1
   

The Lies, Foibles, and Misrepresentations of George W Bush

 
 
jjorge
 
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 10:13 am
_resident Bush Shortchanges Funding for His Own Emergency AIDS Program

The _resident heavily promoted his emergency relief for AIDS after announcing it at this year's State of the Union speech, signing a $15 billion law to be spent over five years. But while the President is publicly calling for full funding, he's actively seeking to underfund his own program.

The _resident said in Africa this July that "The House of Representatives and the United States Senate must fully fund this initiative, for the good of the people on this continent of Africa," Less than a week later, he sent a letter to Congress asking for 1/3rd less than full funding.

The law that Bush signed authorized $3 billion a year, but _resident Bush has requested only $2 billion in his 2004 budget. Despite the claim to fully fund the program in the State of the Union, the Bush Administration is now claiming that AIDS service organizations cannot absorb full funding immediately. The service organizations themselves disagree with the White House's position.

The Republican-led Foreign Operations subcommittee also disagreed when it approved a doubling of the commitment for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS from $200 million to $400 million, despite a letter from the White House requesting the lower figure. It was later scrapped by the full committee under White House pressure.

And the bottom line? The president's push for $1 billion less than authorized by Congress (and promoted by the _resident himself) blocks 1 million people from treatment and nearly 2.5 million new HIV infections that could be avoided.

Source: http://daily.misleader.org/join/
(The Daily Mislead for September 16, 2003)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 9,004 • Replies: 139
No top replies

 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 04:39 pm
"I am a uniter, not a divider."
-George W. Bush
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 04:41 pm
[action] Steps into a conservative suit[/action]

Hey, there have been a couple hundred threads posted about this exact same topic.

[action]Returns to birthday suit[/action]
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 04:53 pm
Just had to back to whitehouse.gov and be certain it was all specified in the SOTU:

"25,000 liters of anthrax", "38,000 liters of botulinum toxin", "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent", "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents", "several mobile biological weapons labs".

500 tons. That's a million pounds.

Hide all that for me, willya? Someplace it still won't be discovered by the United States Army after six months of furious searching?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 05:17 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Just had to back to whitehouse.gov and be certain it was all specified in the SOTU:

"25,000 liters of anthrax", "38,000 liters of botulinum toxin", "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent", "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents", "several mobile biological weapons labs".

500 tons. That's a million pounds.

Hide all that for me, willya? Someplace it still won't be discovered by the United States Army after six months of furious searching?


And did you know that it all fits into a mid-sized swimming pool? How hard could that be to find?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 05:41 pm
McGentrix wrote:
How hard could that be to find?


Pretty goddamn impossible, apparently.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 05:45 pm
Saddam carries it all around in his shirt pocket, next to his sunglasses. When we find him, we find the WMDs.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 08:07 pm
Bush Administration Miscalculation in Iraq Leads to Calls for Accountability

President Bush's administration has consistently miscalculated the post-war commitment required and Iraqi resistance to the point where a growing number of members of Congress who voted for the Iraq war resolution are now calling for accountability at high levels.

Both Vice President Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz argued publicly before the war that American forces would be greeted as liberators,1 including Wolfowitz's assertion less than two weeks before the war began that, "Like the people of France in the 1940s, [the Iraqi people] view us as their hoped-for liberators."2

The consistently rosy scenarios articulated by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and the administration about much of the war in Iraq, from the required troop strength3 to the length of stay4 ignored potential results manifesting themselves today in the form of additional funding requests beyond original estimates, extended troop deployments, and skeptical allies from whom the U.S. is now seeking assistance to stabilize and rebuild the country.5

The intelligence community, including that of the Pentagon, concluded last fall that "there would be resistance . . . They [Defense Intelligence Agency analysts] said it would be hard to keep the lid on and to keep the various areas of the country from falling apart."6

While the administration insists that acts of violence and terrorism against American forces in Iraq are at the hands of a select few of "dead-enders, foreign terrorists and criminal gangs," some defense officials are also now claiming "it was a mistake for the administration to discount the role of ordinary Iraqis".7

With the recent announcement that called-up reserves will be required to serve an extra tour of duty, senior Army officials are publicly saying that "the Army is strained and stressed."8 Rep. John Murtha, a member who voted for the war resolution, said, "Poor planning by Administration put American lives at risk . . .The architect of this post-war plan has to go."9

From: http://daily.misleader.org/join/
(The Daily Mislead for September 18, 2003)

