections brought a complete sweep of the house and senate and Nancy Pelosi was out of power and was now demoted to the FDA where she was going to spend her remaining years in office trying to get free coffee for every American.Just then a group of liberal college students ( being the sheep followers that they are ) all went to Ben and Jerry's and all ordered coffee flavored ice cream.This sent a signal through the supply chain software used by Ben and Jerry's to automatically place an order for more coffee.The majority of people in America watch Fox news so they all had an epiphany to buy coffee to stock up before Nancy Pelosi ruined that industry, sending more supply chain software programs to auto order coffee.As Juan was walking by the coffee plantation, he heard a whoop and a holler and looked to see the foreman of the plantation come running out."Hey you want a job picking coffee beans?""Si""The get your scrawny butt down to the fields and start picking, we just got the biggest order we ever got at once and it's going to take weeks to pick all this coffee."Okay, but first I need to go get some ice cream""What? I got no times for people that don't want to work"So Juan didn't go down to the coffee fields to pick coffee to earn enough money for his sister's operation.Which was lucky because the cartel had picked that day to take over those choice fields for their cocaine growing operation, and they killed every worker.So the luck was there, but no one would ever connect the dots, because Juan later died from a sever anxiety attack and never got the chance to pay for his sister's operation, but she did get a job with the circus as the bearded lady, and married the 5 armed man, and their children would united all people under one flag, and attack Canada, which would become a reality TV show with the highest ratings ever in the US market.