Bush, the best President in a while.

You asked for a thread committed to GW/Politics/etc. Here’s one…with the possibility of getting more comments than the “Sarah’s Ring” blog entry. What do you guys think of our President and politics right now? 9 months early. Be heard.

This entry was posted in Old Blog and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Bush, the best President in a while.

  1. Jeremy says:

    I’ll stick my neck out there. I think Paul O’Neill is putting things in an interesting light – http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/01/15/o_neill/index.html. Even if you agree with Bush’s ideals it’s fairly obvious that he’s done more to harm democracy than any other president in a while. The Patriot Act, the abuse of executive power by waging war in Iraq, alienating traditional allies, detaining an unknown number of unnamed U.S. citizens for an indefinite period of time& all of these things and more lead government in a dangerous direction. You may agree with the social ideologies of the current administration but there will be another administration in power at some point that you wont agree with, one that may even seek to use the precedent of these abuses of power against you. The goal of a free democracy is not to have a despot zealot who wields absolute power and crushes any dissention with cries of anti-Americanism. The goal of a good democracy is to encourage freedom and protect citizens from each other and the tyranny of the majority. Bush is not automatically a good president because hes a Christian. I find it ironic that so many conservative Christians are willing to support Bush like he’s the second coming because he gives lip service to some of their ideals (Has abortion ended? Are homosexuals all sent to reform school?) when conservative Christians would give more scrutiny to someone hoping to join their board of elders or become a deacon at their local church. I also find it ironic that so many of the religious right where horrified that Clinton lied about what he did behind his bedroom doors and demanded his impeachment. But it’s ok that Bush’s administration so obviously lied about the reasons to go to war to kill thousands of people and get us in a huge financial and administrative mess. Just proves that we like to pick and choose what sins we pay attention to. Violence, murder and greed, those are ok. Other peoples sexual practices are free game, though. Granted, I disagree with much of what Bush stands for ideologically. That’s fine. He could still be a good president in my book. But he’s not. He’s chosen to follow personal vendettas and ideologies while ignoring facts and alienating anyone who disagrees with him, including those like ONeill who were supposed to be on his side. A good leader unites people behind him under smart policy; Bush has done anything but that. Hes a televangelist who hoodwinks well-meaning people with tired rhetoric, tinsel and the stars and stripes.

  2. Jeremy says:

    I think we’re getting a very different picture painted by Paul O’Neill. The picture is that GW came into power with the intent of overthrowing Sadam and basically said – here, find me a way to support this. And the issue isn’t even whether we should have gotten rid of Hussein. The issue is that Bush bungled the job. There were massive protests in the U.S. and around the world. He squandered the good will of our allies and placed the Mideast in peril. Why did he do it when and how he did it? Supposedly because Iraq formed an imminent threat because they possessed WMDs and were a terrorist training ground. Later, we learn that neither things were true and that Bush was gunning for a war even before 9/11. His timing and approach couldn’t have had anything to do with his need to a) seem strong because of the dubious election results or b) get Iraq occupied and under control by the 2004 election c) finish what his father started d) jump start the economy? Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator. It was the world’s responsibility to take him out of power. But there are brutal dictators all over the world who should be taken out of power. Why did we choose this one? I think the Bush administration knowingly manipulated facts and sought out half-truths and distortions to take America to war. That’s cause for impeachment in my book. His leadership has been machiavellian and un-Christian. Even if you agree with Bush’s policies and ideology I think you will come to regret voting him in office. When he is no longer in office and criticizing him is no longer “unAmerican” history will put a shameful face on our government and the Republican party specifically. In response to charges of hypocritical actions by Democratic politicians during the war… guilty! Their actions were selfish and politically motived attempts not to be labeled as “unAmerican” after the 9/11 attacks. Basically, the idea was, support the President or you’re a traitor and a wimp. The wimps were the ones who violated their conscience and voted for things they knew they didn’t agree with or didn’t think through carefully. I heard a senator quoted on the radio yesterday saying that many politicians didn’t even read the Patriot act. They just signed it. Sickening. This is how dictators come to power. But just because the opposition party acted (acts?) like a bunch of buffoons it doesnt mean that Bush is a great President. One party’s stupidity doesn’t make the other one great. Maybe they’re both stupid.

