new thread
President George Bush gets here in São Paulo today!!!
Guess what???? He's bringing the water to take his shower, the water for his dogs securities...
I can understand a normal, civil person being ignorant about uses ans costumes of a country, but a politician importing water for his shower??? Please, where does he think he is? In the middle of Amazon Rainforest?
Typical. His arrogance is just unbelievable. Only 22 months left! I hope the world can survive that long with him still in power.
I dont know man... I hope the next guy is better.
I'm not sure you should use "Bush" and "think" in the same sentence :))
I try to abstain from political discussions on this board just because it's the one part of my life that doesn't involve such mindless jabber, but being the poli-sci major that I am, this is irresistible...
This man is beyond a disgrace to our country. I'll admit, I used to like him and supported him 2000 and somewhat reluctantly in 2004. But then I became a little (lot?) wiser, woke up, and smelled the coffee. Jason's right... only 22 months left, but I just don't see things getting better, regardless of which party holds the White House come 2009.
However, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt... perhaps he's decided to grow his hair long and doesn't want the different mineral content of Brazilian water to have adverse effects on his hair. lol!
I'm no fan of GWB; but this sounds more like Secret Service paranoia, combined with the press latching onto that and spinning it against him since they know he's not popular.
Or, look at it this way: If I drove an RV to Arkansas, I would have my onboard water supply and, technicly, I'd be "importing my own water to Arkansas". Now, since I'm not a politician, nobody cares about that or reads anything into it. If I'm president, and I were from a part of the country that thinks Arkansas is backwards, the press might latch onto that and report it as "SteveNoVA takes own water supply to Arkansas".
This is how the game is played.
I'll be the first to admit that Bush could have done things better. But there is a big difference between not liking or agreeing with what he has done and calling him a disgrace. Just go back one president for that definition.
Different topics can be debated all day. Sometimes the right thing to do may not be the popular thing to do. It may be a very difficult thing to do. But should it be avoided just because it's not popular?
Just remember, no matter how much you may disagree with Bush, that it is most probably some of those very actions you criticize that maintains your freedom to express those very views.
The same goes for parenting. I love my kids. I want to be their friend. But that is not my primary responsibility to them. My primary responsibility is to bring them up properly and educate them on how to survive and make it in this world of today. Sometimes you have to take actions that they may not like. It's not a popularity contest. It's a responsibility.
Many people don't like Bush because of the steps he has taken to protect the US. It's difficult to count up and give credit for all the things that have not happened over the last few years. Think about it.
Big George
Wow, Big George, I am not sure that what you said even made sense, but I feel a need to reply.
I APOLOGIZE TO ANYONE WHOM I MAY UNINTENTIONALLY OFFEND HERE. IF YOU ARE A HUGE FAN OF BUSH (George, that is), YOU MAY WISH TO SKIP THIS POST.
MrC
And Bill was a disgrace for what, exactly? Was it for:
A) being one of the best Presidents on record for economics? or,
B) somthing that, quite frankly, is no one else's business because it involved a concentual act between two adults, bith of whom were well aware of his marital status.
All very true.
WHAT!?!
The US has seen the greatest reduction in personal freedoms (via the Patriot Acts) during Bush's terms.
That aside, are Bush's main military target actually the target that would have had the greatest impact on weakening the morale of any terrorists?
Let's look
A) SECULAR Iraq which, while being ruled by a (US-installed) Dictator who wasn't about to win any Nice guy Awards, wasn't actaully producing (or capable of even delivering) and WMDs and wasn't in any major way (if in any way) supporting Islamic Fundamentalist Terror Groups (as it was SECULAR and its policies which allowed women to be seen in public without relatives, attend universities, hold professional jobs etc.).
And IF Iraq really was a capable and real threat to the US, then Bush should have had the moral fibre to do whatever was necessary to protect his people, including his soldiers, instead of continuously putting them in harms way while trying to spread democracy -- as though mob rule choosing terrorism and fundamentalism is better than a dictator choosing it (which this particular dictator did not do anyway).
And, while on the topic, Bush actually gives consessions to N.Korea (who, despite earlier talks, has developed Nuclear capabilities) and now is talking with Iran for the same (who has declared that both Israel and the US should be wiped off the map.)
Who are the actual threats and not just percieved threats.
All Bush has done was give a reason for people in the Middle East to hate the US: the thousands upon thousands of civillian deaths that have occured in Iraq to no end! If there was a successful weeding out of the terrorists and improved living conditions for the actualy civilians of Iraq who survived the war, it might have some small consolatory hindsight justification for the means being required for the ends....but even that shoddy excuse can't be used here.
