Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

[Tarheel]

Before you start trying to pwn people that is clearly more educated that yourself...

Oh The Irony! This made me spit mountain dew out of my nose!

I think people typically pwn one another whilst playing counter-strike.

At the Physics Forums it is more likely that you will be engaged in an intelligent discussion. (If you choose to participate)

 

[Mattara]

Oh The Irony! This made me spit mountain dew out of my nose!

I think people typically pwn one another whilst playing counter-strike.

At the Physics Forums it is more likely that you will be engaged in an intelligent discussion. (If you choose to participate)

Actually "pwn" is internet lingo meaning "to beat someone". Guess what? PF is on the internet.

And I think using smilies is a lack of seriousness.

But enough with the bickering

 

[Gokul43201]

The topic is: Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy

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

I didn't say it was off-topic, only that it may have been arguing against a strawman.

Ok, i will.

Bush lies and is an id*iot;

Post 5:There are discussions of the fact that there are more things than just the President saying: "WAR" all trouh page 1:

Post 10:Other post that supports my post not being a strawman or off-topic

Post 19:Post 26:

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

Post 20:Post 23:Post 25:Post 51:Post 53:Post 59:Post 68:Post 78:

Now which of those several quotes says that Bush's lying makes him an idiot ? And if you are saying that "bush lies" has nothing to do with his being "an idiot", then voicing these two uncorrelated points is only stating an opinion, not making an "argument". In your post, you claim that these are (incorrect) arguments.

I think that is enough for you, Gokul43201.

Sadly, it doesn't look to me like you've found a single example of a post where someone said that Bush tells lies and that makes him an idiot. So, far from being enough, it seems you still don't have a single data point in response to my query.

And finally a quote about vacation:

Post 72:

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

Here, let me try once again. You claimed that an argument made in this thread was that "Bush only takes vacations all the time". Find this assertion in the post you've quoted, and I'll concede your point. Just finding a post that talks of Bush's vacations, doesn't mean the post makes the point you attributed to it.

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".

If you accuse people of "pointing fingers" based on the list of "arguments" that you provided, and they never used these same arguments, then, by definition, you have a strawman. It can be on-topic, and still be a strawman. The two are unrelated.

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.

1. I never attributed to you something that you didn't say or do(and base my argument on that). Ergo, I have not argued a strawman.

2. I have not made a direct attack on you. I have only pointed out that if nothing you list has been argued by others, then it makes no sense to attempt correcting these "incorrect arguments". Even if I didn't make my statement conditional, I would only be attacking your style of argment, and not you, personally.

3. Yes this is off-topic. A moderator may delete this if required. If there was a policy of deleting posts based on strawmen, maybe this post (and my previous one) would have been unnecessary.

I find it quite surprising that you considered my post a personal attack !

 

[Mattara]

I didn't say it was off-topic, only that it was arguing against a strawman.

Now which of those several quotes says that Bush's lying makes him an idiot ? And if you are saying that "bush lies" has nothing to do with his being "an idiot", then voicing these two uncorrelated points is only stating an opinion, not making an "argument". In your post, you claim that these are (incorrect) arguments.

Sadly, it doesn't look to me like you've found a single example of a post where someone said that Bush tells lies and that makes him an idiot. So, far from being enough, it seems you still don't have a single data point in response to my query.

Here, let me try once again. You claimed that an argument made in this thread was that "Bush only takes vacations all the time". Find this assertion in the post you've quoted, and I'll concede your point. Just searching for the word 'vacation' and posting the results is grossly unrelated to finding a post that makes the assertion you made in your post.




If you accuse people of "pointing fingers" based on the list of "arguments" that you provided, and they never used these same arguments, then, by definition, you have a strawman. It can be on-topic, and still be a strawman. The two are unrelated.

1. I never attributed to you something that you didn't say or do(and base my argument on that). Ergo, I have not argued a strawman.

2. I have not made a direct attack on you. I have only pointed out that if nothing you list has been argued by others, then it makes no sense to attempt correcting these "incorrect arguments". Even if I didn't make my statement conditional, I would only be attacking your style of argment, and not you, personally.

I find it quite surprising that you considered my post a personal attack !

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the opposite of a strawman is to have the special thing discussed before in the topic?