  3. bill clinton, the best president in a while

    as much as i’d love to, im not going to get into that. i just wanted to get everyones attention.


    what can i say? this administration has scared the hell out of me. the patriot act scares me. our war with iraq scares me. imperialism and a powerless UN scares me. the economy after i get out of college scares me to the core. but probably what scares me most of all, more than any of these things, is the 2004 election. and that’s because i have this horrible, panging, nauseating gut-feeling that he’s going win it.

    not only do i feel (in general) that the man is incompetant, irrational, and profoundly ignorant, but he also somehow manages to be precisely anti everything that i support. it seems like every single day when i bring up yahoo! or bbcnews, i read a big, bright, shining headline announcing that he is currently doing something that i dont like.

    and today was no exception. i pulled up yahoo! and it reads ‘bush seeks billions for religious groups’. uh huh. now, dont get me wrong, i have nothing against religion or religious groups. i was raised in a very religious household. however, i have always whole-heartedly supported seperation of church and state. look at the mess he’s caused with islamic nations perceiving our government as being an enemy of islam with his little tag-ons like ‘god bless america’ or ‘with gods help’ or whatever. anyway, i very much so question his intentions with this money for religious groups. i suspect he’s attempting to gloss-over his image by positioning himself as ‘a down-home southern-boy shaking his fist at the nihilist in the government’. but it disgusts me most because he’s exploiting people’s most intimate life committments for their vote and support. why on earth would he specify ‘religious groups’? why not seek billions for ‘nonprofit groups’ in general rather than specifically those with religious ties? furthermore, where are these billions coming from? where are the billions for a distant space mission coming from? where is the money from his war coming from?

    this is quite literally how it goes down just about everyday. i wake up, read the news, i disagree, and i X-out one more day on the calendar till november 2004.

    and now the disclaimer. in no way do i consider myself to have all the answers. i mean hell, i supported nader in 2000 (what a disaster that would have been). and gore? would he have been a better president bush? i dont know. i really dont. my guess is probably. i dont think he could have dealt with 9/11 any better but there is no question that he would have been more diplomatic about it. and thats my biggest problem with george– he doesnt have a bit of diplomacy in him. not the slightest bit. and that is one characteristic that is inexcusable in a democracy, especially one with resounding global influence.

    so, uh, in conclusion, al sharpton in 2004. peace out!

  4. Josh says:

    I’ve not taken the time to read all this yet, but just one initial comment…
    Oh my gosh, i can’t believe the amount of text generated in a total of five entries.

  5. skebrown says:

    Well, I would have to say that the economy is on a turn upward and I attribute that to the tax breaks for small business and folks like me (family of five), given to us by the Bush administration. And I also think soon to be college graduates will have an easier time finding work when they are seeking full time employment in the near future. What about those terrific interest rates? I don’t know about you but I dig my 3.75% rate ;o)

    The war…
    Well the war on terrorism may have slid sideways to Iraq. And Iraq may have had WMD’s at one time. We may never know? However, I don’t think America as a world power and democratic leader could or should have over looked Saddam and the autrosities occuring by his dictatorship of that country. Did Powell and his administration trick us into war? We may never know that either. Remember folks, there were thousands of people killed by a paranoid dictator. In my mind, he could be directly compared to Hitler. Both of my Grandfathers helped rid the world of the Hitler regime and for that, I am thankful. I am also thankful that Saddam is no longer in power, exit strategy or not. I don’t care. I think the people of Iraq are better off in the short and long term.

    I think the President is doing just fine because he is not the only one making key decisions.

    I think politics is getting out of hand. There is entirely too much bitching going on. When Clinton was in office, everyone was complaining and now that Bush is in office, everyone is complaining.

    Thanks for the space Derek.

