Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

[edward]

Note-CNN is slightly Democrat and Fox is slightly Republican. Cross refrence them before calling their statements facts, because while the numbers maybe true, the inferences lean one way or the other. It's mainly the editors.

Aren't smilies great.

Actually the original story was on ABC Tuesday night. Parts of it were repeated on CNN Wednesday morning, then again on ABC evening news Wednesday. CNN and Fox are oranges and apples, but one must start somewhere. Facts on the other hand, are facts, and we do accept all credible news sources here if they have the facts correct.

Osunsami: "The reality is that a third of New Orleans is still without power. In Mississippi, 51 hotels and resorts, the lifeblood of the tourism industry there, will never be rebuilt. In Louisiana, the repairs on the levees may not be completed until after this year's hurricane season begins. Here's what many residents wanted to hear: A greater share of the tax revenue generated from oil and gas drilled off Louisiana's shore, even more money for stronger levees, and a rebuilding plan that would cover each and every affected homeowner. William Farrell is a doctor who voted for the President and is now living in a trailer."

Dr. William Farrell, New Orleans resident: "This is a situation that requires big government help. And as much as I philosophically don't espouse that approach, when you're in it and you live it, you see there's really no other way."

Osunsami: "Elorial Monette also voted for the President."

Elorial Monette, New Orleans resident: "The government's job is to protect me, and that's what I expect them to do."

Osunsami: "Perhaps the State of the Union Address wasn't the place for announcing policy aimed at helping these homeowners, but there's a feeling here that they were slighted."

Gloria Powers, New Orleans resident: "I want everybody in the country to realize that if they have a disaster in their area, this is what they can expect."

News,Osunsami: "They're going to be angry for some time. Steve Osunsami, ABC New Orleans."

http://newsbusters.org/node/3866

 

[SOS2008]

In keeping with his usual strategy, Bush goes on tour to friendly destinations, beginning at the Grand Ole Opry, and ending in Dallas in his home state of Texas (…of course avoiding cities affected by hurricanes, mining tragedies, etc.):

Bush takes his goals on the road
President puts a finer point on economic plans, plays down war anxiety

One day after outlining priorities on energy, health care, and economic competitiveness in his State of the Union address, Bush traveled to Nashville, Tenn., to kick-off a campaign to sell his 2006 agenda to the public.

...“I understand there’s an anxiety about the time of war,” Bush said. “That’s natural, seems like to me, even though this economy is roaring.

...“And yet people are changing jobs a lot and there is competition from India and China, which creates some uncertainty. My worry is that people see that uncertainty and decide to adopt isolated policies, or protectionist policies.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11125997/

More like: My worry is people will hold me responsible.

And then the old one-two:

Bush to seek $120 billion for wars, sources say
Money would pay for conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan into next fiscal year

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11145948/

Heh, that oughtta fix the economy right up.

 

[Xenophon]

Slightly Off Topic
Edward, when I mentioned CNN and FOX, I wasn't accusing you, just mentioning a fact that may help members to come closer to the truth. For example, MSNBC showed an article on the "Thin Green Line" that said our military was weakening. I won't post it here, the article itself isn't the point, it's the people's perspective. CNN jumped all over it, but FOX never mentioned it. Just stuff like that.
In the election, FOX called Ohio when most people were still specualting, while CNN stalled until they couldn't deny it any longer. I still remember Wolf Whatshisname saying Ohio could change any moment even thought the Republicans seemed secure and FOX earlier jumping a little preemptively.

 

[edward]

Slightly Off Topic
Edward, when I mentioned CNN and FOX, I wasn't accusing you, just mentioning a fact that may help members to come closer to the truth. For example, MSNBC showed an article on the "Thin Green Line" that said our military was weakening. I won't post it here, the article itself isn't the point, it's the people's perspective. CNN jumped all over it, but FOX never mentioned it. Just stuff like that.

Really not too much off topic.

The Pentagon paid for the research that brought about the Thin Green Line story. Then Rumsfeld denied what the study discovered. True to form Fox was about the only major news media that did not cover the "black eye on the administration" story.

