I would like to add that the republicans have been the party of fiscal responsibility until the last 8 years. Now they are the party that charges everything to our children. They seem to think they have a big credit card. I have been in agreement with the aims of the democratic party most of my life. I agree with social security and I believe that everyone should have access to health care. But for the last 2 years I have been waiting for congress to at least try to pass some of the social improvements. They could at least try instead of pointing their finger at the republicans. The final straw for me was when they passed the new communications law giving the phone companies an out for breaking the law.
Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records
President Bush invoked executive privilege to keep Congress from seeing the FBI report of an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney and other records related to the administration's leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.
Not only a flip-flopper, but in total agreement with the Obama-doctrine of negotiating with our enemy?
What a surprise!
What does McCain do now about diplomacy with our enemies?
Advocate wrote:cjhsa wrote:Give me a break. Anything with "progress" in the name might as well say "rainbow". Gay, dope smoking, hippy ****.
cjhsa, I know how you feel -- the truth is a bitch. But everything there is true. Bush's own Energy Dept. says this. But you and the other Reps are dying to dissolve another 20 B barrels into the atmosphere.
I hate to tell you, but even the Dems are beginning to come around to reality and common sense. The tree huggers can only control the agenda until people realize it is costing them big time. To produce oil, it requires drilling, duh.
Two years of Democrat rule in Congress - look what we get.
I don't care if they are coming around now. They need to be booted for what they have done, while blaming everything on the president. They're all traitors, IMO.
It is pretty clear to me what George W. Bush's legacy will be. Because he has set a new standard of criminal incompetence in office, he will force historians generations from now to reevaluate the performances of all the other presidents.
That reevaluation is already beginning, and its first beneficiary is, ironically enough, George H. W. Bush. Bush père received a great deal of criticism at the time of the First Gulf War about his decision to enter into negotiations with Saddam Hussein rather than march straight into Baghdad and topple the Ba'athist regime. In light of his son Bush the Lesser's disastrous decision to do exactly that in 2003, however, Bush the Greater's forbearance in 1991 looks positively Lincolnesque. Likewise, Bush I's willingness to raise taxes, despite his previous pledge to "read his lips" but in light of the government's need to pay for things like a foreign war, stands in sharp contrast to his idiot offspring's notion that deficits caused by massive spending can be paid off by lowering taxes. In contrast to Bush the Lesser, Bush the Greater looks like some kind of George Washington, or at least a simulacrum of a Calvin Coolidge.
And no doubt other presidents will be subject to a similar reevaluation. Surely when we consider the depths to which the current simian-in-chief has plunged the nation, is there any reason to continue holding Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon in such low regard? And why stop in the recent past? What about Warren Harding, who at least had some semblance of an energy plan -- granted, it was to give government oil leases to his political cronies, but at least the Teapot Dome grafters were small-time hoods compared with the Cheney oil gang. Or James Buchanan, often regarded as the worst president ever? True, Buchanan, when faced with the secession crisis, did nothing, but maybe, just maybe, that was the best that he could do. When we think of the monumental damage caused by Bush II when he decided to do something, we might look back with some fondness on those chief executives like Buchanan, Pierce, and Grant who, when faced with serious crises that were far beyond their meager talents, recognized their limitations and chose to do nothing, or on nonentities like W.H. Harrison and Taylor who did the only decent thing and died as expeditiously as possible.
In sum, George W. Bush's legacy will be one for the ages. And somewhere up there, Millard Fillmore is thanking him.
cjhsa wrote:Two years of Democrat rule in Congress - look what we get.
No kidding !!
What a worthless bunch these democrats are... can Pelosi be impeached?
cjh doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time, so I'll try to remind him of the republican congress before 2006:
The Worst Congress Ever
How our national legislature has become a stable of thieves and perverts -- in five easy steps
MATT TAIBBIPosted Oct 17, 2006 2:36 PM
>> See our picks for the 10 Worst Congressmen and read what people are saying in our politics blog.
There is very little that sums up the record of the U.S. Congress in the Bush years better than a half-mad boy-addict put in charge of a federal commission on child exploitation. After all, if a hairy-necked, raincoat-clad freak like Rep. Mark Foley can get himself named co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, one can only wonder: What the hell else is going on in the corridors of Capitol Hill these days?
These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch. These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line, a political obscenity on par with the court of Nero or Caligula -- a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable.