  6. Josh says:

    Well, given the mass amounts of information and thought found in the preceeding posts, my post will look like tomfoolery and make me sound like an ignorant Republican. Great. Anyway, I like Bush. I think he has done a good job of pulling the people together. He does come off as a goofball on TV often, but it is also nice that he speaks like the people instead of a stuffy politician who tries to make his speaches so convoluted that both sides think he is for them (however, with Bush, I’m betting there are times that neither side can figure out what he’s trying to say). All in all, I like him. Does that make him a good president? No, but I really don’t know enough to make an informed decision. My uninformed decision? Thumbs up. (see, told you, “Ignorant Republican”)

  7. Jeremy says:

    I think it’s important to vote not just upon what a candidate SAYS they support, but upon what they’ve actually done. I’ll be interested to see when evangelicals get fed up with the Republican party. Many conservative types already are (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112447-9758r.htm) because the party is proving that it doesn’t live up to conservative ideals – with a Republican leadership under a Republic president congress is spending at roughly twice the rate it did under Clinton and without a single presidential veto. The Republican party is becoming the party of BIG government, both socially and fiscally. Big socially in that now the government really is watching you all the time and big fiscally in that it’s spending at an incredible rate. I think evangelicals will start to drop away as the President’s rhetoric gets recognized for what it is – rhetoric. I think he’ll focus on courting moderates during this election and take the right-wing vote for granted. And that makes sense because what evangelicals in the Bible Belt forget is that, nationally, they are a relatively small minority. He’s already alienating the Catholic vote (the largest denomination in the country) because of the war and because although ostensibly pro-life he’s done little to support that cause. Partial birth abortion ban? – a very small number of abortions. And while some conservatives would point to his judicial nominations I think we’ve all seen that Bush’s techinique is again to just pacify the right with rhetoric. While he does make nominations that appeal to the religious right, he’s only sending lambs to the slaughter. He hangs them out to dry by throwing idealistic zealots that are far to the right of mainstream and who can’t win out to a congress that, while in the hands of a Republican majority, is still overwhelmingly moderate – giving his candidates little support. He pays lip service to evangelicals; it’s all political. So, what I don’t understand is why evangelicals overwhelmingly support him. Where I work there are pictures of him (often with hands folded in prayer) all over the place. While Bush SAYS he supports a lot of evangelical ideals he’s not actually done much about those things. On the contrary, the highlights of his presidency so far have been war and greed. Tax cuts for the rich, anyone? Contracts in war torn nations for companies with direct links to the administration, anyone?

  8. Scott says:

    Whew – I don’t know about posts, but this entry will definitely have more words than any in MC history. Maybe I’ll get around to working up a post myself once I’ve read these novels.

