The Lies, Foibles, and Misrepresentations of George W Bush

Err...do you read international press at all? Terrorist attacks have occured with increasing frequency in Asia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morrocco, Algeria, Chechnya, and Russia, as well as the ongoing war and growing strength of the Taliban (not technically terrorists) Afghanistan.
One would also add to this list the continuing wars in sub-saharan Africa. The difficulty involved in planning what was an exceptionally successful and impressive attack by any standards on the 11th of Spetember would tend to mitigate against a similar event occurring for several years down the road. This makes its usefulness as a yardstick against which to measure "success" in the war on terror extremly doubtful. I liken it to the way a single crash of one aircraft out of a fleet of less than twenty flyable Concordes made the plane the (statistically) least safe aricraft in the world.

No, it has not. It has increased outrage at American imperialism abroad. This makes an attack on US citizens more likely, not less likely.


This arguement would be more effective if the US had not worked so hard to maintain his position in power for so many years.

hobit,

I've enjoyed your recent style so much that I hope you don;t take offense to this minor criticism.

We don't know that the statistical probablity of terrorism has incraesed or decreased, convincing points can be made either way but ultimately we don't have the data to know.

Just as we reject the arguments that random wars help decrease the threat we can't assert with any certainty that the increased animosity has changed it either.

hmm.... lies foibles or misrepresentations?

I guess what this article describes comes under the heading of 'Misrepresentations' ...well, no, maybe 'lies' is a better label:


"Enabling Historical Revisionism"

http://www.democrats.org/blog/display/00010130.html

Well, well, jjorge! And what do we celebrate next July 4th?

Why spend so much money to research a disease with a known, 100% effective method of prevention?

How true...we should just scour the planet of life. that would prevent any more terrorist attacks!

q. What is the best cure for headache ?
a. Cut off yr head. No head, no headache....

The government spends a lot of money on many things that could be discerned as 100% preventable. Let's all stop driving, for instance, and there won't be any more deaths caused by automobiles.

The President of the United States made no comment on November 2, 2003, which was the bloodiest day so far for US troops in Iraq. On that day, 16 soldiers died and 20 were wounded in a helicopter attack. Three other soldiers died in Iraq that day in separate incidents.

President Bush was resting at his Texas ranch that day, a Sunday, enjoying a down day between campaign appearances on Saturday and Monday.

The White House staff was reluctant to involve the President in a "politically perilous fray," an Associated Press story said. A White House spokesperson read a generic statement to the press about continuing attacks on Americans. The spokesperson declined to comment on the President's personal reactions to the tragedy of that day.

Today, the President would not comment specifically on the soldiers so recently killed. "We mourn every loss," he said. "We honor every name. We grieve with every family. And we will always be grateful that liberty has found such brave defenders."

These are words repeated verbatim from the President's address of October 9 at Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire:



The President must mourn every loss in an intensely private way, because he does not reach out to the families of the soldiers lost in the war he was so eager to start. Breaking with long tradition, he does not attend funerals and has rarely spoken to bereaved families who might be comforted by a few words from their President.

Indeed, the Bush Administration has little use for the ceremonial traditions surrounding the dead of war. For example, a Pentagon directive to US military bases banned arrival ceremonies or media coverage of coffins arriving home from the war.

And the wounded also are hidden from view.

While the President speaks of sacrifice and resolve, the wounded soldiers who have been the instruments of that resolve are brought home under cover of darkness as if they were objects of shame.

Just as the President's staff protected him from exposure to a "politically perilous fray," so does the Bush Administration protect the public from exposure to truths that might shake their support of his administration, and his war.

On a day after 19 soldiers died, President Bush said, "America will never run."

He speaks bravely for someone who lacks the moral courage to confront the price paid for his decisions.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATED COMMITMENT TO VETERANS NOT REFLECTED IN BUDGET

President Bush often emphasizes his commitment to veterans, saying in 2001,
"My administration understands America's obligations not only go to those
who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past:
to our veterans."

But the 200,000 veterans waiting six months or more for their first
appointment at a VA facility would be denied access to VA health care under
Bush's plan. Others would be charged $250 annual enrollment fees, doubled
prescription costs and increased co-payments.

Read the full Mis-Lead -->
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=8205

I cringe at the hypocrisy.
If I were a Christian I would be thinking this guy might be the anti-Christ.

I rarely get emotional about a Pres. because I feel that they are puppets but this Shrub with his smirk just pisses me off

Me too.

