The Lies, Foibles, and Misrepresentations of George W Bush

Nausea.
This little bickering whether Clinton or Dubya attened funerals is stupid. What matters is Dubya funeral as President. I wanna see this arrogant twit buried.

"The fact is that Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were largely despised among the military and Bush is not."

Give these military jugheads a little time. They are usually slow on the uptake. They will despise this idiot with a Napolean complex soon enough. Some, of course never will know how much he is screwing over the grunts because they suffer from terminal H.U.A. Syndrome.

I'm still wondering what Jesus and God are talkin' about when they chat about Dubya.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

So where's the beef?

In our differing interpretations of what Presidents have done for the past 40 years.

You are welcome to observe the distinctions between "funerals", "services", as well as having family members of the deceased into the Oval Office to award medals posthumously, as well as to draw your differing conclusions about those observations, but the fact endures that nobody named Bush has been present at a damn thing to honor a soldier who died fighting in a war someone named Bush began.

It's impossible to explain that away suitably (IMO).

Keep in mind Bush said he was the man whose job it was to "hug the widows and comfort the children". Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Oh, your just jealous that Jesus doesn't talk to you anymore.

0 Replies

PDiddie,

The examination of this "issue" has caused your rather overinflated point to shrink, and shrink and.....

Hang on if you wish, but there's not much there to hold on to.

0 Replies

Is that all you have left for rebuttal, george?

Maybe I'll give you another title shot in some other thread, some other time... Cool

0 Replies

Someone here is fantasizing that Jesus speaks to him?

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

nimh wrote:
So where's the beef?

In our differing interpretations of what Presidents have done for the past 40 years.

I'd readily agree that there is a difference in degree between different presidents - with Reagan and Clinton having been, apparently, the most empathising. But unfortunately thats not the extent of the claim you (and those newspaper commentators) are making.

Instead, there's always the insistence on stuff like - in your words again now:

PDiddie wrote:

the fact endures that nobody named Bush has been present at a damn thing to honor a soldier who died fighting in a war someone named Bush began.

And that's just not TRUE.

We've proven it to not be true in these here threads. I'm just going to tiresomely refer back again to those two quotes Sofia and Fishin' dug up, that I re-posted just a little while up - and I'm assuming that if there's two of these, there's probably more, still, too. But even if it's just these two, your bolded and italicized claim can still be "explained away suitably" just by scrolling up to a few posts above.

Quote:

Bush Comforts Families Of War Dead, Cheered By Marines
At a military base hard hit by combat deaths, President Bush shed tears Thursday with relatives of Marines killed in Iraq [..] Bush and his wife Laura met in a chapel annex with about 20 family members of five Camp Lejeune-based Marines killed in Iraq. [..] Bush talked with the families after a speech to troops [..] Some 12,000 camouflage-clad Marines and 8,000 more family members and friends spilled out from a temporary stadium into a green field named in honor of Marines who have died. The field was ringed with tanks, allowing several Marines to climb higher for a better view.

Quote:

Bush pays respects to sacrifices in Iraq and elsewhere
On a day when two U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, President Bush used a Columbus Day speech to pay tribute to Americans who have died in that war and others. [..] Bush recalled a meeting at Fort Stewart, Georgia, a month ago with relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq. "I've hugged and cried with, and talked to a room full of families, of loved ones, and I did the best I could do to console them in their grief. And I owe that to those who have suffered," Bush said.

0 Replies

nimh, I humbly accept your gracious refutation of my contention, and I am in grievous error. Embarrassed

I resolutely and forthrightly acknowledge that President Bush has honored the lives of those he sent into battle with his presence at memorial services for them, indeed as early as April of this year, upholding the long tradition of his predecessors (excepting, apparently, his father).

While there remain many things Bush can be criticized of, this is not one.

george, it looks like you're still wrong about the tradition... :wink:

(edited to correct the spelling of 'grievous' and 'critisized')

0 Replies

Was he grinning, salivating, and rubbing his hands together whilst uttering an evil laugh whilst at the memorial service? Very Happy

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

george, it looks like you're still wrong about the tradition... :wink:

I have no idea of what you may be referring to. You made an issue out of all this and insisted you were right on some matters that intuitively seemed unlikely or wrong. You over reacted to suggestions of doubt by Nimh, me, and others, reaffirming your mean-spirited and exaggerated accusations. Now it turns out you were quite wrong all along.

It seems to me that you have expended a great deal of effort in hoisting yourself on this petard. Why not end the childishness and merely acknowledge your error without all the whining and cheap shots?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

PDiddie wrote:

george, it looks like you're still wrong about the tradition... :wink:

I have no idea of what you may be referring to.

george forgot that he previously wrote:

There is no "... long tradition" of presidents attending the funerals of soldiers fallen in our wars.

It appears as if you have the same reading-back problem as me.

I have already admitted I was mistaken. Can you?