Most of the things i have brought up was discussed earlier to some extent and the things that has not, is my personal view on the topic so it is fair game.

And that, I'm sure know, is considered extremely disingenuous.

Right here you are insulting my intelligence, but I won't lower myself to your level with an answer

finding a post that talks of Bush's vacations, doesn't mean the post makes the point you attributed to it.

No, but i am allowed to post my POV so get over it.

1. I never attributed to you something that you didn't say or do(and base my argument on that). Ergo, I have not argued a strawman.

Fine, i'll act childish in saying that your posts are off topic and should be deleted.

 

[daveb]

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.

What does GWS have to do with anything said (previous to the above quote)?

 

[Mattara]

It is an example of how Iraq used WMD

 

[daveb]

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?

If the DoD was telling the truth, then GWS is caused by DU, and NOT by WMDs. If the Pentagon is not telling the truth, then they are lying. Therefore, Bush (who approves of DoD offical positions) supports that lie. Therefore, Bush is a liar. Whether he is also an idiot is what you should argue. The fact is, either he is a liar, or your argument about GWS is a strawman.

 

[Mattara]

No, my input on GWS is not a strawman since it was a counter argument to a counter argument countering my initial argument(s)

 

[Tarheel]

...since it was a counter argument to a counter argument countering my initial argument(s)

LMAO! I HAVE to stop reading this thread!

 

[daveb]

It is an example of how Iraq used WMD

There is no debate over whether they used WMDs in the Iran-Iraq war. But since you claim

Actually GWS is still unknown.

, then how can you claim that it is an example of how Iraq used WMDs?

 

[Manchot]

Actually "pwn" is internet lingo meaning "to beat someone".

Actually "pwn" is internet gaming lingo meaning "to beat someone." It's it's more in the realm of 15-year-old gamers than people on a serious physics discussion forum.

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".

Is that a serious question? The government's debt is the people's debt. The $1200 or so that has been spent per person on this war has to come from somewhere, and even though it's not coming directly from our pockets into the war coffers, it'll have to come indirectly from taxes. Also note that I said "in more ways than one." This includes the human cost of the war (our friends and family members who have died and/or been permanently injured) as well as the credibility cost abroad.

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

In the loosest sense of the definition of terrorist (i.e., one who uses terror as a means to obtain an objective), yes, Saddam was a terrorist. In the stricter sense of the definition (one without power who uses terror to gain it), he was not one. The problem with calling him a terrorist in the former definition is that it evokes memories of 9/11 and al-Qaeda, which he had nothing to do with. The word "dictator" is much more appropriate here. Anyway, no, he wasn't sanctioned because he was a "terrorist" or a dictator. I don't know if you've noticed, but there are many dictators across the world, many of whom don't have sanctions against them. He was sanctioned because of his country's invasion of Kuwait.

There is no way of knowing that.

Other than Hans Blix and his team of WMD experts saying so?

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.

The Bush administration was unequivocally the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. He was not tilted: he was the tilter.

That is correct, but they do more than sitting around, waiting to be blamed for something.
I am not blaming every politician's staff, I'm referring to the U.S. politics as one machinery.

You said, "Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in ma[j]or things." This suggests that you believe that his accountability is diminished by the fact that he has a staff.

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.

Ordering a hit on someone is considered to be first degree murder in the U.S. (and in most other countries). You can get the death penalty for it. And yes, if a chain of command is followed wherein there are multiple levels of ordering, the counts of murder can go right on up the chain, as it should. (In fact, in the military, often only the person who first ordered the hit could be charged, because the rest were following orders.)

Clinton's autobiography/memoairs
common sense. It requires that amount of time to run a country

Bush isn't Clinton. Why do you think they have the same hours? You're also not qualified to guess how much time he spends.

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

Really? There were more dictatorships in 1985 than there are now, and Reagan had that pesky little nuclear superpower known as the Soviet Union breathing down his neck. Bush has fewer dictatorships and some suicidal guys in a cave. Furthermore, even if the world was "more complicated," wouldn't that require less vacation time?

There is again, no way of telling that.

Two words: Hans Blix.