H2O_MAN wrote:cjhsa wrote:Two years of Democrat rule in Congress - look what we get.
No kidding !!
What a worthless bunch these democrats are... can Pelosi be impeached?
Democrats took control of congress in Jan of 2007. What was the day you 2 fools posted your "two years" comments?
It feels like 20 years....
Pelosi... even Tip O'Neill must be rolling in his grave with laughter.
joefromchicago wrote:It is pretty clear to me what George W. Bush's legacy will be. Because he has set a new standard of criminal incompetence in office, he will force historians generations from now to reevaluate the performances of all the other presidents.
That reevaluation is already beginning, and its first beneficiary is, ironically enough, George H. W. Bush. Bush père received a great deal of criticism at the time of the First Gulf War about his decision to enter into negotiations with Saddam Hussein rather than march straight into Baghdad and topple the Ba'athist regime. In light of his son Bush the Lesser's disastrous decision to do exactly that in 2003, however, Bush the Greater's forbearance in 1991 looks positively Lincolnesque. Likewise, Bush I's willingness to raise taxes, despite his previous pledge to "read his lips" but in light of the government's need to pay for things like a foreign war, stands in sharp contrast to his idiot offspring's notion that deficits caused by massive spending can be paid off by lowering taxes. In contrast to Bush the Lesser, Bush the Greater looks like some kind of George Washington, or at least a simulacrum of a Calvin Coolidge.
And no doubt other presidents will be subject to a similar reevaluation. Surely when we consider the depths to which the current simian-in-chief has plunged the nation, is there any reason to continue holding Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon in such low regard? And why stop in the recent past? What about Warren Harding, who at least had some semblance of an energy plan -- granted, it was to give government oil leases to his political cronies, but at least the Teapot Dome grafters were small-time hoods compared with the Cheney oil gang. Or James Buchanan, often regarded as the worst president ever? True, Buchanan, when faced with the secession crisis, did nothing, but maybe, just maybe, that was the best that he could do. When we think of the monumental damage caused by Bush II when he decided to do something, we might look back with some fondness on those chief executives like Buchanan, Pierce, and Grant who, when faced with serious crises that were far beyond their meager talents, recognized their limitations and chose to do nothing, or on nonentities like W.H. Harrison and Taylor who did the only decent thing and died as expeditiously as possible.
In sum, George W. Bush's legacy will be one for the ages. And somewhere up there, Millard Fillmore is thanking him.
Because of the bitter defeat of their presidential candidates, the Dems in cooperation with the willing media has made it their sole mission to isolate George Bush, and undermine his presidency from the day he took office. Evenso, Bush has been somewhat successful, against odds that few presidents have had to face. In contrast, the Dem congress has been a total and absolute bust, with approval ratings in single digits. The congress approved the war, only to shortly after the war started begin to undermine the war effort, that in past history would be considered treasonous. Now,another example of how pathetic they are is their answer to lowering the oil price is to blame speculators, tax oil companies more, and restrict drilling. The absolute lack of honor, and stupidity of these people is astonishing.
I thought a bit more balanced assessment besides that of joefromchicago is in order here, to provide more accuracy.
okie, You say that the congress is a total bust, but do you understand the reasons why? It'll be interesting to see what happens in November, when some terms for congress members must go for reelection - and I'm talking about the republican members.
There are indications already that many republicans will be replaced by democrats. Do you know why?
If that happens, I will know why, ci.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, You say that the congress is a total bust, but do you understand the reasons why? It'll be interesting to see what happens in November, when some terms for congress members must go for reelection - and I'm talking about the republican members.
There are indications already that many republicans will be replaced by democrats. Do you know why?
Because of stupid voters like you?
There are more and more people that have found out they can vote for more entitlements, and that is becoming a huge problem, for which there are no easy solutions. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Unfortunately, given the Democrats willingness to play politics with American foreign policy (and particularly concering removing terrorist sponsor Saddam), Bush chose to buy the Democrats limited co-operation with massive spending on social programs and other Dem faves.
Not the best scenario, but perhaps the best that could be hoped for , given the lack of patriotism on the left.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, You say that the congress is a total bust, but do you understand the reasons why? It'll be interesting to see what happens in November, when some terms for congress members must go for reelection - and I'm talking about the republican members.
There are indications already that many republicans will be replaced by democrats. Do you know why?
EVERY member of the House is up for re-election in Nov, not just the repubs.
It will also be interesting to see how many dems get replaced by repubs.