  9. Chris Boggs says:

    Awesome state of the presidency discourse going on here folks. Kudos to you all. I am, for the most part, Liberal in my foreign policy views(a position largely influenced by my 4 years in the Marine Corps), Pro Choice, Pro Gay Rights(they should not be discriminated against), Pro Freedom of Speech, Anti Big Government, Pro Military (with caveats), Pro Right to Worship(but not to be an evangelistic nuisance to members of other religions or beliefs), Pro Education, Anti-War(though sometimes, given human nature, it is necessary), Pro America, and against the way Iraq is being handled and most definitely, Anti-Bush.
    I do not want to pose this assertion of Bushs’ failings in a Democrat or Republican light. I actually see those 2 divisions as sides of the same party in reality. I would rather try to appeal to the reason in people to take an honest look at who Bush is, based on his actions and his history. First of all, I must say that almost completely agree with Jeremys’
    statements in the second posting and would underline his philosophy about establishing precedents for power abuses within the Executive branch of the government. He has said it quite well and I will not further repeat it. I presently live in Mexico City, Mexico and, on a daily basis, 24/7, I see what life is like in a country where power lies in the hands of only a few strong, corrupt persons and frankly and honestly, with Bush and his business partners running the country the way they are I see America headed done a path to a similar existence. A path to where you are not allowed to oppose the ruling party for fear of being murdered. To a government that takes all the tax monies and funnels them into private pockets and not the civil projects and maintenance requirements of building and
    Maintaining our nation. A place of corrupt police and a culture of “I’m gonna get mine and screw you” like so much of Eastern Europe.
    GW Bush is a man who comes from privilege, not just financial privilege, but legal privilege. I believe as strongly as a person can that he should have to answer for his crime of desertion because it’s well documented that George W. Bush never showed up for National Guard duty for a period of approximately one year, possibly more, in 1972-1973, an offense I might add, taken seriously and often punished by execution when it is one of Americas’ normal citizens and not a son of corrupt and privileged power. He ran out on his country AND exhibited the kind of weakness of moral character that should disqualify him from a post of such character-demand and responsibility. If you would not put a crack head in charge of your pharmacy why would you put a deserter in charge of your military? In charge of the sons and daughters of the people in your neighborhood, your church, your country? Common sense dictates the failure of the system that let this man into such a powerful position. On the basis of this documented fact alone, I believe that he is a criminal and should be tried for desertion.
    As a statesman, GW Bush has eroded perhaps 50 years or more of relatively good will between the US and fellow nations that saw us through turbulent times but allowed us all to grow up in a place a plenty, safety and religious freedom. We are going to see more and more acts of terrorism perpetrated against us as a consequence of GWs crude and conservative, hawkish and senseless foreign policy moves and any 5 year old can see it. DO you really believe that All the homeless children whose fathers were killed in front of them and by US soldiers sent to secure oil for America are gonna grow up and evangelize the American cause in Iraq. Do you think they will be our friends now? Would you, in their position??? Get real! The last time that Americans were this scared on their own soil was the Cuban missile crisis and the head butting between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Is that successful government? Shouldnt we be spending this Home Defense Department (read: Big Brother) money on education and enhanced foreign policy? If you really believe that the US was chosen by god to rule the earth, isnt more practical to do it economically instead of destroying millions of lives and homes? What has happened is that GW Bush has responded to 9/11 like a child emotionally. He has not solved the problems that have caused this situation nor even addressed them. More valid and respected members of government, some from his own party (a big risk when your party is conservative) have spoken out about power abuses and the sheer stupidity of Bushs actions than of any other President in history. Is it all lies? Is GW Bush just being picked on by the homosexuals, Jews, Negroes and those that draw unemployment? Thinking like that is the stuff of Jim Crowe and Strom Thurmond.
    Under his direction, environmental issues have seen the greatest degradation of any modern (post WWII) US President ever and in favor of the industrial profit considerations of his Fortune500 cronies. Example:Haliburton. His political enemies have been and continue to be harassed or downright campaigned against in a direct dictatorial style that continually probes and surpasses the boundaries of legality, establishes and reinforces precedents of bad statesmanship and reminds me of the PRI in Mexico which held sway for almost 80 years. Example: Paul O’Neill
    Never has the threat of foreign terrorism been so great as it is behind the simpleton schoolyard bully war cry of Bush, “Bring em on!” It is neither his children nor those of his cronies that will die in Iraq procuring oil rights for us. No one of any importance to Bush has to do anything they really do not want to because he we exert influence to prevent it. This is the face of power abuse and it is clearly documented by many types of neutral parties both from within and outside of the US. I think that those that feel they can say Bush is a good president are not paying attention, not reading, not listening. I will not dismiss them as evil or stupid, just uninformed or blinded by something they are apparently incapable of understanding.
    Now, as the Bush Whitehouse announces greater and greater national debt, somewhere around 1 trillion dollars, the IMF has announced within the lending community that doing business with the US now threatens to bring down the entire world economy. Intelligent minds outside our government feel that our economic situation rapidly grows untenable. Our debt is too great and beyond the wildest estimates of conservative reason. Yet, what is the response of Vice President Dick Cheney when urgently warned by the Republican machines Secretary of the Treasury that our debt grows perilously close to ruinous? “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said. “We won the midterms. This is our due.”
    It’s not OK to be the mightiest nation on earth at the expense of the suffering of others. Might does NOT make right. We Americans do NOT have a god-given right to everything we have; we have it because we are better competitors and warriors. Dont fool yourself about what goes on in your name outside our borders that most of us support indirectly.
    We have a great nation and we must protect it from power abusers like George Walker Bush and his cronies to preserve it. To keep it that place where Brights, Southern Baptists, Buddhists, Hindus and all belief systems can be friends and community members and work side by side to achieve goals of common benefit and intrinsic worth. America is strong because of diversity of its peoples, ideologies, separation of church and state, and its system of government. If GW Bush is allowed to ruin all that we have worked and shed blood for in this country then no one is to blame but those who voted for him and gave him the opportunity.