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

For one thing, I said "believes," referring to the present. No one currently claims that he had WMDs, not even the Bush administration. Even in 2003, your statement is false. The UN didn't vote to go to war, so they're out. "A whole lot of people" refers to the people that were assured by the Bush administration that there were WMDs, so they don't count. (A subset of that group are the senators who had the "same intelligence" that Bush did, which is false statement. They in fact did not have the same intelligence, only the intelligence which supported the case for war.) As for the Bush administration, I'll leave it to you to decide whether they're idiots or not.

By the way, if the whole WMD thing was an intelligence snafu, why did George Tenet get the Medal of Freedom?

 

[BobG]

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".

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

There is no way of knowing that.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Clinton's autobiography/memoairs

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

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

There is again, no way of telling that.

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

The topic is: Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy

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

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.

So, of the three positions on the Iraq invasion, your position is d) whatever decision and rationale Bush used is good. If that's your point of view, that's fine.

Diverting the discussion into the invasion of Iraq doesn't help your case, though. There is certainly quite a bit of evidence to indicate Iraq had dismantled its WMD, while there is no evidence to indicate that they somehow hid their WMD. Your entire argument on the Iraq invasion is based on believing that Bush has to be right. Belief in Bush might support believing in the Iraq invasion, but using the Iraq invasion to support a belief in Bush doesn't work. There's a chance Bush is right and all the current evidence is wrong, but it's not very likely considering what we know now.

In fact, while you could argue that there's no ironclad evidence, it certainly at least looks as if the Bush administration held position "c" - that the possibility of Iraq posing a threat justified invasion. I don't agree with that position, but holding that position would be fine if it were the reason he gave the American public. He definitely gave the impression that the invasion was to defuse an imminent threat by Iraq.

 

[SOS2008]

<snip>

I feel your posts have been addressed well, so will repeat some of what has already been posted. To your first post, I have researched Bush’s life and political career extensively. I agree it would be nice if people would do the same--including you.

BobG has provided a good explanation for why the invasion of Iraq is questioned, most notably preemption without clear and present danger. It is not only because people have died, though it is sad people like you view life with so little value (perhaps until it is your own, or someone you love?).

Then you say: “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.” First, the extent of his lies are that of High Treason, (not little white lies most people say). Second, a president is supposed to be a model for the rule of law. And third, you are confusing lies/propaganda with classified intelligence related to national security—two different issues.

As a new member you are not aware of the many threads we have had regarding WMD in Iraq. There is clear evidence that there were no WMD, and that WMD were not moved out of Iraq before the invasion. Even Bush, et al have formally admitted to this, and information to the contrary are conspiracy theories.

I don’t agree that the Iraqis are better off…yet. If basic needs can be restored and the country can become stable, then I’ll agree – minus the loss of life and keeping in mind the cost of the war, which BTW is the #1 reason for the national debt in the U.S. at this time.

In regard to Bush and debate about control, I assure you his management style is that of someone who orders his staff to go out and “make it so.” Yes, staff does the real work, strategy, etc., but with a command in mind. Those who obey are greatly loved and rewarded, and those who don’t will part paths (Powell, Whitman, etc.).

If you want to talk about bashing, then let’s address blind support. You say: “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.” I have seen it asked many times in many forums for evidence for this belief. These people never provide it, because it is emotionally based, not based on evidence.

As a new member, another word of advice – If you take an accusatory stance, you should be prepared to back up your claims with credible sources, etc. Also, if you feel you have been attacked personally, I can direct you to other forums where this would be true.

 

[SOS2008]

This originally posted in the NSA Spying thread:

Or an executive order giving Cheney power to classify information at his will. Also now known as Libbys new defense. see below
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113962394427971509-ydWRY_4tyZ2tAJcCsfbEBc_qD7A_20070210.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp

The way I see it, Executive 13292 only gives Cheney the authority to classify information, not declassify information as Cheney suggests in relation to the Valery Plame incident, and libbys leaking of that information.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Is this still America or did I take a wrong turn somewhere. Could Cheney have legally given Libby the permission to release information that would out a CIA operative in order to discredit her husbands classified testimony about the non existence of yellow cake??

Dam this whole administration is so totally Bizarre it is beyond Orwell.

This is a very relevant post. Before replying I did some research and this is what I found:

Timeline:

February 2002 :
The CIA sent Wilson to Nigeria to determine if Iraqis had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa; his conclusion was that these allegations were probably unfounded.