US policy in Iraq,its policy of appeasement for N. Korea and Iran (completely backwards if US and world security is the real goal, IMO) the limitations on personal freedom and privacy and the Big Brother freedom for the US Gov't to jail anyone they even suspect of being linked to terror (without lawyer, due process or even being charged) hasa HUGE step backward for the American People --not to mention the ENORMOUS debt George is creating for you and one would quickly realize that would take a few Bill Clintons several terms in office to just break even with pre-Dubbya levels.
Shawn (Mr. Crow)
(http://www.myspace.com/manlocks) - Mr.Crow's photo archive of growing hair
...
Just wish some others could.
I actually voted for Bush, but primarily because I couldn't stand Kerry's complete lack of actually having a stance. The whole flip-flopping thing was terribly true of him, and I dont want someone that uneasy with their own policies leading my country.
That, and Bush reacted "well" to 9-11 even on the world scale (although I have my suspicions about how involved the government was in 9-11 but thats a WHOLE other situation).
And at the time of the elections, it was still too early to see how HORRIBLE of a failure and mistake the Iraq war was. At the time it was still potentially a morally good thing for the World Police to do. (And anyone who tries to argue that the hegemonic US ((who is the world's only superpower, and has a stornger grip on the globe than any country since imperialist England))doesn't have a responsibility to police some things, isn't very well versed in international politics. If for nothing but the countries own self interest in maintaining its international power posistion...)
Anyway, I can't understand people who still support this president even after the last 7 years. Its ironic really... I have never gotten a single straight answer when I ask a Bush supported why they support him. No offense Big George, but the "protecting the US" is an answer thrown around alot by supporters, yet they never give a reason as to why they think Iraq was a threat to US security.
If people are going to openly support Bush, they should be able to back their opinions with evidence.
Oh, and You can't credit CLinton with the economic surge. I credit.. i dunno... the internet boom. That and the economic cycle of this country which is almost as uniform as any trend in American History. It can basiclaly be predicted which decade will be a depression, a regression or an increase in national economy. Clinton happened to be President in a very fortunate time, although some of his policies did help facilitate the surge.
Outside of being the president who secured the most money in WORLD HISTORY to be put towards AIDS research and treatment in Africa, and putting conservative justices on the supreme court (something I am in favor of, despite my left-leaning moderate economic and some social preferences) I can't find too many things Bush has done that warrant anything positive, and I certainly can't associate him with Freedom lol.
Anyways sorry for the rant haha. But I love talking politics :)
~Rome
back channeled
Dear Crow,
It is too late at night and I am cautious about wadiing into this. The last time I took on Gross Geroge, I believe even you criticized me. But this fellow is a troglodyte. I do not know where he gets his news. He claims to be a church going Luthernan, but I remember that the Lutheran Church in German did not have the guts to stand up to the Nazis, contra the Calvinists and other protestant demoniations. (Always exceptions). There is not one scintialla of evidence that GWB has made the US safer, and a good bit that he has made us more vulnerable, more hated, less respected, and that he has violated our own laws.l
Encourae, me, and I will take on Gross Gewroge when I am more restred.
Caledonian
James Harrison
Asheville, NC
nd you have great hair.
James
The depth of your hatred amazes me. You have to attact my church membership to try to discredit me? I must have hit a nerve!
I made an honest attempt to interact with you through intellegent dialogue, but I see that this approach is way beyond your means. Since I prefer to deal with people on an adult level and with some base in facts we have nothing more to discuss.
Spelling doesn't look bad at 2am; no way to correct after the fact. Should have been "intelligent"
Thanks for the Hair comment and the support.
(http://www.myspace.com/manlocks) - Mr.Crow's photo archive of growing hair
I will respond as necessary to your comments.
These economics he claims as victories he actually fought against strongly, but was forced into accepting by a Republican Congress. Amazing how he claims credit for the balanced budget and the resurging economy, neither of which was his doing. Before you scream, check the facts. 23 straight months of the economy improving prior to his taking office. He fought long and hard against the balanced budget before claiming credit for it being voted into place. The projected costs of his programs he tried to put into place during his first term would have crippled our economy; he was shot down time and time again; this was while he had a democratic congress to work with. The Republican congress was during his second term only.
Agreed, except for where he chose to do it. What you do in your home or bedroom is one thing; doing the same in the aisle of the local grocery store is something totally different. Demeaning the office of the presidency is inexcusable. Had he been in a back alley or a local flophouse where he belonged he would have demeaned only himself, and your statement would hold much more water.
In addition, he was caught lying under oath to a grand jury, of which for the same offense there are hundreds of people in federal prison as we chat. Check the facts.