  10. Dwight Ball says:

    We laugh at the Eagle’s fan in Philadelphia who say, “The Panthers Suck!” and the Carolina’s fans who say Wake players are spoiled rich kids. We laugh because even though it’s irrational, it’s all part of the game. Whether by choice or birth we become fans of our high school, college or professional teams. Win or lose, good times or bad we chant “Go Panthers” and “The Eagles stink.” I laugh at Bush-bashing because it hits me the same way. Irrational bantering without real facts or reality. The team behind in points talking trash about the team in the lead. About the only fact in all the rhetoric is that if you want to be cool and considered intelligent you have to talk trash about Bush. It was the same way when Clinton was in office. Right-wing groups bashed Clinton and talked trash about him. It is ludicrous to blame Bush for anti-american feelings around the world. Europe? C’mon. They’ve hated us for decades. They hated us when Reagan was in, they hated us when Clinton was in and they hate us now when Bush is in. The anti-american hatred fermenting in Europe is being driven by EU nationalism, it goes back to the late 80’s. Long before Bush came in. Finding a common group to hate to rally people behind the EU is a matter of economic survival. Africa? The hatred for America has been fomenting for decades. South America? Mexico? I’ve been there. 1974. I hid my passport and the fact that I was an American because they hated us then. Go around Mexico City telling people you were an American and you’d find yourself the target of a death squad. Find something substantial and based in fact to judge Bush’s record instead of “my team hates your team” silliness.

  11. Ben says:

    But the difference here is that in many cases, this is “Bush’s team” that is critizizing him now. Myself included, many Republicans are seeing what an absolute disaster his presidency has been. Previously the US has paid at least some lip service to the UN. But Bush himself has called the UN “irrelavant”. And no, the mood in in Europe has definitely changed. EU nationalisim may be the cause of some things, but they hate each other more than they could hate any outsider right now. It will definitely be an interesting November this year when those that Bush has ignored who helped him come to power in ’00 declare ‘W’ to be “irrelavent”.

  12. Chris Boggs says:

    I have to disagree with you Dwight on several points. I can tell by the type of information that you use to support your opinions that you are not open to other peoples interpretations and experiences and that you move quickly to negate them as unfounded in truth or merit. Thats a pretty tough act to follow so I wont. If you really believe the things that you say about the EU, I personally think that you might benefit from some reading more broad in its interpretive scope. It really cant hurt. The EU and the nations that compose it have not hated us for decades but rather seek to compete with us and have the things that we have here in this country. That you obviously believe that we stand better supported alone in this world of nations is amazing to me as well as unfortunate because you vote. Id be interested in seeing what news articles (even ultra-conservative news sources are welcome though highly suspect as any visibly polarized account is) you can post links to here that outline this hate that the EU has for the US just for our edification. It may be that I am wrong and we are the target of a lot of consensual negativity that I have just tuned myself out to. I hope I am correct, for your sake and mine.
    The Mexican death squads never needed to see your passport to hate you. They could see the likes of gringos a mile away. Ive gotta say, I find the use of death squads in your rhetoric quite an exaggerated example of silliness myself. It must have been really creepy for you to feel like a worm as bait on a hook with all your American wealth evident on your person in a country where the people are pounded into submission by the very type of government, a government with too much control over the rights of its citizens, that you are apparently unwittingly supporting a path too in your very own country. Its not like that now here. I live here and have for almost 2 and ½ years. What crime there is here was worse under the repressive regime in power when you visited. However, since more liberal minds and thinkers have started motivating the people to take back their rights, things have improved in Mexico, like pollution and fair voting practices. Its kinda like the US and Mexico are on a giant seesaw-like scale and when the voting process is degraded by corruption in the US it improves in Mexico. Funny that.
    As for using information sources in my assessment of president Bush that provide something substantial and based in fact, well, even you probably recognize this as the old debating tactic that defies the other guy to define something that you, the naysayer, has to admit is correct, which of course, is ridiculous. There is obviously no way I can force you through the written word in polite forum to admit to anything you do not want to and I believe that you may be impervious to reason in this regard. Bush has failed miserably as a president and if he were a Democrat he would have been hounded to impeachment by a pack of greedy, self-serving, self-proclaimed conservatives citing “family values” and giving what that laudable term means a bad name a long time before working up so huge a national debt, losing so many lives for oil, losing millions of jobs, destroying our hard-earned international reputation of fairness and largess, reducing and undermining the causes of human rights and safe clean environment in the US. And the kicker would be that all our tax dollars would have paid for it.