28 January 2003 :
President Bush, State of the Union: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

6 May 2003:
NYT Nicholas Kristof reported Wilson's conclusions about African yellowcake, but did not name him.

So less than two months after the State of the Union speech and about two months before the first news story, Executive Order 12958 was amended, and released on March 23, 2003. The entire content can be read @ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html

And then two months after the first story by Kristof, conservative pundit Robert Novak reported Plame's status in a July 2003 column in the Washington Post.

So what we see is an administration that places itself above the law by making new laws however they please. And it isn't this one isolated incident, but a continual track record whether a letter of intent negating adherence to the new bill regarding torture, and now hoping to change FISA. Can you say CROOK?

 

[edward]

And yet Cheny only just now, at the end of his "I pulled the trigger" confession to FOX news, revealed that he had been given the authority by executive order to pretty much do as he dam well pleases when he dam well pleases.

This includes doing what he dam well pleases with classified documents and outing CIA operatives to protect a lie.

Why the hell didn't he just say so in 2003? Because he couldn't have gotten away with it in 2003. It might have spoiled his little foray into Iraq that turned into a permanent occupation of that country.

Everything about this administration has been a secretive conspiracy to defraud the American people, yet a great portion of the American people bought into it. This administration has managed through their devious methods to fool enough of the people enough of the time to get away with anything.

I am going to sign off now I am suffering from an extreme chocolate deficiency.

 

[SOS2008]

And yet Cheny only just now, at the end of his "I pulled the trigger" confession to FOX news, revealed that he had been given the authority by executive order to pretty much do as he dam well pleases when he dam well pleases.

This includes doing what he dam well pleases with classified documents and outing CIA operatives to protect a lie.

Why the hell didn't he just say so in 2003? Because he couldn't have gotten away with it in 2003. It might have spoiled his little foray into Iraq that turned into a permanent occupation of that country.

Everything about this administration has been a secretive conspiracy to defraud the American people, yet a great portion of the American people bought into it. This administration has managed through their devious methods to fool enough of the people enough of the time to get away with anything.

I am going to sign off now I am suffering from an extreme chocolate deficiency.

The only catch -- you may recall the big deal about documents requested in regard to Plame's classification status. According to the documents, she was still considered covert (not declassified). Why would "superiors" give Libby approval to leak this information without having their ducks in a row? Maybe it was a bungle--that's completely possible. Maybe after years of observation, and being an intelligent man, Libby knew to keep some CYA insurance.

 

[SOS2008]

Video shows Bush got explicit Katrina warning
President, Chertoff clearly told of storm’s dangers numerous times

BREAKING NEWS
Associated Press
Updated: 6:52 p.m. ET March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared.”

The footage — along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press — show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.

...“I’m concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe,” Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/

Video included as evidence of Bush's complete advanced knowledge--and Brownie was thrown under the buss (Ooops, who did we give a Medal of Freedom to?).

WMD? Well that was faulty intelligence. A leak of a CIA operative? Not from my administration. Abramoff? Never met him. DP World port deal? Didn't know about it. That sucking sound you hear is Bush going down.

 

[Manchot]

Video included as evidence of Bush's complete advanced knowledge--and Brownie was thrown under the buss (Ooops, who did we give a Medal of Freedom to?).

Seriously, I can't say I'm surprised. In September, Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4204754.stm" . Obviously, that was a flat-out lie. There is no possible way that the video and the September statement can be reconciled with each other. (Unless you think that he managed to "forget" something that happened a couple days earlier.) IMO, anyone who continues to defend Bush is either seriously deluded or frankly, pretty stupid.

 

[Gokul43201]

...IMO, anyone who continues to defend Bush is either seriously deluded or frankly, pretty stupid.

...or doesn't think it's such a terrible thing to tell lies (like this one).

 

[arildno]

It is, in general, only Christians who defend Bush; in particular those Christians who are moral analphabets.

 

[Manchot]

...or doesn't think it's such a terrible thing to tell lies (like this one).

I could see someone forgiving white lies. But when there is such a pervasive pattern of serious ones, and they happen on a daily basis, I can't see how it could be forgiven. It seems to me that they often do it for little to no benefit. I truly believe that if the Bush administration was a person, they would be diagnosed as a pathological liar.

 

[Gokul43201]

I could see someone forgiving white lies. But when there is such a pervasive pattern of serious ones, and they happen on a daily basis, I can't see how it could be forgiven. It seems to me that they often do it for little to no benefit. I truly believe that if the Bush administration was a person, they would be diagnosed as a pathological liar.

My exact sentiments.

 

[arildno]

Actually, although I had intial reservations when he was first elected, I felt an immense admiration for George Bush and his team in how they handled the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. My admiration for that particular handling has not diminished at all over the years past, but that cannot excuse what has happened in later years.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, although I had intial reservations when he was first elected, I felt an immense admiration for George Bush and his team in how they handled the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. My admiration for that particular handling has not diminished at all over the years past, but that cannot excuse what has happened in later years.

The question is asked why BushCo has operated like clock work in some circumstances, particularly earlier in the administration, yet so poorly at other times. IMO they planned for activities within their agenda--activities of benefit, but their true ineptitude shows when something unforeseen occurs. And as time has passed and the scandals have mounted they are becoming overwhelmed.

Also Bush has surrounded himself with "Yes Men" so doesn't always get the bad news. Bush is known to dislike details, but it is all in the details. He should have paid more attention to the briefing on Katrina, been more engaged, asked questions, etc. But he didn't--that's not his bag baby.

But as with all the investigations the Republicans have stonewalled, the facts are getting out.

 

[SOS2008]

Campaigning for the 2006 elections has begun!

Let's see where we are:

Katherine Harris Caught Up in Bribery Scandal
Campaign Donations From Defense Contractor Under Scrutiny
By MITCH STACY, AP

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060303035709990014

DeLay, Ney, Burns, Linked to Abramoff -

"Lobbyist's Credit Card Bill Outs DeLay Trip"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1679189&page=1

"Republicans Turn on Santorum"
By David Holman
Published 3/3/2006 12:08:26 AM
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9482

"Most Americans Now Disapprove of Bush's Handling of Terrorism, Poll Shows"
March 3 (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/economy/politics.html

Also:

From the Fox News poll:
- 39 percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, only the second time Bush has fallen below 40 percent in Fox polling.

- 81 percent believe Iraq is likely to end up in a civil war.

- 69 percent oppose allowing Dubai Ports World to manage U.S. ports.

Hmm... I wonder how things are going with the investigation of Frist's sale of stock.

 

[Skyhunter]

Thanks for the summary SOS. It is getting hard to keep track of all the lies, deceits, and outright crimes being committed.

 

[SOS2008]

Speaking At "Reclaim America For Christ" Conference" Next Week

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/CONFERENCES/RAC2006/default.asp

Katherine Harris and Sanctorum together--pretending to be moral (or repentant?). They both will be praying hard that Christians will fall for it and re-elect them.

 

[BobG]

Yet another member of Bush's staff in trouble with the law.

Claude Allen was apprehended by a Target employee in January, resigned his post as White House domestic policy advisor in February, and was formally charged with theft on March 9.

Doesn't anyone check these people out before they're appointed? Claude Allen was Virginia's Secretary of Health and Human Services under George Allen and was originally appointed by Bush as a deputy to US HHS Tommy Thompson, and was nominated by Bush as a judge in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Claude Allen's resignation was a blow to Focus on the Family, as well. Allen was a stalwart champion of family values - at least until he turned to crime.

 

[Amp1]

Egads, No! LOL , when will it stop.

 

[edward]

There are so many nasty issues with the Administration it boggles what is left of my mind. My favorite news headline was:
"Bush Administration creates Free Fraud Zone in Iraq"

 

[Astronuc]

It is, in general, only Christians who defend Bush; in particular those Christians who are moral analphabets.

Careful. There are people who defend Bush and call themselves Christian. I could call myself a Martian, but it doesn't make me one.

 

[Astronuc]

Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy
by Bruce Bartlett, a conservative from the very conservative Cato Institute

FROM THE PUBLISHER
George W. Bush came to the presidency in 2000 claiming to be the heir of Ronald Reagan. But while he did cut taxes, in most other respects he has governed in a way utterly unlike his revered predecessor, expanding the size and scope of government, letting immigration go unchecked, and allowing the federal budget to mushroom out of control.