 

[SOS2008]

Slightly Off Topic
Edward, when I mentioned CNN and FOX, I wasn't accusing you, just mentioning a fact that may help members to come closer to the truth. For example, MSNBC showed an article on the "Thin Green Line" that said our military was weakening. I won't post it here, the article itself isn't the point, it's the people's perspective. CNN jumped all over it, but FOX never mentioned it. Just stuff like that.

In the election, FOX called Ohio when most people were still specualting, while CNN stalled until they couldn't deny it any longer. I still remember Wolf Whatshisname saying Ohio could change any moment even thought the Republicans seemed secure and FOX earlier jumping a little preemptively.

Actually I saw this while Googling and reading on the topic: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182687,00.html

I don't use FOX News as a source because I don't consider it to be as credible as CNN, MSNBC, Associated Press, Rueters, BBC, etc. I won't reference Bill O'Reilly at all, or Sean Hannity. If FOX doesn't report something, it's because they don't tend to report stories that are negative for Bush.

Back on topic regarding the cost of the wars...

S&P: Article Says U.S. Will Be Top Government Debt Issuer In 2006 - http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/01-26-2006/0004268547&EDATE=

 

[ComputerGeek]

\Note-CNN is slightly Democrat and Fox is slightly Republican. Cross refrence them before calling their statements facts, because while the numbers maybe true, the inferences lean one way or the other. It's mainly the editors.

Aren't smilies great.

Umm... CNN is not very democrat anymore, and Fox is much much much more conservative than you make it sound. Their hard news anchors questioning of guests is obviously conservative, O'Reily and Hanity are ridiculously right wing. Neil Covuto is some kind of crazy monopoly lovin' capitalist, Shephard Smith is probably the only fair news guy on there, but even he shows through on Studio B once in a while.

Fox is a news station that gives out propaganda for the right wing.

 

[SOS2008]

Friday, February 3, 2006
Rove leads Bush on GOP campaign trail
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- Karl Rove is whistling in the dark if he thinks his trademark political attacks on Democrats can work again in the mid-term elections this fall.
----------
Rove, deputy White House chief of staff and the Republican Party's political guru, seems to forget that Bush has picked up a lot of baggage since the last election. The Hurricane Katrina debacle and the Iraq quagmire come to mind and partially explain his decline in public opinion polls.

Rove will continue operating under a cloud until special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald completes his investigation of the unlawful leak of the identity of former CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame to some Washington journalists.

Nonetheless, Rove headlined a recent pep rally for the nervous Republican Party faithful and made it clear he believes accusations that the Democrats are weak on national security will resonate with voters in November, just as they did in the 2004 presidential race.
----------
Bush's party is deeply mired in the Jack Abramoff influence-buying scandal. And Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was forced to resign as House Republican leader because of his own ethics morass.

None of this bodes well for the GOP. That may explain Rove's resort to his favorite tactic of resorting to a national security scare.

Senate hearings begin next week into Bush's decision to order eavesdropping inside the United States by the National Security Agency, the government's giant electronic ear.

The White House spin doctors are trying to paint that as the "terrorist surveillance program," more of the administration's strategy of scare the heck out of everyone and you can get away with anything you want to do.
----------
…Bush should be reminded that he twice has sworn to uphold the Constitution and to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Under Rove's political guidance, Bush will be campaigning for Republican congressional candidates later this year, stressing his domestic and foreign policy record. But he may find some members of the GOP reluctant to jump on his bandwagon.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/258111_thomas03.html

Good ole Rove...still under investigation, but no update yet (keeping in mind how long it took for Libby's indictment?). And then there is Rove's good friend Abramoff...

 

[SOS2008]

President Bush says that he doesn't even remember Jack Abramoff...hmm...

1) Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for Bush's 2004 re-election
2) Abramoff was a member of Bush's Administration Transition Team in 2001
3) Abramoff's lobbying team had more than 200 contacts with the Bush Administration in 2001 alone.

Does anyone really believe this great big lie?

And what’s up with GOP’s Boehner and his links to lobbyists? This guy is the new House Majority Leader and is supposedly heading up reform.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11237538/

 

[BobG]

President Bush says that he doesn't even remember Jack Abramoff...hmm...

1) Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for Bush's 2004 re-election
2) Abramoff was a member of Bush's Administration Transition Team in 2001
3) Abramoff's lobbying team had more than 200 contacts with the Bush Administration in 2001 alone.

Does anyone really believe this great big lie?

And what’s up with GOP’s Boehner and his links to lobbyists? This guy is the new House Majority Leader and is supposedly heading reform.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11237538/

If Bush doesn't remember Abramoff, Rove's chief deputy, Barry Jackson, does. When Barry Jackson was Congressman John Boehner's Chief of Staff, he had a lot of contact with Abramoff's partner, David Safavian (Bush surely wants to forget Safavian, since he was Bush's chief procurement officer and was indicted because of his Abramoff ties). He accepted an invitation to one of Abramoff's trips, but canceled at the last minute.

 

[Cyrus]

Abramoff owns a fancy restruant here in downtown DC where he gives free meals to all the bigwigs up on the hill, where the tab is in the 100's of dollars.

Abramoff used Signatures - best known for its presumably succulent $74 steak - to conduct his lobbying business at a corner table he kept reserved on the second floor and, it seems, to curry favors by handing out free meals to important guests. (Restaurant records show that during at 17-month period in 2002 and 2003 Signatures gave away $180,000 of food and drinks, including Abramoff's $65,000 tab.)

http://www.signatures-dc.com/

http://www.signatures-dc.com/_uploads/morou%202.jpg

I should go down there some time, oh wait too expensive. I can always go and just buy a $30 appetizer and a $5 coke.

 

[edward]

Abramoff was the epitome of sleaze.

But before anyone happens to put any blame on the Indian tribes involved, I would just like to remind everyone that the Indian gaming operations are run by private management companies. The management companies put up the money to build and operate the casinos.


The link below has a very complete list of Abramoff indescretions, and those who benifited from them.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff

 

[SOS2008]

Abramoff says Bush met, even joked, with him
Statement follows White House claim that president does not know lobbyist

Reuters
Updated: 8:34 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - Jack Abramoff said in correspondence made public Thursday that President Bush met him “almost a dozen” times, disputing White House claims Bush did not know the former lobbyist at the center of a corruption scandal.

Regarding photos:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that the revelations did not prove Bush knew him well.
----------
“The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows,” Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine.

Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his Texas ranch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261495/

Does anyone think this will make a difference? Will Bush's newly increased approval ratings drop? Will investigations into law breaking commence? Or will he somehow come out smelling like a rose despite all the crap that's going on?

 

[Manchot]

Let's see the Bush apologists try to spin this. "Who are you going to believe, President Bush or Jack Abramoff?" Well, personally, I'll believe the one who had little reason to lie and who donated more than $100,000 to the other's campaign, rather than the one who had a motivation to distance himself from the other. Either that or Bush is really so dumb that he couldn't remember someone he met twelve times and even invited to his ranch.

I swear, I am so disgusted by this administration. I get the impression that every single word which comes forth from their mouths is a lie.

 

[edward]

NEWS but not really anything new. I wonder how much more will be revealed as more CIA agents retire.


More From The Plain Dealer | Subscribe To The Plain Dealer
Former aide: Bush 'cherry picked' CIA intelligence to make Iraq case

Saturday, February 11, 2006
Elisabeth Goodridge
Associated Press

Washington - The Bush administration deliberately misused or ignored intelligence analysis in the buildup of the 2003 invasion into Iraq, according to a former top intelligence official.

Paul Pillar, who served as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, also accused the administration of ignoring reports that Iraq probably would endure a violent transition period if Saddam Hussein were overthrown.

The administration "went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq," Pillar wrote in a coming article of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/113966462363810.xml&coll=2

 

[SOS2008]

NEWS but not really anything new. I wonder how much more will be revealed as more CIA agents retire.


More From The Plain Dealer | Subscribe To The Plain Dealer
Former aide: Bush 'cherry picked' CIA intelligence to make Iraq case

Saturday, February 11, 2006
Elisabeth Goodridge
Associated Press


http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/113966462363810.xml&coll=2

That was his own father's position based on intelligence that had been gathered all along. And none of this had changed. What had changed was that Junior had a lot of people he owed, our economy had gone into a recession, Saddam took Iraq (the 4th largest producer of oil) off the US$, the neocons were gaining power…

 

[SOS2008]

For some more photos:

http://server3.pictiger.com/%20img/%20161731/%20picture-hosting/%20colage-2.php

So people like Gannon and Abramoff can access the White House without White House knowledge. That means either the White House sucks at security or is lying. Yeh, I'd go with "faulty" intelligence spin again.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess he hopped the fence.

 

[SOS2008]

I guess he hopped the fence.

Or swam the river, or dug a tunnel? The White House must be under Homeland Security.

I love this quote:

"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."
- Jack A. Abramoff (The Reich Wing)

That one always gets me so choked up and filled with patriotic pride.

 

[Skyhunter]

Remember last week when Bush decided to declassify a 2002 plot to attack Los Angeles?

Outraged intelligence professionals say President George W. Bush is "cheapening" and "politicizing" their work with claims the United States foiled a planned terrorist attack against Los Angeles in 2002.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/02/intel_pros_say_bush_is_lying_a.html

If this were any other president I would doubt this story. But Bush lies so often he has no more credibility.

 

[Cyrus]

Hooray! I am glad the Tweek and the guys at the NSA are stickin it to Bush!

 

[Mattara]

The biggest error people that are against President George W. Bush have is that they think the world is black and white with no other colour.

Examples of black/white arguments (that by definition is incorrect):

• The war in Iraq was bad because people died.
  
• Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.
  
• Bush lies and he is an id*iot.
  
• Bush only takes vacations all the time.
  
• Iraq had 0 WMD.

I don't know where to begin to counter this becuase obviously everyone who is against President George W. Bush have either not researched his action and the world we live in today or think they have but havn't.

The war in Iraq was bad because people died.

This is a typical one sided argument. Yes, people died. So what. Coll.dmg. had to be made to protect the world from Iraq. The President did what had to be done. Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist and the world and the Iraqi people are better of w/o him. There is no telling what he could have done if he stayed in office.

Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.

Start learning how things work in the U.S. government before you start pointing fingers. It was not the Presidents idea to war Iraq, and it was not he who decided to war Iraq and The President did not kill anyone in Iraq. There are more people with power in the U.S. that the President. People with huge amounts of influence (oil, staffmembers etc.). The President has the final decition of course, but that is it. Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in mayor things. But not even then does he have ultimate power. Politics in the U.S are a lot more difficult and advanced than President Bush saying "Now we war". And no President Bush was never down in Iraq with ak:s and killed anyone.

Bush lies and he is an id*iot.

So what if he lies on once in a while? He has a duty to his country and some things are better keep behind close doors.

Bush only takes vacations all the time.

President Bush takes more vacations that the average Joe, but you know what? He is entitles to them. The President works 18-19 hours a day. That is what you people do in ~3 days. This is not a special thing for George W. but Clinton also did it and the Presidents before him. If the President works 3*[standard] he should then have 3*[standard] vacation time. Standard vacation time in Sweden is 5 weeks. 3*5 = 15 weeks and that is 1/3 of the year as we've all read in newspapers etc. etc. that he has.

Iraq had 0 WMD.

All i have to say is "LOL". How lame are you people? Iraq have WMD. Ok, for you people who arn't in teh loop i'll give the hstoric background to it. Iraq did use WMD in the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq did use WMD to gas Kurds. Iraq did use WMD to kill shiamuslims in the south.

Just because the U.S. havn't found any doesn't mean they aren't there. It took them a year to find Saddam so why not? They could be hidden inside a bunker somwhere and never be found. They can also have been transferred to Iran before and during the first week of the war. Remember that the U.N. weapon inspectors where thrown out of Iran.

So please, before you start pointing fingers, try to learn the whole story before jumping to conclusion or useing Michael Moores 3:rd grade logic

 

[BobG]

The biggest error people that are against President George W. Bush have is that they think the world is black and white with no other colour.

Examples of black/white arguments (that by definition is incorrect):

• The war in Iraq was bad because people died.
  
• Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.
  
• Bush lies and he is an id*iot.
  
• Bush only takes vacations all the time.
  
• Iraq had 0 WMD.

I don't know where to begin to counter this becuase obviously everyone who is against President George W. Bush have either not researched his action and the world we live in today or think they have but havn't.

The war in Iraq was bad because people died.

This is a typical one sided argument. Yes, people died. So what. Coll.dmg. had to be made to protect the world from Iraq. The President did what had to be done. Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist and the world and the Iraqi people are better of w/o him. There is no telling what he could have done if he stayed in office.

Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.

Start learning how things work in the U.S. government before you start pointing fingers. It was not the Presidents idea to war Iraq, and it was not he who decided to war Iraq and The President did not kill anyone in Iraq. There are more people with power in the U.S. that the President. People with huge amounts of influence (oil, staffmembers etc.). The President has the final decition of course, but that is it. Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in mayor things. But not even then does he have ultimate power. Politics in the U.S are a lot more difficult and advanced than President Bush saying "Now we war". And no President Bush was never down in Iraq with ak:s and killed anyone.

Bush lies and he is an id*iot.

So what if he lies on once in a while? He has a duty to his country and some things are better keep behind close doors.

Bush only takes vacations all the time.

President Bush takes more vacations that the average Joe, but you know what? He is entitles to them. The President works 18-19 hours a day. That is what you people do in ~3 days. This is not a special thing for George W. but Clinton also did it and the Presidents before him. If the President works 3*[standard] he should then have 3*[standard] vacation time. Standard vacation time in Sweden is 5 weeks. 3*5 = 15 weeks and that is 1/3 of the year as we've all read in newspapers etc. etc. that he has.

Iraq had 0 WMD.

All i have to say is "LOL". How lame are you people? Iraq have WMD. Ok, for you people who arn't in teh loop i'll give the hstoric background to it. Iraq did use WMD in the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq did use WMD to gas Kurds. Iraq did use WMD to kill shiamuslims in the south.

Just because the U.S. havn't found any doesn't mean they aren't there. It took them a year to find Saddam so why not? They could be hidden inside a bunker somwhere and never be found. They can also have been transferred to Iran before and during the first week of the war. Remember that the U.N. weapon inspectors where thrown out of Iran.

So please, before you start pointing fingers, try to learn the whole story before jumping to conclusion or useing Michael Moores 3:rd grade logic

Before you start using size 4 fonts and boldface, you should learn about the ten year war Iraq and Iran fought against each other. If Hussein was stupid enough to send his WMD to Iran, I doubt Iran would return them in a very friendly manner. In fact, Hussein felt the threat of chemical weapons being used on Tehran helped bring an end to the Iraq-Iran war and prevented Iran from invading Iraq. In hindsight, Iran is the most likely reason Hussein was so secretive about WMD in spite of having dismantled his WMD program.

Dismantling the program meant UN inspectors couldn't find incriminating evidence that could result in another invasion by the US. Being secretive meant Iran couldn't know if Iraq had really dismantled its program or was just doing a good job of hiding it. Unfortunately, the secretive part worked well enough that the rest of the world couldn't know for sure either.

The debate over the Iraq invasion is:
a) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched, period.
b) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched without overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the invadee being an imminent threat.
c) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched just on the possibility that the invadee may pose a threat.

Most would prefer not to ever launch a "pre-emptive" war, but the deadliness of modern weapons probably pushes most people towards b - that you have to invade if a country poses an imminent threat.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat. That starts the second debate - how did the US miscalculate the threat so badly. Was it just "mistakes" or was it intentional? Even if just honest mistakes, there were enough that the best you could say is that the Bush administration was incompetent in assessing the threat.

 

[Mattara]

Before you start using size 4 fonts and boldface, you should learn about the ten year war Iraq and Iran fought against each other. If Hussein was stupid enough to send his WMD to Iran, I doubt Iran would return them in a very friendly manner. In fact, Hussein felt the threat of chemical weapons being used on Tehran helped bring an end to the Iraq-Iran war and prevented Iran from invading Iraq. In hindsight, Iran is the most likely reason Hussein was so secretive about WMD in spite of having dismantled his WMD program.

Dismantling the program meant UN inspectors couldn't find incriminating evidence that could result in another invasion by the US. Being secretive meant Iran couldn't know if Iraq had really dismantled its program or was just doing a good job of hiding it. Unfortunately, the secretive part worked well enough that the rest of the world couldn't know for sure either.

The debate over the Iraq invasion is:
a) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched, period.
b) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched without overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the invadee being an imminent threat.
c) whether a "pre-emptive" war should be launched just on the possibility that the invadee may pose a threat.

Most would prefer not to ever launch a "pre-emptive" war, but the deadliness of modern weapons probably pushes most people towards b - that you have to invade if a country poses an imminent threat.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat. That starts the second debate - how did the US miscalculate the threat so badly. Was it just "mistakes" or was it intentional? Even if just honest mistakes, there were enough that the best you could say is that the Bush administration was incompetent in assessing the threat.

Before you start trying to pwn people that is clearly more educated that yourself in this area, you can google "Gulf war syndrome" and then relate to how the same thing was used in the Iran-Iraq war.

By the way, the Iran-Iraq war was eight years, not ten.

 

[Manchot]

Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist and the world and the Iraqi people are better of w/o him. There is no telling what he could have done if he stayed in office.

Of course the Iraqi people are better off without him. That is a strawman argument. The real question is why do we have to pay (in more ways that one) to remove him and to stabilize the country? As for what he could have done: nothing. Sure, he was bilking the oil-for-food program for money, but what good is that when there are sanctions against you? (He obviously had no WMDs as of 2003, and certainly did not have the capability to create them.)

Start learning how things work in the U.S. government before you start pointing fingers. It was not the Presidents idea to war Iraq, and it was not he who decided to war Iraq and The President did not kill anyone in Iraq. There are more people with power in the U.S. that the President. People with huge amounts of influence (oil, staffmembers etc.). The President has the final decition of course, but that is it. Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in mayor things. But not even then does he have ultimate power. Politics in the U.S are a lot more difficult and advanced than President Bush saying "Now we war". And no President Bush was never down in Iraq with ak:s and killed anyone.

Ultimately, the president has complete control over the executive branch. Not his staff, not Donald Rumsfeld, not Dick Cheney. One of the points of having public officials is for accountability. If you blamed every politician's staff for his or her bad decisions, our democracy would fall apart. Moreover, you say that he is only involved in major things: is war not a major thing? Finally, of course he didn't kill people himself. Would you also claim that someone who orders an assassination is not as guilty as the person who actually carries it out?

President Bush takes more vacations that the average Joe, but you know what? He is entitles to them. The President works 18-19 hours a day. That is what you people do in ~3 days. This is not a special thing for George W. but Clinton also did it and the Presidents before him. If the President works 3*[standard] he should then have 3*[standard] vacation time. Standard vacation time in Sweden is 5 weeks. 3*5 = 15 weeks and that is 1/3 of the year as we've all read in newspapers etc. etc. that he has.

Do you have a source for the 18-19 hour work day, because I sincerely doubt that figure. While every president takes vacations, none have as profusely as Bush. In 5 years, he has managed to take as many as Reagan (the previous record holder) did in 8. That's a lot of vacation.

All i have to say is "LOL". How lame are you people? Iraq have WMD. Ok, for you people who arn't in teh loop i'll give the hstoric background to it. Iraq did use WMD in the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq did use WMD to gas Kurds. Iraq did use WMD to kill shiamuslims in the south.

Fifteen years ago. They were subsequently dismantled.

Just because the U.S. havn't found any doesn't mean they aren't there. It took them a year to find Saddam so why not? They could be hidden inside a bunker somwhere and never be found. They can also have been transferred to Iran before and during the first week of the war. Remember that the U.N. weapon inspectors where thrown out of Iran.

No credible person with any knowledge on the subject believes that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. These are the experts, mind you. The fact that you believe it to be true speaks volumes about you. I take it that you are a big supporter of truthiness?

 

[Gokul43201]

Examples of black/white arguments (that by definition is incorrect):

• The war in Iraq was bad because people died.
  
• Bush killed people in Iraq and he is an id*ot.
  
• Bush lies and he is an id*iot.
  
• Bush only takes vacations all the time.
  
• Iraq had 0 WMD.

I don't know where to begin to counter this becuase obviously everyone who is against President George W. Bush have either not researched his action and the world we live in today or think they have but havn't.

I don't recall reading any of the above listed opinions in this thread. Please show me where you read them. If they are not in this thread, you have constructed a strawman. And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

 

[Mattara]

The real question is why do we have to pay (in more ways that one) to remove him and to stabilize the country?

So you actually have less money now that before the war in Iraq that you do now becuase of the war in Iraq? No you don't. That my friend is a strawman argument (and a false one i might add). Stop saying "we" becuase there is no "we".

what good is that when there are sanctions against you?

And why do you think he got sanctioned? Was it because he is a non-terrorist? No.

He obviously had no WMDs as of 2003, and certainly did not have the capability to create them.)

There is no way of knowing that.

Ultimately, the president has complete control over the executive branch

Yes of course he has and that is what i have been saying. But there are forces in the U.S. politics that can tilt the actions in some angle from time to time.

One of the points of having public officials is for accountability

That is correct, but they do more than sitting around, waiting to be blamed for something.

If you blamed every politician's staff for his or her bad decisions, our democracy would fall apart.

I am not blaming every politician's staff, I'm referring to the U.S. politics as one machinery.

Moreover, you say that he is only involved in major things: is war not a major thing?

Yes it is. If you had read my entire argument you might have learned that that is what i said.

Would you also claim that someone who orders an assassination is not as guilty as the person who actually carries it out?

The one performing the killing is guilty. The one ordering is not, because people can say no. Then if I ordered someone to do something that would make another someone to do something that would make a third someone kill someone etc. You could expand it forever.

Do you have a source for the 18-19 hour work day, because I sincerely doubt that figure.

Clinton's autobiography/memoairs

common sense. It requires that amount of time to run a country

While every president takes vacations, none have as profusely as Bush. In 5 years, he has managed to take as many as Reagan (the previous record holder) did in 8.

The world is a lot more compicated now than when regan ruled. There are more things to do. Can't you see that?

They were subsequently dismantled

There is again, no way of telling that.

No credible person with any knowledge on the subject believes that Saddam had WMDs in 2003.

You are here by effectivly telling us that the Bush administration, the UN and a whole lot more people are idiots.

I don't recall reading any of the above listed opinions in this thread./.../if they are not in this thread, you have constructed a strawman. And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

The topic is: Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy

My initial post in this topic was to counter this statement. Therefore it is not off-topic.

Please show me where you read them

Ok, i will.

Bush lies and is an id*iot;

Post 5:

/.../Even if you agree that Bush is a liar/../

There are discussions of the fact that there are more things than just the President saying: "WAR" all trouh page 1:

Post 10:

/.../because it is obvious that Bush is not running his brach at all.

Other post that supports my post not being a strawman or off-topic

Post 19:

Pre-war intelligence? It was rock solid! The president himself said so. Surely the president would not base a war and thousands upon thousands of casualties on unreliable information now, would he? Yup, only a matter of time before them Iraqi nukes are found.

Post 26:

Don't be so blinded by Bush bashing and Republican bashing that you fail to put things into perspective.

Other reference to Bush and telling and evil/id*iotic lies:

Post 20:

Surely he would not lie about warrantless searches either.

Post 23:

It is not about hate for Bush/.../

Post 25:

/.../The New Bush Lie:/../The Lie Before That:

Post 51:

/../The newest lie is a two-for-one. Lie Part I (a recycled lie):

Post 53:

The newest lie is a two-for-one. Lie Part I (a recycled lie):

Post 59:

I really have wondered if he [Bush] sold his soul to the anti-Christ

Post 68:

If Bush would stop doing horrible things

Post 78:

Does anyone really believe this great big lie?

A quote showing the power of the Bush admnistration - Bush:

Post 31:

Don't be so blinded by Bush bashing and Republican bashing that you fail to put things into perspective.

And finally a quote about vacation:

Post 72:

goes on tour to friendly destinations, beginning at the Grand Ole Opry, and ending in Dallas in his home state of Texas

(That could count as a form of vacation i.e. ayaw from normal work)

I think that is enough for you, Gokul43201. And the other things that is not covered here is grom my own thoughts and is still on-topic and not a strawman since it has something to do with "Bush" and "trustworthy".

I don't recall reading any of the above listed opinions in this thread. Please show me where you read them. If they are not in this thread, you have constructed a strawman. And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

This is however off-topic and a strawman not to forget a direct personal attack which is maybe not a good idea when having a discussion.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Before you start trying to pwn people that is clearly more educated that yourself in this area, you can google "Gulf war syndrome" and then relate to how the same thing was used in the Iran-Iraq war.

By the way, the Iran-Iraq war was eight years, not ten.

Gulf War Syndrome has been connected to Depleted Uranium poisoning.

Not the radiation from it, but frik... it is a very very heavy metal... the body will not respond well.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Where exactly are we saying the man is an idiot?

I think that he delegates all his work out to his subordinates (who are not very nice people) and thusly has no clue as to what is going on. That is not calling him an idiot, just lazy.

also, HIS ADMINISTRATION LIES. you need to escape from your ego trap that tells you to support Bush through all his lies because you supported him before and do not want to admit you were wrong about him.

 

[Mattara]

Gulf War Syndrome has been connected to Depleted Uranium poisoning.

Not the radiation from it, but frik... it is a very very heavy metal... the body will not respond well.

Actually GWS is still unknown. Speculations about depleted uranium is, well speculations and unproven theories.

 

[Mattara]

Where exactly are we saying the man is an idiot?

I think that he delegates all his work out to his subordinates (who are not very nice people) and thusly has no clue as to what is going on. That is not calling him an idiot, just lazy.

also, HIS ADMINISTRATION LIES. you need to escape from your ego trap that tells you to support Bush through all his lies because you supported him before and do not want to admit you were wrong about him.

Well, when people are feel that someone is a liar and evil etc. a synomyme for that would be idiot.

Get one thing straight ComputerGeek, I support Bush and the Bush administration because i think that they are doing a good job for the U.S. and for the world.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Actually GWS is still unknown. Speculations about depleted uranium is, well speculations and unproven theories.

Actually it is not. The DoD has published reports on it and thy even tell their soldiers about it. My brother is a Marine and he has been extensively trained on DU decon.

It is only speculation to folks who do not believe evidence or have any reasoning.

HEAVY METAL POISONING. that is what GWS is.

 

[Mattara]

Actually it is not. The DoD has published reports on it and thy even tell their soldiers about it. My brother is a Marine and he has been extensively trained on DU decon.

It is only speculation to folks who do not believe evidence or have any reasoning.

HEAVY METAL POISONING. that is what GWS is.

Now you are talking in circles. Ok, let me ask you this: how do you know that the DoD was telling the truth this time?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Well, when people are feel that someone is a liar and evil etc. a synomyme for that would be idiot.

try looking up synonyms for idiot... liar and evil are NOT on that list. you are trying to defend your irrational argument from above rather than facing the fact that no one here has said Bush is an idiot. Heck, I do not even really think he is evil any longer. I think that his inner circle just does not tell him all the facts in order to forward their agendas.

Get one thing straight ComputerGeek, I support Bush and the Bush administration because i think that they are doing a good job for the U.S. and for the world.

and thusly, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Now you are talking in circles. Ok, let me ask you this: how do you know that the DoD was telling the truth this time?

So, they contradict their original stance of DU, make themselves look really bad for lying, and they are not telling the truth? Kind of an odd.

When some one, or some entity admits to the correctness of the opposing argument, that means that they acknowledge the truth of the opposing argument. If they wanted to continue lying, then it would not make any sense to change their stance.

 

[Mattara]

try looking up synonyms for idiot... liar and evil are NOT on that list.

Ok, my bad. I'll change it to simmilar.

hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Let me use 1st grade math.

-1+3 = positive

I'll make myself clearly. The vectors may be negative also but the result is positive.

you are trying to defend your irrational argument from above rather than facing the fact that no one here has said Bush is an idiot.

Irrational? Try über.

Now we are just bickering off-topic. I made some interesting POV:s, let's move on.