0 Replies

As has already been established such attendence is by a very great margin the exception, and not the rule. LBJ did 2 in over 50,000 casualties in Vietnam - hardly a tradition.

Let it go.

0 Replies

Consider it gone. (You're mistaken about the tradition. Read back.)

0 Replies

Well, I guess FDR couldn't attend too many, considering he had too much on his plate - and then he was just plain dead.

0 Replies

WALL STREET JOURNAL: _RESIDENT BACKS OFF PLEDGE TO FUND GLOBAL AIDS FIGHT

The Wall Street Journal today reports, "_resident Bush plans to ask Congress
for relatively small funding increases to fight AIDS and poverty in the
developing world, stepping back from his highly publicized pledge to spend
huge sums to help fight them."
......Just last year in his State of the Union
speech, the _resident said "I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over
the next five years...to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations
of Africa and the Caribbean. Seldom has history offered a greater opportunity
to do so much for so many."
...Unfortunately, as the LA Times reported, just five days later, the _resident
introduced a budget in which he "only sought $2 billion for the year" for
AIDS - 33% less than he had promised. The Senate later voted to increase the
_resident's request, and Bono visited with the _resident to urge him to keep
his promise. Nonetheless, the White House "repeated its strong opposition to
any funding beyond $2 billion" while claiming with a straight-face that the
_resident was doing all he could. When questioned about the discrepancy,
White House spokesman Scott McClellan simply refused to address the issue,
saying only "The President has shown unprecedented leadership in the fight
against AIDS."
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=11609

0 Replies

So 13 billion left for the next 4 years?

0 Replies

jorge,

Your link was to an advocacy group's material concerning what it regards as the distortions of public information by the Bush administration. In fact the piece you posted was itself a gross distortion.

Bush did not "back off" his commitment to provide $15 billion over the next several years to combat AIDS in Africa. He did lower the current year funding from approximately $3 billion indicated earlier to $2 billion. Even the original program indicated that the rate of funding would be dependent on the readiness of the affected governments in Africa to spend it on well-conceived prevention and treatment programs. Given the past blindness, intransigence, and folly of many African governments with respect to this disease this is a real concern. Serious doubts have been published by engaged health experts concerning that readiness, indicating that too early funding could lead to more of the waste and graft that have sadly been the hallmark of government actions in that unfortunate continent. I don't know the details behind the adjustment to the rate of funding, and I suspect you don't either. Unfortunately that didn't inhibit your distortions.

0 Replies

George

Bush couldn't find a way to use the other billion in AIDS assistance? Hardly.

"...AIDS activists have criticized the proposal raised in Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday - $15 billion over five years for anti-HIV efforts overseas - because it targets only 14 nations and largely bypasses the Global Fund, which funds proposals submitted by governments and agencies working in poor countries. The fund was established in 2001 at the urging of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The fund announced Friday in Geneva approval of its second round of grants, awarding $866 million to programs in 60 nations to provide anti-HIV drugs to 270,000 people, tuberculosis treatment for 2 million and antimalarial drugs for 16 million. But that means the Global Fund is now out of money, with another $6 billion worth of requests under review, director Dr. Richard Feacham said in an interview.

Only $200 million of Bush's proposal would go to the Global Fund each year - a decrease over this year's $380 million allotment. The fund "is being starved under the president's proposal," said Asia Russell of the Philadelphia-based AIDS activist group Global Access Project, speaking at the Geneva briefing..."

(from Newsday February 1, 2003 )

http://www.healthgap.org/press_releases/a03/020103_Newsday_Bush_15b_HG.html

0 Replies

The Global Fund has no right or prior claim on US funds. It is hardly surprising that the managers of this fund would wish to dispense our money themselves: it is equally understandable that our government may have other ideas. Bush made a commitment to fight the disease, not support the Global Fund.

One of the key issues in the AIDs epidemic in Africa has been the willingness of the governments there to take the constructive actions already available to them to combat the disease. Uganda has already shown what can be done if the government acts wisely. South Africa has wasted ten critical years in denial. Other governments are also in major league denial, and some can be counted on to waste funds provided or allow them to be siphoned off through graft. We have a right to take these factors into consideration.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The Global Fund has no right or prior claim on US funds. It is hardly surprising that the managers of this fund would wish to dispense our money themselves: it is equally understandable that our government may have other ideas. Bush made a commitment to fight the disease, not support the Global Fund.

One of the key issues in the AIDs epidemic in Africa has been the willingness of the governments there to take the constructive actions already available to them to combat the disease. Uganda has already shown what can be done if the government acts wisely. South Africa has wasted ten critical years in denial. Other governments are also in major league denial, and some can be counted on to waste funds provided or allow them to be siphoned off through graft. We have a right to take these factors into consideration.

Sophistry

0 Replies

The Lies, Foibles, and Misrepresentations of George W Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know