Despite their strong misgivings, most conservatives remained silent during Bush's first term. But a series of missteps and scandals, culminating in the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, has brought this hidden rift within the conservative movement crashing to the surface.

Now, in what is sure to be the political book of the season, Bruce Bartlett lays bare the incompetence and profligacy of Bush's economic policies. A highly respected Washington economist--and true-believing Reaganite--Bartlett started out as a supporter of Bush and helped him craft his tax cuts. But he was dismayed by the way they were executed. Reagan combined his tax cuts with fiscal restraint, but Bush has done the opposite. Bartlett thus reluctantly concluded that Bush is not a Reaganite at all, but an unprincipled opportunist who will do whatever he or his advisers think is expedient to buy votes.

In this sober, thorough, and utterly devastating book, Bartlett attacks the Bush Administration's economic performance root and branch, from the "stovepiping" of its policy process to the coercive tactics used to ram its policies through Congress, to the effects of the policies themselves. He is especially hard on Bush's enormous new Medicare entitlement...and predicts that within a few years, Bush's tax cuts and unrestricted spending will produce an economic crisis that will require a major tax increase, probably in the form of a European-style VAT.

Bartlett has surprisingly kind words for Bill Clinton, whose record on the budget was far better than Bush's. Whatever else one may think of him, Bartlett argues, Clinton cut spending, abolished a federal entitlement program, and left a budget surplus. By contrast, Bush has increased spending, created a massive entitlement program, and produced the biggest deficits in American history.

In fact, Bartlett concludes, Bush is less like Reagan than like Nixon: an arch-conservative Republican, bitterly hated by liberals, who vainly tried to woo moderates by enacting big parts of the liberal program. It didn't work then, and it won't work now--and may have similar harmful effects for the GOP.

Well, isn't this something! Amazing, but some people do eventually come around to reality - it just takes several years.

 

[Astronuc]

Paul Krugman, a columnist for the NYTimes and a strong critic of presidential malfeasance, has an amusing commentary on Bartlett's book - The Conservative Epiphany, March 10, 2006, NYTimes.

Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.

Human nature being what it is, I don't expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. Bush's policies, but of his personal qualities, too.

Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.

And if you're a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist.

The truth is that everything the new wave of Bush critics has to say was obvious long ago to any commentator who was willing to look at the facts.

Mr. Bartlett's book is mainly a critique of the Bush administration's fiscal policy. Well, the administration's pattern of fiscal dishonesty and irresponsibility was clear right from the start to anyone who understands budget arithmetic. The chicanery that took place during the selling of the 2001 tax cut — obviously fraudulent budget projections, transparently deceptive advertising about who would benefit and the use of blatant accounting gimmicks to conceal the plan's true cost — was as bad as anything that followed.

. . . .

The point is that pundits who failed to notice the administration's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence.

But as I said, better late than never. Born-again Bush-bashers like Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Sullivan, however churlish, are intellectually and morally superior to the Bushist dead-enders who still insist that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, and will soon be claiming that we lost the war in Iraq because the liberal media stabbed the troops in the back. And reporters understandably consider it newsworthy that some conservative voices are now echoing longstanding liberal critiques of the Bush administration.

It's still fair, however, to ask people like Mr. Bartlett the obvious question: What took you so long?

 

[Astronuc]

Bush ratings continue to drop to new lows
NBC/WSJ poll: Majority now prefer a Democrat-controlled Congress

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11843383/

According to the poll, only 37 percent approve of Bush’s job performance — his lowest mark ever in the survey. That’s a two-point drop since the last NBC/Journal poll, and a one-point decline from his previous low of 38 percent last November. In addition, just 26 percent believe the nation is headed in the right direction, a tie from the previous Bush administration low, which also occurred in November.

 

[BobG]

Bush ratings continue to drop to new lows
NBC/WSJ poll: Majority now prefer a Democrat-controlled Congress

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11843383/

On the other hand, Bush is rated higher than Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Hastert, Boehner, and Frist. Only Condi outshines Bush. Polling Report

(And Frist thinks he has a chance to win the Republican nomination in '08? He's lowest on the list!)