  13. Dwight Ball says:

    Oh by the way. About the assertion that the strongest criticism of Bush is coming from his own party. So what? I remember when Clinton loyalists were jumping ship because they didn’t want to go down with him after the congress tried to impeach him for lying under oath. (A non-event as I remember. Wimps.) Stephanopolis shrugged it off with, “So what? I remember when Ronald Reagan’s closest advisors jumped ship. His press secretary said, ‘So what? I remember when Lyndon Johnson’s advisors…'” The point is when you consider the size and scope of the dance that circles any president there will always be those who feel slighted or disenchanted. I could easily counter by pointing you to David Frum and Richard Perle who both served with Bush and recently wrote a book called, “An End To Evil: How To Win The War On Terror.” They think the world is a safer place with GW at the helm. I wouldn’t call them jingoistic or stupid. They don’t work for him anymore and they both have plenty of education.

  14. sarah says:

    that’s all you got?????

  15. Josh says:

    No, no, the appropriate question, Mrs. Lidbom, is “Is that all YOU got?” (not that my comments were really all that informative about anything except my ignorance….)

  16. Brenda Lidbom says:

    I cannot keep up with this gang. I am reserving my thought-provoking comments for later. This section should be a winner (although I personally liked the “Sarah’s ring” section).
    – the Wedding Director

  17. Ben says:

    Again, I totally agree with Jeremy’s post on this one.

    But first a disclaimer. I am a registered Republican and I voted for Bush in 2000.

    Since then, I have seen that he is a complete idiot. He has caused more damage to harm individual liberty in this country than any other president in recent memory. He is impulsive with poorly thought out strategies to cope with events in the world.

    I do give him credit for being one of the most active presidents in recent memory. The sheer amount of change he has accomplished in 3 1/4 years is amazing in this day and age, but I agree with very little of it.

    A president should also be somebody that you can look up to, somebody that you can respect, whether you agree with their policies or not. I did not agree with alot of what Clinton did (nor did I ever vote for him), but he was an intelegent man and I respect that. Bush on the other hand appears more to me to be a college frat boy who was handed everything in life. He couldn’t string together a coherant sentence if is life depended on it, and every time I hear him speak, I’m embarrassed for the country. Even reading off a teleprompter, I wonder if his reading skills are all there (ok.. maybe thats going a bit too far).
    It would be bad enough if the rest of the world just thought “W” was a joke, but its worse than that, people actually see him as a threat.

    For these reasons, and everything above that Jeremy had posted…. my vote will be going elsewhere in November.

  18. Dwight Ball says:

    All in favor of war against Iraq raise your hands. Ooooo, you evil George Bush! You’re the only one with your hand up. You took the nation to war

    against a sovereign Islamic nation based on lies and innuendos, political agendas and exaggerations. You fooled us all, we’re so gullible and obtuse

    that we swallowed your rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Oh, wait a minute, who’s that with their hand up? No, it can’t be you. You’ve been stumping

    around the country telling us what a fool and a buffoon George is. But even without the beard I can tell it’s you, Al Gore. That’s right. I remember

    February 12, 2002 when you said, “There is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself:

    Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the

    principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. Not the principle of the thing? So, maybe it’s a good

    thing Al didn’t get the Florida vote. He would have gone to war just for the heck of finishing off Iraq. At least GeeWYa used the best intelligence

    possible. Oh yeah. The intelligence he used. Now there’s a joke. GeeWYa and intelligence. Have to rethink that one though. Single handedly GeeWYa

    organized the entire CIA, FBI and NSA and collected all that faulty data about Iraq in the first couple months of his administration. Oops. That’s not

    possible though is it? Wonder where all that faulty data came from? Oh-oh. Bill. Well we can’t go there because Bill left a legacy. Ooooo who’s hand

    is that? Could it be, no it’s not possible. Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. Outspoken critic of the prez and one of those who are saying he misled us

    all and should be investigated? So I guess you were misleading us September 13th when you made this comment in response to questions about

    whether both democrats and republicans were being given access to all the information about the war, “I have admonished my caucus from the very

    beginning that this information is very, very sensitive. We have to be sure that it is kept and classified as we expect that it should be. We want to

    work with the administration and the only way that we can is to understand that they have to earn our trust and we have to earn theirs, and that

    means especially the way we handle very sensitive information.” And don’t forget your little interview with ABC’s Good Morning America January last

    year, ” Democrats are inclined to endorse whatever military action Bush might deem necessary against Iraq, Iran or North Korea as long as he works

    with Congress. If it takes pre-emptive strikes, if it takes pre-emptive action, I think the Congress is prepared to support it.” Pre-emptive Strikes?