Sources:
1. Meet the Press, 3/16/03.
2. "Pre-War Predictions Coming Back to Bite", USA Today, p. 8A.
3. "Cost of War Remains Unanswered Question," Washington Post, p. A13.
4. "A grand plan to bomb Baghdad and impose stability on Kirkuk", Financial Times, 3/1/03, p. 11.
5. "Powell in Baghdad: Too soon for self-rule", Chicago Tribune, 9/15/03, p. 1.
6. "Spy Agencies Warned of Iraq Resistance," Washington Post, 9/9/03, p. A1.
7. "Iraqis' Bitterness Is Called Bigger Threat Than Terror," New York Times, 9/17/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5409
8. "Iraq Takes A Toll on Rumsfeld," Washington Post, 9/14/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5410
9. News Conference with Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), U.S. Capitol, 9/16/03
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 08:40 pm
ThoughtfulOccupations
Quote:
Published in the October, 2003 issue of The Progressive
An Occupied Country
by Howard Zinn


It has become clear, very quickly, that Iraq is not a liberated country, but an occupied country. We became familiar with the term "occupied country" during World War II. We talked of German-occupied France, German-occupied Europe. And after the war we spoke of Soviet-occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Europe. It was the Nazis, the Soviets, who occupied other countries.

Now we are the occupiers. True, we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but not from us. Just as in 1898 we liberated Cuba from Spain, but not from us. Spanish tyranny was overthrown, but the United States established a military base in Cuba, as we are doing in Iraq. U.S. corporations moved in to Cuba, just as Bechtel and Halliburton and the oil corporations are moving into Iraq. The United States was deciding what kind of constitution Cuba would have, just as our government is now forming a constitution for Iraq. Not a liberation, an occupation.

And it is an ugly occupation. On August 7, The New York Times reported that U.S. General Ricardo Sanchez in Baghdad was worried about Iraqi reaction to the occupation. Iraqi leaders who were pro-American were giving him a message, as he put it: "When you take a father in front of his family and put a bag over his head and put him on the ground you have had a significant adverse effect on his dignity and respect in the eyes of his family." (That's very perceptive.)

CBS News reported on July 19 that Amnesty International is looking into a number of cases of suspected torture in Iraq by American authorities. One such case involves Khraisan al-Aballi, CBS said. "When American soldiers raided the al-Aballi house, they came in shooting. . . . They shot and wounded his brother Dureid." U.S. soldiers took Khraisan, his 80-year-old father, and his brother away. "Khraisan says his interrogators stripped him naked and kept him awake for more than a week, either standing or on his knees, bound hand and foot, with a bag over his head," CBS reported. Khraisan told CBS he informed his captors, "I don't know what you want. I don't know what you want. I have nothing." At one point, "I asked them to kill me," Khraisan said. After eight days, they let him and his father go. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, responded, "We are, in fact, carrying out our international obligations."

On June 17, two reporters for the Knight Ridder chain wrote about the Falluja area: "In dozens of interviews during the past five days, most residents across the area said there was no Ba'athist or Sunni conspiracy against U.S. soldiers, there were only people ready to fight because their relatives had been hurt or killed, or they themselves had been humiliated by home searches and road stops." One woman said, after her husband was taken from their home because of empty wooden crates, which they had bought for firewood, that the United States is guilty of terrorism. "If I find any American soldiers, I will cut their heads off," she said. According to the reporters, "Residents in At Agilia--a village north of Baghdad--said two of their farmers and five others from another village were killed when U.S. soldiers shot them while they were watering their fields of sunflowers, tomatoes, and cucumbers."

Soldiers who are set down in a country where they were told they would be welcomed as liberators only to find they are surrounded by a hostile population become fearful, trigger-happy, and unhappy. We've been reading the reports of GIs angry at their being kept in Iraq. In mid-July, an ABC News reporter in Iraq told of being pulled aside by a sergeant who said to him: "I've got my own 'Most Wanted List.' " He was referring to the deck of cards the U.S. government published, featuring Saddam Hussein, his sons, and other wanted members of the former Iraqi regime. "The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz," the sergeant said.

Such sentiments are becoming known to the American public. In May, a Gallup Poll reported that only 13 percent of the American public thought the war was going badly. By July 4, the figure was 42 percent. By late August, it was 49 percent.

Then there is the occupation of the United States. I wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, and feel that we are an occupied country, that some alien group has taken over. Those Mexican workers trying to cross the border--dying in the attempt to evade immigration officials (ironically, trying to cross into land taken from Mexico by the United States in 1848)--those Mexican workers are not alien to me. Those millions of people in this country who are not citizens and therefore, by the Patriot Act, are subject to being pulled out of their homes and held indefinitely by the FBI, with no constitutional rights--those people are not alien to me. But this small group of men who have taken power in Washington, they are alien to me.

