You Elected Him

[Baxter]

Well, we all know there is a massive difference between the reality and what was sold two years ago. In my mind there are only a few explanations: A: Intelligence on everything was crap and everyone was given the same thing. B: Intelligence was overstated to the rest of us and GWB knew the actual dissenting positions and ignored them.
Like any sale, you don't lie, you just state -your- statistics and 'understood' facts.. How well trained are these 120k Iraqi's? There's lots of claims that get nailed into the dirt once someone outside the WH does research. 'No problem with armor production... no supply problems.. plenty of troops.. we were perfectly prepared..

I already know Bush's position on actually reading whats put on his desk, so I'm inclined to believe that he skipped the caveat portion of the memos and went with scare tactics. The fact that he doesn't read the memos strikes me as cavalier with MY security, and the gut instinct cowboy crap is going to get Americans killed. I'm tired of being spun a new cover story when the old one gets holes poked in it. The current reason for the Iraq war is that 'he cavorted with terrorists' ??

 

[johnbt]

"George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents"

Will not.

John

 

[bountyh]

During his career Reagan was slated to be one of the worst in history, yet the view of his presidency and accomplishments has changed dramatically in just 20 years.

No, that is not accurate. Reagan was called "teflon" because nothiung ever stuck to him. Even back as governeor here in kali, he lied and never kept his word. He gutted cal Osha and left a legacy of poisoning and filth because the fines were less than the disposal costs of hazardous wastes. Reagan spouted the same crap about "tax reform" and basically ment for the wealthy. One year he said "Taxes should hurt", and he paid ZERO state taxes through a trick of depreciating some property. he said "If you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all." At a luncheon, a speaker said "We should blow up Cal-OSHA." Reagan, not realizing his microphone was on, uttered a loud: "AMEN!"

But the idiots here never kept track of what he said and then did, or how much damage he did. They just basked in the glow of having a movie star for governor (same problem today). Reagan as president was dubbed "the great communicator" and hailed as the champion of the armed forces and the working man.

Reagan was marked for sainthood before he ever left office.

 

[bountyh]

"George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents"

Will not.

Hard to answer a rebuttal with that kind of intellectual thunder and persuasive force.

Ranks right up there with: "Nuh-uhhhh.... you're a poopy head!"

 

[Black_Iron]

gfen

Since you spent a good amount of time typing your reply, I would like now to reply.

I can sum it up pretty easily: George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents to ever helm the United States of America. Under his leadership the country has been sold out and lied to numerous times, is involved in dangerous nation building exercises and is squandering its resources, including the most precious of them all: human lives in a vain attempt to make a select group more powerful.

You are assuming here that:

1) Policy is dictated by the President of the United States
2) The President performs and maintains a leadership role in the present Government
3) The nature of the evidence can lead us either into a logical True or False, and the President lead us into a logical False
4) The Government of the United States has direct authority and involvement over the direction of the nation
5) The President acts alone

I'm glad that many people feel confident with him as president, however, I wonder how many of those people have given more than a cursory look into what's actually going on, and has bothered to try reading some of the "opposition's" facts, instead of blinding relying on those who have a vested interest in promoting the current ruling elite.

Believe me, I have. I don't think you've given too much of a look into what's going on: you have simply chosen to demonize and stereotype Bush.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you haven't noticed, the executive branch of the US government is currently doing its utmost to stack the deck and throw off the checks and balances system to weight itself with absolute power. Furthermore, all three branches of government are beginning to become too close with particular moneyed interests, placing another barrier between a government for the people and by the people and making it more akin to a government for some of the people and bought by the corporations.

So George W. Bush is now behind an attempt to centralize power within the executive branch? Do you really believe this pseudo-New Age Marxism that floods the American media?

DO you really want to establish a People's Republic of America? (In the same sense as a People's Republic of China)

Yes, I voted for John Kerry. I'm fully aware of his "antigunner" status, but I'd have rather have dealt with that worry rather than the destructive path our current administration is taking us on. At the end of the day, I'd rather have a leader that shares a difference of opinion than one who lies to me, my fellow Americans, and the rest of the world; and then who uses those lies to further his/their own goals and agendas.

I wonder if you really think that the American Jewish stooge, John Kerry, would somehow be less of a crony for Israel than Geroge W. Bush. Kerry's aggressive and poorly thought policies and his vow to "kill the terrorists", along with fellow Jews Schumer and Dershowitz' desire to confront Iran is what will really destablize the Middle East; not throwing out a weak and corrupt dictator.

How about the fact that this notable anti-war protestor in Vietnam barely squeaked in regards to approving the Iraq war, or that former Mayor Ed Koch (D-NYC) supported Bush for President over Kerry and accused Clinton of "being soft" on killing Arabs and the enemies of Israel? Obviously, Kerry is a lapdog for powerful Jewish interests.

I honestly think that George W. Bush's stance on immigration (and Israel) is possibly the worst I've ever seen. We should be working to close the borders, and deport the illegals as soon as possible. Mexicans have gotten a free ride long enough, it's time for them to face the law. Hispanic interests trump moral interests? The Gonzales nomination must be opposed at all costs.

Just to head off the inevitable arguments, yes I do support the troops (so much so I'd like to see them come home and do something useful than to squat on mineral rights for KBR). Yes, I am in fact a card carrying Communist. No, despite the fact that I'd like to live in a foreign country, I won't move: Its too difficult. Anything else? Wait, wait.. Seriously, my only suggestion is that all of you think long and hard about who's running hte country and where its going. Seriously, that's it. OK, carry on.

Ok, answers my question about the Marxism.

It's interesting how what is nothing more than barely intellectual counter-propaganda has caught on so well with the degenerate youth of this nation.

The Jews are the ones who have hijacked and controlled all forms of intellectual discourse throughout the public sector. They are the ones who are responsible for this fruitless and appaling war in Afghanistan, and equally appalling support for Israel over far more vital nations like Saudi Arabia.

 

[Black_Iron]

There's no question that I oppose the LIBERAL Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General.

He is self-serving slime.

While torture is one reason why I oppose the nomination of this despicable man, the other very important reasons include his pro-abortion tenure (he deliberately upheld the killing of an innocent human being) on the Texas Supreme Court and his support for banning firearms. He is not fit to be attorney general and is possibly the best example of the cronyism in this Administration.

I am no fan of a pro-Hispanic attnorney general either.

 

[tube_ee]

Here's what I don't get...

Bush's supporters will accept things from him that would have them screaming from the rooftops if it was a Democrat doing them.

Let's look at Iraq:

This war was sold to the people on the idea that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, and connections to Al-Queda. In other words, that his government was in a position to provide mass-casualty weapons to terrorist organizations, to be used against the United States. Hence, Condi Rice's famous "We don't want the 'smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan" comment.

Then we were told that the Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our feet, that Iraqi oil would pay for the costs of the war and reconstruction, that the killing of Saddam's sons would end the resistance, that the capture of Saddam would do it, or the capture of Falluja, or ....

None of these claims has proven to be true. So, I am left with only two choices:

1. The Administration knew these claims were false, and lied to the American people in order to drum up support for a war that they had wanted for years.

2. The Adminstration blew it, and this is the biggest foreign-policy / intelligence screw-up in recent memory.

I'm not OK with either of these scenarios. I wouldn't put up with either lying or stunning incompetence from ANY administration, Republican or Democrat. It's got nothing to do with my personal opinion of Bush, or anyone else.

In the same vein, how many people here would have supported the Patriot Act, if it had been proposed by Al Gore? Who here would buy into Alberto Gonzalez's assertion that, in the context of the "War on Terror", there should be NO restrictions on Presidential power, if he were talking about a Democratic President instead of a Republican one? What about the idea that disagreeing with the President is "disloyal" or "un-American" or "treason"?? I won't put up with that kind of nonsense from ANYONE, no matter what their party affiliation. The fundamental freedom, the one thing that a free society MUST have, is the ABSOLUTE freedom of citizens to disagree with their government. Without that, you have nothing.

This whole "Dear Leader" thing I see around Bush is very, very disturbing. Whatever happened to "we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men?"

--Shannon

 

[bountyh]

Speaking of stereotypes:

The Jews are the ones who have hijacked and controlled all forms of intellectual discourse throughout the public sector.

Those are the ones that get threads locked.

I'm not an Israeli apologist, but you should address specific issues not sling mega-crap on an entire race of people.

 

[jailmedic]

gburner

It's attitudes like yours which make fun of thoughtful people which makes for the ugly split our nation is experiencing right now.
If you can't rise above the poor example of the current President and the two terrible political parties and engage your fellow citizens in honest debate, then you are not worthy of the title "citizen".
Your perspective is quite narrow, seeing things only in Red/Blue, Dem/Rep.... what a shame. We all lose when people act this way.
We can all assume that those we disagree with have good will until proven otherwise.
Would you like to start this discussion over?

 

[TheBluesMan]

This one has gone on long enough.

Closed for general incivility and just plain old nastiness.

Feel free to email or PM me if you have any questions about this action.

-Dave