    Scary Mr. Daschle. You’re a war monger. Oops. Sorry, you’re a democrat. Uh.. well it’s obvious to see you changed your mind and didn’t have access

    to all that classified information you referred to later.” Oh, but after you got that classified information, the same information the prez used, you

    declared the congress was totally behind the prez. Too bad you were quoted on the Lehrer news hour as saying, “I think the most important thing is

    to continue to show what we have showed the last couple of days; that we are taking this in a very deliberate and very careful and very thoughtful

    way; that we’re doing it not as Republicans and Democrats but as Americans representing all of America in Congress and that as we take it so

    deliberatively that we ensure that the American people know exactly what we’re doing.” Careful and thoughtful? Know what you’re doing? So did you

    know then what you claim you don’t know today? Or did you not know what you claimed you knew then? Well, I guess old GeeWYa can’t be too

    stupid if he fooled you now can he? Bothers me though you really didn’t read all the classified information but carefully and thoughtfully just took

    George’s word that we had to go blow some country up. I don’t know which is more scary, George blowing things up, or you being afraid to stand up

    for your convictions. Or was is it conviction then that we had to blow up the country but now when its expedienct to paint GeeWYa as an idiot you

    feel you were deceived? I didn’t know it was that easy to deceive the entire wing of the democratic party. Oh look. There’s Cirincione and Hanlin

    from the liberal Los Angeles Times. Now they know how to villify the president. If you believed them he shouldn’t be allowed to work on a ranch,

    much less own half of Texas. Ha Ha. Little Los Angeles Times joke. Gee, back in November of last year they were writing that it was the responsibility

    of the entire government to be critical thinkers of the case the president was presenting. The prez had only been in office a couple months and all

    the intelligence he got pointed to WMD, nuclear weapons and just general bad vibes coming from Iraq. George had to rely on the best info he could

    get, make a case to congress and then ask them to back him in waging war. Well, they had the info much much longer than George did. Wonder where this mantra came from that George Bush lied to us? He never lied. He told it like it was. “Here’s the data I got from the intelligence community. According to this we need to root the varmint out. Turn his country into a vast wasteland.” You can’t say he lied. You can say you think he did the wrong thing, or you can say you disagreed with his conclusions, but he didn’t lie. Not anymore than Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt or Al Gore. At least Presidential contender John Edwards, who by the way, has been quite the gentleman in his restrained attacks on GeeWYa, hasn’t changed his story. He was a senator and had access to the same information George did and came to this conclusion last year, “”First of all you need to hear it directly from me, I believe in this cause and I believe this is the right thing to do. It has been my position for a long time, and it is still my position and I stand by it, period.”

  19. Dwight Ball says:

    Thanks Chris. Great comments. I stand chastized on a couple things and your points are well taken. I know I viewed America quite differently after living in a foreign country for several years, something more of us should do. I think Bush is doing a great job overall and about half the country does too. It is reasonable to assert that of that half there are those who would support George under any circumstance because the thought of having a left-wing liberal, tree-hugging commie democrat running the country is totally unacceptable. It is also reasonable to believe that there are democrats, or Greens, or libertarians who would rather vote Saddam Hussein in as president than let a right-wing conservative tree-cutting republican spend another hour in the oval office. I dismiss both those demographics and hope an equal number for and against shows up on election day so they’ll cancel each other out. I have to also believe that in each half there are people like us who have examined national and international events, politics and history and tried as best as we could to make our own intelligent reasoned conclusions about the president. According to polls, about an equal number have come to totally opposite conclusions about where our country is headed under the president’s leadership. I think it only logical that Bush has made bad decisions so far that I refuse to see because I want to believe he is still the right man for the job. And I think it just as logical that he has made correct decisions which you do not want to see because you want to believe he has failed miserably. Somewhere in the middle is an imperfect man, under impossible circumstances trying to do the best he can to do what he honestly believes is in the best interests of four billion people. It only follows that some of those people won’t like what he’s doing. But to say he’s “failed miserably.” No way. You can do better than that. Tell me, in your opinion, which specific policy or action do you think he should have done differently. Then I can say, “I disagree with you because….” or I might even say, “You’re right. I see your point.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *