Awol Bush

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Will do!

What did you think of that abortion article? Fact or fiction?

It's not the first source I've seen. It wouldn't suprise me. did you hear what Laura said about gay marriage today?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bush_interview

Mrs. Bush: Gay Marriage Shocking for Some

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, SH certainly did not help his own credibility by lying and being an obstructionist for 11 years Also, he could have stepped down - that would have stopped this war. Interestingly, I think that proper use of political pressure on other states like Saudia Arabia, Syria, etc., could have acheived this goal - but I realize those are fighting words to politicians and, perhaps more realistically, no politician acheived that goal in 11 years.

At this point, who knows if Saddam did or didn't try to make amends. Do you think the neocons would tell us?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

The last two paragraphs are *very* disturbing. Seriously.

I wonder if the "God" he speaks of is Rove or Cheney.

That's some of the more frightening rhetoric we've seen from him for a while. 11 months and counting.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While W did lie about the nuclear stuff and that is bad, your same argument could be made with Clinton and Bush I. IMO.

Stop right there. Neither of the other two presidents engaged us in an illegal war. Those two were both actually elected as well.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, W was in the air guard portion of the NG. Three or more air guard units went to Nam and some of those people died. So, W being in the air guard was not a total out for him.

Yes it was. He flew obsolete plains. He was trained on only one plane the F102, which was for air to air combat. Vietnam = no air force. The was never a chance that he would be called up to active duty.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
While I agree that his NG record doesn't directly relate to his presidency at the moment, it does give further credence to his continued pattern of lying outright.

He lied about the war, he lied about his NG duty, he lied about his drunk driving conviction, he lied about his cocaine use, the list just goes on forever. He is a man without a shred of moral integrity, a man who hides behind the Bible and 9/11 when the going gets tough. For cripes sake, he thinks God speaks to him directly and he disapproves of interracial relationships! He's a f*cking insult to this country and the White House.

The pinnacle of all the lies and bull**** was him sitting there at Booker Elementary on the morning of September 11, not doing jack **** to protect and defend this country which was part of the oath he took when he sworn in. He's failed us miserably.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
While I agree that his NG record doesn't directly relate to his presidency at the moment, it does give further credence to his continued pattern of lying outright.

He lied about . . . his NG duty . . .

Prove that he lied about his NG record. I submit you cannot - no one can because the evidence supports that he was there. If more comes to light, then so be it - I am not married to the idea that he served all of the time and think he is a schmo for pulling strings to get in even though I would have done the same thing.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
At this point, who knows if Saddam did or didn't try to make amends. Do you think the neocons would tell us?

Certainly he had the attention of the world. The US does not control the world press

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Stop right there. Neither of the other two presidents engaged us in an illegal war. Those two were both actually elected as well.

Please - W was elected. Again, all of the sources indicated the count in FL would have gone to W. ALso, everyone knows the popular vote is meanlingless. If W had won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college vote would any liberal still make this argument

Also, Bush I (I think) and Clinton participated in the no fly zones. There is a issue about whether those were legal as they were no officially sanctioned by the U.N. Sounds like illegal to me if that same def. is applied to W.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yes it was. He flew obsolete plains. He was trained on only one plane the F102, which was for air to air combat. Vietnam = no air force. The was never a chance that he would be called up to active duty.

And how is that his fault? That was the NG's choice

Also, that issue of what he did during those 30 minutes on 9-11 immediately after the attacks is just such a red herring. Again, none of us know what was happening - we can berate the SS's actions all we want, but none of know what was happening. The Pres. was in a secure place. For all we know there could have been a direct threat in moving him. So its cool to be suspect, but asserting suspicion as fact is specious because we do not know all of the facts and probably never will. Just my $0.02

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And how is that his fault? That was the NG's choice

Please don't tell me that you are that much of an enabler.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While W did lie about the nuclear stuff and that is bad, your same argument could be made with Clinton and Bush I. After all, they killed, albeit to a lesser degree, in the name of essentially the same information/intelligence

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton never sent troops off to war in Iraq.
We had troops stationed in various areas in the Gulf, but that was all just part of the presence we've been maintaining there for over a decade now.

But either way, I'm not arguing Clinton's character here, or the job he did as president... I'm talking about George W. Bush, and our present-day situation.
And the only thing his supporters can ever seem to point to in his defense, is that he's "tough on terrorism."
Well, bully for him.
If any other person had been in office at the time of 9/11, I have a strong suspicion that they too would be "tough on terrorism" at this point in their presidency.

And if he had truly been effective on striking down terrorism, then he and his camp would have listened to the pre-9/11 intelligence they had been given, and they would have heeded the countless warning signs, and we wouldn't have had to lose nearly 3,000 innocent lives.

Strip away the "tough on terrorism" propaganda, and there is little-to-nothing to show me why this man deserves to be our president.

This is a man who believes he has the moral integrity to run our country, thru his "talks with God"... and feels that it's his place to decide what is good and bad for the American people.
While there has not been a single thing he's done, in the past or currently, that makes me feel confident that he has any business whatsoever telling us how to conduct our lives.

So I refer back to my earlier quote....
"You can't be a beacon if your light don't shine."

[strandinthewind]

Johnny - you are wrong.

I agree with you in that like Bill Maher said - anyone could have pointed to Afganistan on the map and "destroy this," which essentially is what W did. As an aside, there are still people who do not believe the U.S. should have done that - I submit these people do not know what they are talking about.

I also am not arguing Clinton or Bush I's integrity, etc. I am merely pointing out that they both used essentially the same intelligence to kill people in Iraq, whether it was an all out war like W got us into or by enforcing the questionably legal "no fly zones" in place in the Bush I and Clinton eras. To me, there is not distinction, except in the number of deaths and the method of killing. Again, why was it right for Bush I and Clinton to kill without UN approval in the name of that intelligence but when W does it based on the same intelligence everyone is up in arms crying foul I hate double standards, which I think is what is happening to a degree here although I admit W had it out for Iraq from the beginning and used this intelligence along with 9-11 to get his way.

Also, W's supporters, one of which I am not, correctly point out that the tax cuts are helping the economy (I know I know we are not back at the 1999 level yet). If you do not believe me, consult any reputable economist starting with Greenspan. Now, if we could just control W's spending . . .

Finally, do you really think that if W and Clinton (the intelligence was there then too) had actually known about the 9/11 attacks, they would not have tried to stop them. I cannot believe that and I am a rank conspiracy theorist I think the CIA knew something was going to go down, but I do not think they actual knowledge of the specific event. Also, W's administration dropped the ball of Al-Q, which the outgoing Clinton administration warned them was the clear threat. So, therein lies fault. But, to say W knew that planes were going to be used on 9/11 in the exact manner and time they were and then did nothing to stop that just defies belief IMO.

P.S. I did not vote for W in the first place and agree W should not be the President any longer perhaps mainly because his supporters are using him to shove fundamentalist Christian postulates down the throats of Americans, which I hate. I think that is far more dangerous to America than forcing a war to clean up an 11 year mess/loose end/cannon.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Please don't tell me that you are that much of an enabler.

OMG - I love your new pic!!!!!!

No - I am not. I am just saying how do we know the NG did not assign him that plane? I do not know that for a fact. Do you?

[strandinthewind]

The Bush administration has announced the largest increase in federal funding for the arts in 20 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111799,00.html

Also - this is a pretty funny interview by cranky O'Reilly