At this point,true, but had produced the same WMDs and distributed them to other countries in the past, and used them in the first gulf war. Had he allowed inspectors to verify this latest lack of WMDs the United Nations would not have slapped him with all of the sanctions it did for these offenses. Not US sanctions, but United Nations sanctions. Against Iraq. About WMDs and the lack of cooperation to verify their destruction.
Sounds good but not correct. Training camps for terrorists were located in Iraq. Not an opinion, a fact
Which is exactly what he did after 9-11. His actions were to protect his people, the citizens of the US.
as though mob rule choosing terrorism and fundamentalism is better than a dictator choosing it (which this particular dictator did not do anyway).
How can you in good conciousness state that this dictator did not choose terrorism and fundamentalism? The ostrich approach to the facts does not work here. Look what he did to his own people; the murders numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The torture of his own people on a regular and consistant basis. You lose all credibility here; how can you ignore the facts of what has been done in Iraq; why don't you hold these people to the same standards you espouse so strongly against the US?
I see a trend here. You are against Bush because he took action in Iraq, and you are against Bush because he did not in N. Korea and Iran. So either way he goes you are against him. Are you saying that Bush should bomb N. Korea and Iran? You are critical of him for going the diplomatic route. So what option do you propose that would be satisfactory? If you criticize him for taking military action, and you criticize him for taking the dipmomatic approach, what options does he have left that you would approve of?
People in the Middle East hated the US long before Bush. Remember the hostages taken during the Carter administration? This was not a mission of love. What about the bombings of the WTC and the US embassies during the Clinton administration? Look at how many terrorist actions there have been against the US prior to Bush taking office. Once again good sound bite but factually inaccurate.
Look at what their children are being taught, and have been. The US is the Great Satan. They teach hatred of the US in their schools. This is long before Bush; not because of him.
By whose measure? Ask the people in Kuwait how they feel about the US. The main problem now is that the terrorists are afraid that democracy may have taken hold; and they are attacking their own citizens to attempt to destroy this foothold. I have never been one to argue that the ends justify the means, but your blanket dismissal of any success in Iraq is typical of those who speak loud but have no substance or alternatives to back it up. Whether or not we should be there is one thing; whether or not we have had any success there is a completely different argument. Why are the terrorist groups and the extremeists so against our being there if we are having no effect?
Give me Clinton and a good Republican Congress to keep him reigned in and good policy in effect and I will agree.
I like to debate people on a factual basis, but you provide no facts and very little factual information here to debate. I have thought about it long and hard. There are solid arguments as to why Bush has not proceeded down the best path, but you use none of them here. Ignorance is no excuse.
You make the statement that I maybe shouldn't read this because I like Bush. I constantly try to read and understand views from both sides. I am not a strong Bush supporter, and probably would not vote for him again if he were able to run. But whether I am pro or anti Bush, Republican or Democrat or Independent, it does not change the facts. He has made mistakes. But arguments of innuendo, misstatements, and half truths do not lend credibility to your arguments. The facts do not back up much of what you say.
Now my criticisms of Bush. You are correct in stating that the cost of the war is draining the US. We entered Iraq with no set goals to achieve and no exit strategy. This is a recipe for longevity leading to failure; how do you know when you have achieved your goals when you don't have specific targets to shoot for (no pun intended). I was in college during Vietnam; I am very aware of the problems of extended military actions with no set goals and exit strategy; the Vietnam war was a black mark on our history, and Iraq is becomming another Vietnam.
Bush (and the Republican leadership) has fallen into the trap of deficit spending, and it is hurting our economy. Athough I am not a big fan of entitlement programs, I do believe that the funds we are spending in Iraq if put to use supplementing the education of our own children via college grants would come back to us many times over. And by doing so, over time the number of people requiring these entitlement programs would shrink substantially.
I am a Republican; I believe in the values the party represents. That is not a blanket endorsement of everything Bush does. You may agree with me; you may not. Just thank God you have the freedom to choose for yourself.
Big George
I would strongly dispute much of what you claim are facts.
Personally, I don't think North Korea or Iran are threats at all. I'm vehemently antiwar. War solves nothing. Bush has made very provocative moves against Iran that are extremely alarming.
I think the hatred towards Bush that is now just about universal throughout not only the world in general but America as well goes beyond just his policies. That the man literally is unable to talk in coherent English sentences and yet occupies such a position is just not right. His arrogance and above all his stubbornness in the face of almost overwhelming evidence against his policies is sickening. Even more alarming is his insistence on bringing God into the picture. I can't think of anything more scary than a fundamentalist in control of the most potent military on earth thinking he's receiving battle orders from God Almighty.
I won't beat around the bush.....I HATE George W Bush. He is the worst president by far this country has ever seen. He is the epitome of evil power corrupted to the full degree. He disgraces America and everything connected to it. He has done more damage to this planet than any individual in history. If there was a hell, he should roast in it.
At least your man enough to admit your blinded by your own hatred of the man. We strongly disagree on this topic. As I stated in my post, I'm not big on him either, and probably wouldn't vote for him. But, after all emotion is put aside, there are some facts that do temper somewhat what has been said here about him.
And that is what I try to offer here; logical statements supported by facts that can be verified. You may disagree; you may agree; that is your perogitive. Most of the responses I get are purely emotional with no supporting documentation or basis stated.
No matter how strongly you feel about a subject, refusing to even consider that there may be another point of view only hinders your ability to see the full picture. YOur point of view may be completely right. But how will you ever know if you only interact with those of the same mindframe?
If nothing else consider seriously the other point of view. Give it some thought; do some research.
People call Bush a criminal for initiating the conflict in Iraq. Clinton initiated military actions against mid-east targets during his tenure, and bombed the Serbs in Yugoslovia during the Kosovo conflict. Clinton and Blair dropped over 1.3 million lbs of bombs and sent over 1100 missles on Iraq prior to Bush taking office. George Sr. initiated the first Gulf war. Reagan bombed Libya and took other actions, the result of which was the falling of the Iron Curtain. Kennedy first sent troops into Vietnam, and Johnson greatly escalated the involvement. All of this is easily verifiable via independent sources. Do you consider all of these people criminals?
Just don't do yourself the disservice of not looking at and considering the entire picture prior to forming an opinion. A mind is a terrible thing to waste; a closed mind is already halfway there.
Big George
Thursday, March 8, 2007
GUATEMALA CITY - Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.
"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.
Bush's seven-day tour of Latin America includes a stopover beginning late Sunday in Guatemala. On Monday morning he is scheduled to visit the archaeological site Iximche on the high western plateau in a region of the Central American country populated mostly by Mayans.
Tiney said the "spirit guides of the Mayan community" decided it would be necessary to cleanse the sacred site of "bad spirits" after Bush's visit so that their ancestors could rest in peace. He also said the rites - which entail chanting and burning incense, herbs and candles - would prepare the site for the third summit of Latin American Indians March 26-30.
Bush's trip has already has sparked protests elsewhere in Latin America, including protests and clashes with police in Brazil hours before his arrival. In Bogota, Colombia, which Bush will visit on Sunday, 200 masked students battled 300 riot police with rocks and small homemade explosives.
The tour is aimed at challenging a widespread perception that the United States has neglected the region and at combatting the rising influence of Venezuelan leftist President Hugo Chavez, who has called Bush "history's greatest killer" and "the devil."
Iximche, 30 miles west of the capital of Guatemala City, was founded as the capital of the Kaqchiqueles kingdom before the Spanish conquest.
ummm...that's you're
the poor guy.......He deserves to rot in hell but we'll see...
That is so grade-school. George Bush has cooties?
Conan O'Brien summed up this juvenile Latin American approach to Bush when Hugo Chavez said he could smell sulfur where Bush had been, commenting with a common grade-school response, "He who smelt it, dealt it."
The problem is not that George Bush has cooties, it is that he has an army, and we are paying its bills.
Bill
My sentiments exactly
As a Canadian I have to say I am certainly not a fan of GWB myself. It seems to be almost universally accepted that the guy is despised everywhere outside of the US, and he is obviously not too popular in his home country as well, from what I can see in this thread. At least he won't be president forever, I just hope the world can survive another 22 months of his presidency, there is far too much war going on right now.
David
And rather than argue with you, Cuz it's just a waste of time and effort! But I have one suggestion: You should stop listening to the likes of limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly, coulter ect... They pollute your mind......
Fact is that your bush has turned into terrorist #1.....
I rarely do. Maybe you should start to get some sort of balance to your radical views.
---------------------------------------------------------
Radical views?? I always thought radical meant "not shared by a great majority of people". Look around again,(both domestically and internationally) and tell me that dislike of Bush is a "radical" idea. I would say you were in the minority here.
I have nothing against you personally George as you have always been quite a gentleman and likable which is why I have trouble understanding you backing such a man. You would make a much better president than he. Why do you support people who seem so inferior to yourself. Leaders are supposed to be the best of us, not the worst.
I appreciate your comments, Chris. I have stated several times that I'm not really a backer of Bush, and that I would not vote for him again. That does not mitigate the fact that the issue is deeper than "I Hate Bush" with no documentation to back it up. All I have done is try to provide another point of view for people to consider. I have a difficult time with blanket condemnation without factual backup. Thats what 4 year olds do when they throw a tantrum. There are a number of facts widely available which should cause people to at least take a second look. Here is a prime example:
Scott Ritter was the head inspector for the UN inspection team in Iraq until he resigned in 1998. He has written several articles recently describing his reporting to and addressing the Clinton administration about the lack of WMDs in Iraq. At the time, Clinton was involved in the impeachment controversies, and choose to ignore these reports, and initiated bombings and attacks on Iraq with the intent to assinate Saddam. These reports and information was never passed along to the incoming Bush administration which, based on the information it had on hand, continued the Clinton escalation in Iraq. You dont have to take my word for it; here is a link to one of the articles written by Ritter while discussing Hillary's presidential aspirations and her comments regarding Iraq which are in direct conflict with what actually happened during that time:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm
And some text from this report from Scott Ritter:
But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."
. . . . . . . . . where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
I should know. From January 1993 until my resignation from the United Nations in August 1998, I witnessed first hand the duplicitous Iraq policies of the administration of Bill Clinton, the implementation of which saw a President lie to the American people about a threat he knew was hyped, lie to Congress about his support of a disarmament process his administration wanted nothing to do with, and lie to the world about American intent, which turned its back on the very multilateral embrace of diplomacy as reflected in the resolutions of the Security Council Hillary Clinton so piously refers to in her speech, and instead pursued a policy defined by the unilateral interests of the Clinton administration to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
I personally witnessed the Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, fabricate a case for the continued existence of Iraqi ballistic missiles in November 1993 after I had provided a detailed briefing which articulated the UN inspector's findings that Iraq's missile program had been fundamentally disarmed. I led the UN inspector's investigation into the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in August 1995, and saw how the Clinton administration twisted his words to make a case for the continued existence of a nuclear program the weapons inspectors knew to be nothing more than scrap and old paper. I was in Baghdad at the head of an inspection team in the summer of 1996 as the Clinton administration used the inspection process as a vehicle for a covert action program run by the CIA intending to assassinate Saddam Hussein.
I twice traveled to the White House to brief the National Security Council in the confines of the White House Situation Room on the plans of the inspectors to pursue the possibility of concealed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, only to have the Clinton national security team betray the inspectors by failing to deliver the promised support, and when the inspections failed to deliver any evidence of Iraqi wrong-doing, attempt to blame the inspectors while denying any wrong doing on their part.
This last fact hits very close to home. As a former Marine Corps officer, and as a Chief Inspector responsible for the welfare of the personnel entrusted to my command, I take the act of official betrayal very seriously. "I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know," Senator Clinton said during her speech defending her vote for war, "that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them." I am left to wonder if, in citing the record of her husband when he was President, if Hillary would stand behind the troops with the same duplicitous 'vigor' that her husband displayed when betraying the UN weapons inspectors?
End of Quote; now back to me
What is inferred here and tactically ignored by most is that the Clinton Administration has prior information that Iraq had no WMDs, but ignored these advisories from the head of the weapon’s inspection team, the primary theory being that he used this conflict to deflect attention from his own problems at home. Therefore the sexual escapades you state are between two consenting adults now have altered the foreign policy of the US. Had he heeded the warnings from Mr. Ritter, and had he passed this information along to the new Bush administration we might not be where we are at today
So I now ask: Why is there not the same moral outrage against Clinton?
If you would like to e-mail me I would be happy to provide many more factual references such as that just above, as I am doing with one or two others here. You may not agree; you may not change your thinking, but at least you will have factual information to digest for a more educated opinion.
George
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport , Maine , in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol.
I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days.
My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
MILITARY:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.
By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam .
COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS :
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by
over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the US surplus and effectively bankrupted the US Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history.
My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a U.S.President.
I am the all-time US and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in
US History -- Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the US Supreme Court during my election
decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.
More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-
offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history.
I changed the US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in US history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the US from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to US "prisoners of war"detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).
I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period.
After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the US after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the US the most hated country
in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so
against the will of the United Nations, the majority of US citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in war time.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq , then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans(71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and
security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster" a WMD.
I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-president, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review.
Under President Clinton:
-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
--Stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium-bombing plot.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to kill the Pope.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush sr. administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
--Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tangents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
-Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush sr.
-Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counter terrorism and doubled overall funding for counter terrorism.
-Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
-Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counter terrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
-Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
------------------------------------------------------------
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:
-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.
-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger and Louis Freeh about the urgency of terrorist threats.
-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.
-- CUT FUNDING TO CONTINUE THE HUNT FOR BIN LADEN, congress had to put it back in. Does not consider Bin Laden a threat.
----Now we've got Bush knowing about the terrorist’s plans, and the fact that they were in flight schools in the USA, and little georgie takes a four-week vacation..
-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plot.
--Blamed Clinton for 9/11.
--In the meantime, his father was working for bin Laden's family business. "Wall St Journal: Bush SR in Business With bin Laden Conglomerate" office
Yes, he had a zipper problem. So what? So did Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Harding, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. Get over it
look for yourself, it's all public record...
-Clinton also had death squads looking for bin Laden, but couldn't find him. Before you jump on that, Bush has the entire military focused on bin Laden, and they still let him and Mullah Omar get away.
Clinton ordered Bin Laden killing!
This Clinton did nothing" crap is old and baseless. I am sure the neocons will continue to use it, because, to them, lying has become just another weapon of ideological combat. They are shameless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 11, 2001:
our Air National Defense was directed to stand down.
The two fighter jets that were scrambled flew out to sea, away from Washington and New York and the attacking air liners.
After one of four airliners had crashed into the World Trade Center and 3 more airliners were still heading toward critical targets, the President continued to read "My Pet Goat" to third graders, claiming that he didn't want to scare them, and then had them gather around for his press conference to hear the dreadful news straight from the horse's mouth.
Although it was a city block away, World Trade Center buidling seven imploded just like a building scheduled for demolition.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And here's the Bush/Cheney anti-terrorism record after September 11, 2001:
Prevented a bipartisan investigation of the circumstances and intelligence failures around 9/11
Later, when pressed into allowing an investigatory commission, the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks", Bush appointed an alleged war criminal (Kissinger) to head it up.
When Kissinger quit amid a storm of conflict of interest allegations, 15 months after 9/11, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks had no office, desks or even a telephone number.
Bush/Cheney then neglected to fund the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.
Bush/Cheney bombed and invaded Afghanistan, and then installed an ex-employee of Unocal to govern the country, assuring that Unocal will get their long sought trans-Afgahnistan pipeline, and also assuring that the US will be even more hated in the region.
Bush/Cheney bombed and invaded Iraq, assuring thousands of new terrorist recruits from all over the Middle East would sign up to attack the United States.
Bush was forced by Congress, in March of 2003, to add a paltry $9 million in funding to his war budget for the commission (for comparison, the Starr/Clinton investigation cost $33.5 million and it's focus was a real estate deal gone wrong).
Bush/Cheney pushed for additional tax reductions for the super-wealthy, unprecedented during war time, thus ensuring less funding would be available for terrorist prevention.
I could make undocumented lists all day too. Instead, I prefer to present that documented by others.
And note; many of the successes you list for Clinton were during the second term ran by a Republican congress.
Documentation and references rebuts much of what you say. For instance on Bin Laden:
Read this report from the neocons at NBC News:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
And the neocons at the WAshinton Times:
A story by Jerry Seper in the Washington Times on May 4, 1999, reported, "Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden—who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans." Seper said that newly obtained intelligence reports showed that the KLA had enlisted Islamic terrorists in its conflict with Serbia and that bin Laden's organization, known as al-Qaeda, had both trained and financially supported the KLA, which had been labeled a terrorist group by a Clinton State Department official.
Despite that, General Wesley Clark, who was NATO's supreme commander during the war in Kosovo, said in a September 14th column in the Washington Post that the U.S. must use decisive force against international terrorism. He had worked closely with the KLA during the war, implementing a Clinton policy that ignored more serious human rights problems in other parts of the world. The Clinton administration, for example, remained largely indifferent to the persecution of Christians in Sudan, where an Islamic regime has killed almost 2 million people and was, for a time, Osama bin Laden's home.
The CIA Connection
Bin Laden, a Saudi by birth, was supported by the CIA when he was battling the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan during the 1980s. A former U.S. Army sergeant, Egyptian-born Ali Mohamed, told a New York court that after he had left the army in 1989, he had helped train members of bin Laden's terrorist organization, al Qaeda. Last year, he admitted his involvement in the bombing of the embassies in Africa ordered by bin Laden.
Dollars for Terror, a book by Swiss television journalist Richard Labeviere, claims that Mohamed trained Islamic militants in several camps in the New York area and suggests that he was an active U.S. agent. Labeviere, who conducted a four-year investigation and has written extensively on Arab and African affairs, has concluded that the international Islamic networks linked to bin Laden have been nurtured and encouraged by elements of the U.S. intelligence community, especially during the Clinton years. He says the international Islamic network was protected because it was designed to serve U.S. foreign policy and military interests.
Labeviere claims that the CIA blocked the FBI from cracking down on these terrorist networks. "Bin-Ladengate is unfolding, and there is no escape," he says. "If it blows up one day, this scandal will reveal exactly how the various American intelligence agencies were involved in the process that led to the Nairobi [Kenya] and Dar es Salaam [Tanzania] bombings." Labeviere claims that Clinton and his top aides did not anticipate that this radical Islamic network would turn against the United States. But even when it did, they figured the U.S. would gain more from it in the long run.
Labeviere argues that the Clinton administration viewed the bin Laden network and the radical Taliban regime in Afghan-istan as a bulwark against Russian, Iranian and even Chinese influence in Asia. He quotes a former CIA analyst as saying, "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." It was believed that Sunni Islam could be used to undermine Russia in Chechnya and China in southern Xingjiang.
It was also present in all the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. Labeviere says, "with the active support of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and
I know your type, people like you look for anything whether true of false to try to mask the failings of bush/cheney.
Every time a subject comes up about this bush administration and all their screw ups, guys like you always bring up Clinton to try and distract attention from bush's foul ups.
Everything I stated is fact, Google is your friend.
But you didn't comment on bush's resume', so I take it that you aggree with it.
As will I, though for the sake of returning to long hair topics, if we ned to go beyond this, perhaps it would be best to carry it to an email level?
I didn't know this. I am willing to stand corrected on this.
I wonder if he was the only President to spill more than blood, if you catch my drift...
True. Many do. But I would say that his sexual relationships, if done with concentual adults -regardless of the rightness or wrongness of it percieved by other - is not illegal and shouldn't have even been an issue in the first place.
(Your lack of responce to this is interesting.)
Hey, I am not suggesting that Saddam shouldv'e won any awards.
Had he allowed inspectors to verify this latest lack of WMDs the United Nations would not have slapped him with all of the sanctions it did for these offenses. Not US sanctions, but United Nations sanctions. Against Iraq. About WMDs and the lack of cooperation to verify their destruction.
I agree, Iraq blew it here, but if the UN is here being held up as a standard of acceptability and legitimacy, why is it OK to disregard their mandate and decision regarding invasion of Iraq?
One could also say that Florida was host to terrorist training camps (want to learn to fly, anyone). But the point here is that the state was Secular and not in the same category as a theocracy which funds terrorism and harbours terrorists from prosecution in other countries, like Iran.
9-11 is a whole other issue. There are countless web resources showing the timelines of the day and there were many, many failures by Mr. Bush or the various level of protection (and there were very many brave acts, too).
I never argued against Saddam's doing these things. I am stating, though, that Saddam doing these heinous acts does not mean that Iraq was actually a threat to the US, just to its own citizens and, perhaps, closest neighbours.
And then, if a dictator being awful to his/her people is enough of a reason to go in and deliver Democracy™, then how can the following also be true:
1) US involvement in Central America in the 70s and 80s (Can you say "Pinochet"?)?
2) US support and Training of the Taliban (to fight the Russians)?
3) US support of the Shah in Iran?
4) Conspicuous absence of US democracy spreading in the Sub-Saharan African nations, many of which are led by dictators and which have seen genocide and religious killings?
You lose all credibility here; how can you ignore the facts of what has been done in Iraq; why don't you hold these people to the same standards you espouse so strongly against the US?
George. I am not against the US. I actaully think the Founding Principles of the US are a historic achievement in the world. And I think powers like Bush have eroded the freedoms fought for by the nation's founders while, ironically, saying to the people that they are protecting freedom.
Please let's not put words in my mouth (on my screen?)..
IF Iraq was a legitimate threat to the USA, then I would agree that military action -with a clear purpose, a definable and achievable goal with a timeline and exit strategy - would have been justified. I don't think the 'If' was true in this case.
I DO think that Iran and, to a lesser degree, North Korea are (or can become) such legitimate threats. Appeasement (which you call the diplomatic route) hasn't worked. North Korea is the perfect example: didn't the US and Japan pay them in oil in order to curb their 'need' to develop Nuclear technologies? What happened to that deal? N.Korea's people remain desperately poor while the dictatorship has developed nuclear capability. As long as one is willing to pay someone not to use a gun, but allows the person to keep the gun, then an unending demand for payment will follow.
I know. And it isn't strictly about the US being succesful. It is more about the freedom it allows its own people - something the religious extremists in Islamic countries and in the Bible Belt alike - want to see removed.
I agree, he just adds one more reason and a less-idealistic one: It could be difficult to risk losing a comfortable life for the sake of harming a country for some notion of god...but it becomes easier when all you had to live for was (percieved to have been) taken from you by the enemy, anyway.
Democracy only means that the majority get to decide what to do: It can mean that Palestinians elect a terror-sponsoring government that refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel.
A Democracy without inalienable rights means that 51% of the population can vote to enslave the other 49%....make it even harder to measure by saying women can't vote (or can't vote different than their husbands) or that ethnic minorities can't vote or that people of the minority religions can't vote .... and soon, what seemed like an indicator of human freedom, simply becomes another tool for totalitarianism.
Rights need to be in place before democracy can be assumed to be a good thing.
I have never been one to argue that the ends justify the means, but your blanket dismissal of any success in Iraq is typical of those who speak loud but have no substance or alternatives to back it up. Whether or not we should be there is one thing; whether or not we have had any success there is a completely different argument.
I agree with that. While I think the US should never have gone there in the first place, I think they had either ship out (which would result in huge civil war in Iraq where the religious extremist terror-funding groups would likely take power -- and I don't think that would be an improvement to a secular baddie hurting his own people only) or they should set a goal and pursue it fully, rebuilding and repairing AFTER they had achieved their military objectives. (Can you imagine if the allies tried to build bridges and schools in occupied cities while WWII was raging? A Crazy notion -- you need to win first! -- then the reforms can come in, like in Post WWII Japan.)
Why are the terrorist groups and the extremeists so against our being there if we are having no effect?
Umm....because THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians have died, with thousands more being displaced and living in fear of their lives! Because the lack of WMDs has made many believe (whether true or not) that the war is not about the US safety, but rather US colonial interests or to support the military industial oil complex.
Me too
Your first post sounded so much like the FoxNews Patriotic Rah!Rah! that I couldn't believe it either.
No. I said that some might be offended (I am sure some are) and I posted it in courtesy because this is really a forum about long hair. This was simply irresistable.
But arguments of innuendo, misstatements, and half truths do not lend credibility to your arguments. The facts do not back up much of what you say.
Has my clarification here helped?
I share your view here.
I am a lover of freedom: Freedom guaranteed by inalienable rights that can not be voted away or willed away by the whim of a president and senate (or PM and house of Commons, in my Canadian case).
I argue that Bush is not advancing freedom, so defined.
(And if god were responsible for my having said freedoms, then is he not also resonsible for others not having them?)
http://globaloutlook.ca/26_anomalies.htm
http://globaloutlook.ca/26_anomalies.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629-1,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629-1,00.html
For others, do a Google search.
Thanks.
Shawn
PS. Email from here on in, thanks.
(http://www.myspace.com/manlocks) - Mr.Crow's photo archive of growing hair
So why is it okay for Israel to illegally have nuclear weapons? What a double standard! Truly sickening and proof that the pro-Israeli lobby in this country calls the shots. Why is it in the interests of America to be Israel's bitch and infuriate the whole Islamic world?
"Israel is the only free country in a region dominated by Arab monarchies, theocracies and dictatorships. It is only the citizens of Israel—Arabs and Jews alike—who enjoy the right to express their views, to criticize their government, to form political parties, to publish private newspapers, to hold free elections. When Arab authorities deny the most basic freedoms to their own people, it is obscene for them to start claiming that Israel is violating the Palestinians' rights. All Arab citizens who are genuinely concerned with human rights should, as their very first action, seek to oust their own despotic rulers and adopt the type of free society that characterizes Israel."
— Yaron Brook, Ph.D.
A direct quote from a news article discussing Clinton's actions in Yugoslavia:
"Yugoslavia isn't worth one American life, but now that Clinton has put us in the war, we have to win it, and that will take ground troops." What a terrible proposition! We cannot permit a no-credibility President to illegally plunge us into war, make horrendous mistakes of judgment about the objectives and the strategy, and then impose the obligation on American servicemen and taxpayers to "win" the war illegally started. "Winning" means U.S. troops will occupy Yugoslavia forever, and we don't want Yugoslavia as a U.S. colony."
Sound familiar?
Big George, I agree with you 100%
It's sad that some people's only information for basing opinions comes from mainstream media.
preventing things that might have happened??!
That is supposed to be a track record?!
Would you seriously consider hiring an employee whose resume listed as his biggest (and only) accomplishment that he had single handedly preventing the imagined collapse of his company without hard evidence that that was the case.
Seriously would you hire Bush to work for you?
Oi Walter,
Em nome do Estados Unidos da America, eu peço desculpas aos tudos pessoas do Brasil pelo Senhor Arbusto. ;-) Atualmente, as aguas na Amazonas estão provavelmente mais limpas do que o Potomac. Eles mesmo trazem agua para coes! HAHA!!
Espero que vc. está bem.
Abraçoes!
That sounds wierd... but it probably wasn't Bush's idea, and it was probably a safety measure you take when you a very unpopular leader in the world's eyes. Who knows what you might encounter in another part of the world. Important people take special precautions, I see nothing wrong with it. Meh.
~Rome
I remember when Bush came to Ireland. In the newspaper the next day there was a photo of him smiling and waving. It turned that he was waving at a concrete wall inside a top-security location.
You guys need to take this political sh#i elsewhere. I have my own beliefs and I really don't want to make enemies here, but, I am getting very close.
Jeff.