I wake up thinking this country is in the grip of a President who was not elected, who has surrounded himself with thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth, the water, the air. And I wonder what kind of world our children and grandchildren will inherit. More Americans are beginning to feel, like the soldiers in Iraq, that something is terribly wrong, that this is not what we want our country to be.

More and more every day, the lies are being exposed. And then there is the largest lie: that everything the United States does is to be pardoned because we are engaged in a "war on terrorism." This ignores the fact that war is itself terrorism, that the barging into people's homes and taking away family members and subjecting them to torture, that is terrorism, that invading and bombing other countries does not give us more security but less security.

You get some sense of what this government means by the "war on terrorism" when you examine what Rumsfeld said a year ago when he was addressing the NATO ministers in Brussels. "There are things that we know," he said. "And then there are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know that we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. . . . That is, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. . . . Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

Well, Rumsfeld has clarified things for us.

That explains why this government, not knowing exactly where to find the criminals of September 11, will just go ahead and invade and bomb Afghanistan, killing thousands of people, driving hundreds of thousands from their homes, and still not know where the criminals are.

That explains why the government, not really knowing what weapons Saddam Hussein is hiding, will invade and bomb Iraq, to the horror of most of the world, killing thousands of civilians and soldiers and terrorizing the population.

That explains why the government, not knowing who are terrorists and who are not, will put hundreds of people in confinement at Guantanamo under such conditions that twenty have tried to commit suicide.

That explains why, not knowing which noncitizens are terrorists, the Attorney General will take away the constitutional rights of twenty million of them.

The so-called war on terrorism is not only a war on innocent people in other countries, but it is also a war on the people of the United States: a war on our liberties, a war on our standard of living. The wealth of the country is being stolen from the people and handed over to the super-rich. The lives of our young are being stolen. And the thieves are in the White House.

It's interesting to me that polls taken among African Americans have shown consistently 60 percent opposition to the war in Iraq. Shortly after Colin Powell made his report to the United Nations on "Weapons of Mass Destruction," I did a phone interview with an African American radio station in Washington, D.C., a program called "GW on the Hill." After I talked with the host there were eight call-ins. I took notes on what the callers said:

John: "What Powell said was political garbage."

Another caller: "Powell was just playing the game. That's what happens when people get into high office."

Robert: "If we go to war, innocent people will die for no good reason."

Kareen: "What Powell said was hogwash. War will not be good for this country."

Susan: "What is so good about being a powerful country?"

Terry: "It's all about oil."

Another caller: "The U.S. is in search of an empire and it will fall as the Romans did. Remember when Ali fought Foreman. He seemed asleep but when he woke up he was ferocious. So will the people wake up."

It is often said that this Administration can get away with war because unlike Vietnam, the casualties are few. True, only a few hundred battle casualties, unlike Vietnam. But battle casualties are not all. When wars end, the casualties keep mounting up--sickness, trauma. After the Vietnam War, veterans reported birth defects in their families due to the Agent Orange spraying in Vietnam. In the first Gulf War there were only a few hundred battle casualties, but the Veterans Administration reported recently that in the ten years following the Gulf War, 8,000 veterans died. About 200,000 of the 600,000 veterans of the Gulf War filed complaints about illnesses incurred from the weapons our government used in the war. In the current war, how many young men and women sent by Bush to liberate Iraq will come home with related illnesses?

What is our job? To point all this out.

Human beings do not naturally support violence and terror. They do so only when they believe their lives or country are at stake. These were not at stake in the Iraq War. Bush lied to the American people about Saddam and his weapons. And when people learn the truth--as happened in the course of the Vietnam War--they will turn against the government. We who are for peace have the support of the rest of the world. The United States cannot indefinitely ignore the ten million people who protested around the world on February 15. The power of government--whatever weapons it possesses, whatever money it has at its disposal--is fragile. When it loses its legitimacy in the eyes of its people, its days are numbered.

We need to engage in whatever nonviolent actions appeal to us. There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at critical points to create a power that governments cannot suppress. We find ourselves today at one of those critical points.

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a columnist for The Progressive.

Copyright 2003 The Progressive
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 10:45 am
Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's Threat to the U.S.
(from: The Daily Misleader 9.19.03)


The Bush administration this week backed away from three major rationales
for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that
Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.

September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the question
of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just don't know."[1]
But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld each
admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On
Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was
involved.[2] Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen any indication
that would lead me to believe that I could say that."[3]

Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks
garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the widely
reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's security
chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not to
be credible.[4]

'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days before
the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we
believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."[5] But the
International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks before that , "There
was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."[6] And six months later on
Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."[7]

Weapons of Mass Destruction
This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S. knew
where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why the
weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do you
mean? You're talking about a country the size of California."[8] Yet months
ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are.
They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and
north somewhat."[9]


Sources:
1. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
2. Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the Congressional
Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, 9/17/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5426
3. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace,
9/16/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5427
4. "Bush Team Stands Firm on Iraq," Washington Post, 9/15/03, p. A1.
5. Meet the Press, NBC, 3/16/03.
6. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update, 3/7/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5428
7. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
8. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace,
9/16/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5427
9. This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC, 3/30/03.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 07:13 am
BUSH ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO UNILATERALLY ELIMINATE OVERTIME PAY FOR
MILLIONS OF WORKERS

President Bush's Department of Labor (DOL) announced in March a dramatic
overhaul to the nation's overtime laws that will cause millions of workers
to lose access to overtime pay. The administration claims that 644,000
workers will lose overtime eligibility, but it's really at least 2.5 million
and possibly up to 8 million workers who will lose their overtime.

The DOL described the change as "long overdue" two years after they had come
to the opposite conclusion. The proposed rule will guarantee overtime pay
to 1.3 million workers who were previously ineligible. But the
administration is failing to provide the full story or even the correct
numbers about the millions of workers who will become ineligible for
overtime compensation.

Read the full Mis-Lead --> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5443
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 07:21 am
I thought there were already twenty-seven threads about Bush/lying...
Oh well. Craven beat me to it.

Carry on, jjorge. :wink:
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 08:04 pm
A biting excerpt form Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked:

Quote:
In the long run, there is no capitalism without conscience; there is no wealth without character.

-- George W. Bush, July 9, 2002

In the long run, we are all dead.

-- John Maynard Keynes, 1924

There he was. On the Tuesday after a long Fourth of July weekend. In the ballroom of an ornate Wall Street hotel that once housed the New York Merchants Exchange. Standing in front of a blue-and-white backdrop with the words 'corporate responsibility' printed over and over on it, in case you should miss the point. Promising us "a new ethic" for American business. Our president, Scourge of Corporate Misbehavior.

It was like watching a whore pretend to be dean of Southern Methodist University's School of Theology. But as Luther said, hypocrisy has ample wages.

"Harken," said the Bush camp over and over, "was nothing like Enron." Interestingly enough, it was exactly like Enron in each and every feature of corporate misbehavior, except a lot smaller. A perfect miniature Enron.

By the summer of 2002, it had long been known that twelve years earlier Bush made a pile by selling his stock in Harken Energy Corporation just before it tanked. At the time, he was serving both on Harken's board and on a special audit committee looking at the company's financial health. As he spoke on Wall Street, stories were surfacing about Harken's sham sale of a subsidiary to a group of company insiders. The acquisition was financed by an $11 million loan guaranteed by the seller, Harken Energy. In other words, a fake asset swap to punch up Harken's annual profit-and-loss statement.

The "sale" of Aloha Petroleum, from Harken to Harken, was again Enron writ small and so outrageous that the SEC stepped in, declared the accounting unacceptable, and forced the company to restate its earnings. Bush unquestionably knew about the deal.

Even if he had convinced the public that earlier stories about his $848,560 insider trade, his failure to report it to the SEC, his low-interest loans from Harken to buy company stock (a practice he particularly denounced in his Wall Street speech, as though he had never heard of such an unseemly scam before), and the Enron-esque sale of Aloha Petroleum were all what he described as "recycled stuff," he was still surrounded by bad stories about to break. Enron was ripe for federal prosecution; Bush and Enron's CEO, Ken Lay, his single largest campaign contributor, had been tight for years. Halliburton was being investigated by the feds for fraudulent accounting practices put in place when Dick Cheney was CEO. Congress was investigating the secretary of the Army for his role in the collapse of Enron, in the fleecing of electricity customers in California, and for his failure to divest himself of Enron stock in a timely manner.

SEC chief Harvey Pitt had so many previous business connections with the firms he was now regulating, he had already had to recuse himself in twenty-nine cases being pursued by the SEC. Bush's hard-nosed, hard-assed political adviser, Karl Rove, had owned $108,000 in Enron stock and, more important, knew the Enron CEO because he was Bush's biggest funder. Two of Bush's economic advisers had worked as consultants for Enron. And the newly disgraced Ken Lay had convinced Bush to dump the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Curtis Hebert, and to replace him with the candidate of Lay's choice, a Port Arthur, Texas, homeboy. Before giving Bush the word to dump Hebert, Lay had a come-to-Jesus session with Hebert himself, telling him to embrace free markets and deregulation or, Lay said, things would end badly for Hebert. They did.

Considering the circumstances, heckfire and brimpebbles were the best GeeDubya could manage as he wagged his fingers at Wall Street's corporate criminals. What could he say about Lay: "I never had sexual relations with that man"? What he actually said, as the cock crowed, was, "He was an Ann Richards supporter." Kenny Boy, I hardly knew ye.

The stock markets responded to Bush in July as they had to bin Laden in September. Three days after Bush's Sermon on Wall Street, the Dow Jones had lost 7.4 percent of its value and Standard & Poor's 500 was down 6.8 percent. Three weeks after the speech, with more Harken stuff breaking, the market fell 390 points in one day. It took a corporate-responsibility bill -- written entirely by Democratic senator Paul Sarbanes and vigorously opposed by Bush almost until the day it was passed unanimously by the House -- to save the president and staunch the stock market's hemorrhaging.


Much more here if you are willing to look at an ad...
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 09:49 pm
Yes, an excellent quote from the highly qualified Molly Ivins.

Molly Ivins

Formerly Asst. Secretary of Defense

Assistant to the Director of OMB

PHD in Economics from Harvard University

A law degree from Yale Law School
and
A Phi Beta Kappa.

The only problem is that chemotherapy has blunted Molly's thinking capacities.

Poor Molly- and she used to be so bright!!!
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:18 pm
its always enlightening to see the depth of compassion and fellow feeling the far right has. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 11:15 pm
hobitbob wrote:
its always enlightening to see the depth of compassion and fellow feeling the far right has. Rolling Eyes


hobitbob

Just consider the source.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 11:29 pm
jjorge- Would you like to see some quotes from the left wing idiots about Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's disease???

Bunch of left wing hypocrites. They can dish it out but they can't take it.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 07:44 pm
Italgato wrote:
Yes, an excellent quote from the highly qualified Molly Ivins.....The only problem is that chemotherapy has blunted Molly's thinking capacities.

Poor Molly- and she used to be so bright!!!




Wrong. Molly's as sharp as ever:


No mystery here, folks

By Molly Ivins Creators Syndicate September 25, 2003

Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president.
Robert Novak is quoted as saying that, in all his 44 years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine, as though he had never before come across such a phenomenon.
Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to -- our last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though that is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Bill Clinton-haters, but I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery and official misconduct, and his wife of even worse.

For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young right-wing hit man -- like David Brock, who has since made full confession -- took that golden opportunity.
"The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Krauthammer. "Whence the anger? It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy." I'd say so myself, yes, it would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. The night that Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it.

One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses.
To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only president we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us.

So George Dubya becomes president, having run as a "compassionate conservative," and what do we get? Hell's own conservative and zilch for compassion. His entire first eight months was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich. Then came 9/11, and we all rallied. Country under attack, most horrible thing, what can we do? Ready to give blood, get out of our cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the president. That and more tax cuts for the rich. By now we're starting to notice Bush's bait-and-switch con. Make a deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education, and then fail to put any money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow), but it turns out to be a cheap con -- no new money. Praise a job-training effort, then cut the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money.

Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy?
Then suddenly, in the greatest bait and switch of all time, Osama bin doesn't matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11. But he does have horrible weapons of mass destruction. So we take out Saddam, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed to see us.

By now quite a few people who aren't even liberal are starting to say, "Wha' the hey?" We got no Osama; we got no Saddam; we got no weapons of mass destruction; the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to bits. We're stuck in Iraq for $87 billion just for one year, and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Krauthammer is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a president. It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide that someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night, consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies.
If that make me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 10:33 am
JOB LOSSES AT LEVEL OF GREAT DEPRESSION CONTRADICT PRESIDENT BUSH'S WISHFUL PREDICTIONS

Instead of creating 510,000 jobs in 2003, as President Bush predicted, the Republican-led economy has suffered a net loss of 473,000 jobs so far this year.

The Timken Company, an Ohio-based steel and bearings manufacturer where the President launched his Jobs and Growth package in April, embarrassed the Administration two weeks ago with an announcement it will cut 900 jobs.


Read the full Mis-Lead --> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=5655
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 01:28 pm
BUSH'S DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ HAPPENED DAYS AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH, DESPITE
HIS ASSERTIONS TO THE CONTRARY

President Bush's decision to attack Saddam Hussein was made within days
after the September 11th suicide hijackings even though Bush claimed on the
eve of his invasion "the American people can know that every measure has
been taken to avoid war."

Read the full Mis-Lead --> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=6031
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Lies, Foibles, and Misrepresentations of George W Bush
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 08:38:10