Washington Post

Government Outgrows Cap Set by President
Discretionary Spending Up 12.5% in Fiscal '03
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 12, 2003; Page A01

Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.

The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.

The preliminary spending figures for 2003 also raise questions about the government's long-term fiscal health. Bush administration officials have said fiscal restraint and "pro-growth" tax cuts should put the government on a path to a balanced budget. Bush has demanded that spending that is subject to Congress's annual discretion be capped at 4 percent.

But the Republican-led Congress has not obliged. The federal government spent nearly $826 billion in fiscal 2003, an increase of $91.5 billion over 2002, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget and economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion.

Much of the increase was driven by war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as homeland security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. Total federal spending -- including non-discretionary entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- reached $2.16 trillion in 2003, a 7.3 percent boost, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

White House officials have said the president's 4 percent annual growth cap was never supposed to curtail "one-time" spending requests, such as natural disaster aid or wars. But even if such emergency spending measures are removed, spending jumped last year by 7.9 percent, Hoagland said.

"Getting growth down to 4 percent? We're still not there, not by any stretch of the imagination," he said.

Administration officials say spending is being brought under control. White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said the president cut spending growth, excluding the Pentagon and homeland security, to 6 percent in 2002 and 5 percent in 2003, and has proposed to hold all discretionary spending to 4 percent growth this year.

"The president has said that he would spend what's necessary to win the war on terrorism and protect Americans at home," she said, "but outside these items, he has put a serious brake on other spending, which is key to halving these deficits over five years."

Even some Republicans have trouble squaring such comments with the evidence. "It's still more than it ought to be," Hazen Marshall, Senate Budget Committee staff director, said of spending that excludes the military and homeland security.

Official spending figures for fiscal 2003 will not be released until January, when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office unveils its next 10-year federal deficit forecast. But the latest figures track closely with the CBO estimates released in August.

"I don't expect the official numbers to be any different than those, or not much different," Marshall said.

Regardless of the final numbers, there can be little doubt that government growth has been accelerating, said Richard Kogan, a federal budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And although Congress ultimately controls the purse strings, Bush is not immune from criticism, said Rudolph G. Penner, a Republican and former CBO director.

"The most interesting thing is Bush has not vetoed anything, let alone a spending program," Penner said. "One wonders how serious the White House is about holding the line."

Stan Collender, a federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard Inc., said: "This is an administration that cannot possibly take up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It's probably the least fiscally conservative in history."

Penner said the lapse in spending restraint occurred in two stages. First came large, projected budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration. Discretionary spending rose 0.9 percent in 1998, then 3.6 percent in 1999 and 7.5 percent in 2000. The projected surpluses have disappeared into a flood of red ink, but the 2001 terrorist attacks, coupled with a recession that year, eliminated any sense of restraint beyond rhetoric, Penner said.

"After September 11, it was 'We have to do anything we can to pull ourselves out of recession and protect ourselves,' " he said, adding that the surge in deficits and spending have so far had few political ramifications. "I don't remember a time when there's been so little commentary on it, and I can't really explain it."

Marshall said the surge in military spending was inevitable, once the nation mobilized for war, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The nonmilitary discretionary spending increases have been driven by increases in homeland security spending, he said.

But even after factoring those out, some Republicans say spending is rising too quickly. Marshall noted that after Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, discretionary spending actually fell, by 1.6 percent between 1994 and 1996.

Budget experts said taxpayers should not anticipate a return to austerity anytime soon. The military bill that passed Congress yesterday would mandate $40 billion in additional spending over the next decade, Marshall said. Nearly half of that would be for veterans' benefits, but $18 billion would finance a controversial program to buy and lease military tanker planes from Boeing Co.

There was a report on the objection of London's mayor to the demand for excessive security for Bush's trip there next week. I didn't jot down the numbers of people and special cars he's taking with him, but it was pretty shocking and, from a security point of view, seemed like significant overkill -- inefficient at best. The money for that alone could certainly be put to better use -- perhaps better medical attention for returning military personnel at, say, Fort Stewart?

Tart, it's preposterous:



Above from Yahoo!

King George
England had a King George. Now Amerika has one.

If I was as well liked as he is right now, I would take an army with me also. Of course sometimes they come in handy if you have one ex-wife!

No much danger.
Could anyone be so stupid as to assasinate Shrub with VP Cheney salivating in the wings?