Give Bush a Break!

I agree with this guy. I am quite sick of seeing the constant Bush bashing and this is coming from someone who isn't that big of a Bush fan. I just get tired of the whiny liberals.

You and me both. Given the fact that they now know who the leaker was do you think the libs wil stop saying bush lied people died? I dought it. On the other hand they caught Wilson in quite a few lies?

Jack Kelly

A new book by Michael Isikoff, an investigative reporter for Newsweek, and David Corn, who writes for the far left wing magazine the Nation, casts many powerful people in Washington in an unflattering light — but not the people who Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn wish to besmirch.


A brief review for those of you who have lives, and who consequently haven't been following closely the details of the Plame Name Game:


In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


First in leaks to reporters, and then in his own op-ed in the New York Times, a retired diplomat, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, said the president was lying. His claim to speak with authority was that in the spring of 2002, the CIA had sent him to Niger to see if Saddam had tried to buy uranium there.


Mr. Wilson's charge was important because it marked the beginning of the "Bush lied" meme about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee; the Robb-Silberman Commission on prewar intelligence, and the British Butler Commission all concluded it was Mr. Wilson who was not telling the truth. Saddam had indeed tried to buy uranium in Africa, as even Mr. Wilson himself had acknowledged to the CIA officers who debriefed him after his Niger trip. One of the false claims Mr. Wilson made was that he had been sent to Niger at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney. In his July 14, 2003 column, Robert Novak disclosed that he had been sent instead at the insistence of his wife, Valerie Plame, who worked at the CIA.

No ----We will not give Bush a break...He hasn't earned it and how come when anyone left of center complains they are whining and when some chest thumping conservative from either side of the ailse complains he's sticking to his guns.... Iraq has been an unholy disaster beginning to end. It has wasted an incredible victory in Afghanistan with an invasion that even if it succeeds is wasting resources we cannot afford to waste. It has been clumsy good old boyism at best and could turn our to be arrogant failure ...I hope for Bush's sake he is just corrupt because to be this short sighted is almost criminal

He's only human, and he can't control the insane minds of terrorists. The point is, I would like to see some liberals do better... well, no, I wouldn't, because if that was the case, America would probably be bombed like crazy.

I would like to see the left offer some cogent solutions or at least plans to better our situation , but they seem stuck on bashing Bush instead . Look at Clinton - on national tv , claiming he did all he could to stop Bin Laden , and saying Bush has done nothing .

Clinton is just trying to save his name for when he runs for First Wife.... errr I mean Husband in 08

LOL! Oh wait computer says LOL! is too short.. sooo.. LOLOLOLOL!

The man is uneducated and is the representation of the enemy of our freedoms, why should we give him a break? So he can eliminate habeus corpus for everyone he deems an enemy of the state?

Bush doesn't deserve a break. He was elected to the hot seat, but when things go wrong, he can't take the heat. It's always some else who screwed up.

He is a master of the blame game.

Just a few more weeks of his party rule and the country can get back on track in dealing with our problems.Until then we can only hope he doesn't totally crash and burn.

He had a better point average then Kerry. What college did you graduate from?

On the off chance you do take the house or senate or both. Bush still has the final say so. As he don't have to sign anything into law. He's only veto'd once, if you get your wish, look forward to alot more.

Don't they have to put a bill in front of him first ?

With a control in the House and the Senate, you'd think Bills would be sliding across his desk a bit more frequently.

I guess he can't muster enough support for his agenda.:dunno:

If he wants to eliminate Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (the countries you mention he has deemed enemies) then I am for it.

What do you mean eliminate? Do you mean quit wasting our time on? I'm for that too.

Not really the point of this particular thread is it now?

You brought it up. Not me.

You show where I bring up Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in this particular thread. Oh wait you can't.

Iraq, Iran and North Korea have been deemed enemies of the United States. Don't get smart either. You can debate without being a smartass.

Uhh, do you even know what habeus corpus is? I was talking about imprisonment of citizens without being told why they are being detained via Patriot Act, not about foreign affairs. You are getting confused because of other posts I have made in other threads about foreign policies, "enemies of the state" refer to people in the state that are it's supposed enemies. Not to foreign countries.

Yah I can debate without being a smartass but I get irritated when my opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. :-D