Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I see what you mean. It's funny though, a lot of people say that they vote for this guy or that guy based on the fact that they think he's got integrity. It doesn't matter what the hell they've done to f*ck up the country (or the world, for that matter), as long as they look sincere.

The real question is, would you buy a car from GWBush? Is he trustworthy? Does he always tell the truth? If something goes wrong with the car, will GWBush take responsibility for it? Just wondeirng. <sigh>

Here's a Reuters article on the two salesmen.
**************************************
Blix Says Bush, Blair Insincere Salesmen on Iraq
Sun Feb 8, 2:43 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Mike Peacock

LONDON (Reuters) - The former chief U.N. weapons inspector Sunday likened the use of intelligence by the leaders of Britain and the United States to justify war in Iraq (news - web sites) to the tactics of insincere salesmen.


Hans Blix -- who pleaded for more time to search Iraq for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons before a U.S.-led invasion in March -- said the West had a right to expect more from their leaders.


"The intention was to dramatize it (the intelligence) just as the vendors of some merchandise are trying to exaggerate the importance of what they have," Blix told BBC television.

Here's another gamble being proposed by president Bush. After their boondoggle on the drug benefit plan by over 1/3rd (over 140 billion dollar mistake), anybody wanna trust this president?
***********************************
White House: Social Security Reform to Push Debt
27 minutes ago Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s economic advisers said on Monday adding personal retirement accounts to Social Security (news - web sites) would sharply increase the nation's debt for the next three decades.

Tapping the bond markets to pay for private accounts proposed by Bush's Social Security Commission would increase the nation's debt-to-GDP (news - web sites) ratio by up to 23.6 percentage points in 2036, the White House Council of Economic Advisers said in its annual Economic Report of the President.

Under this scenario, the debt held by the public would increase by as much as $4.7 trillion. But the new government bonds would be repaid 20 years later, eliminating Social Security's unfunded liability while reducing the tax burden in the long term, advocates say.

What a great idea! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that!

This president really doesn't know when to quit. This from Reuters today. "Bush said the U.S. economy was showing "good strong growth" as the White House projected in an economic report the economy would create 2.6 million jobs in 2004, which would be an average gain of 217,000 a month, nearly twice the 112,000 rate of job creation recorded in January." I don't know where Bush learned his math, but that translates to over 7,500 new jobs per day that must be created to the end of this year. He's been getting away with so many exaggerations that worked in the past, he's willing to stretch it even further. I guess everybody's gonna be driving a new cadillac by year end too!

That is a whopper. Jesus, this guy has balls like an elephant.

kickycan, I've seen balls of an elephant, and I must say you know what you're talking about. LOL

And the IQ of a retarded kumquat!

Posted on another thread, but had to post here as well. It fits so well on this thread too.

O'Reilly Eatin Crow.........don't yet have the link for this but I'm working on it.

About Bush

Tue Feb 10, 9:25 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.

"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this,"O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."

"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.

O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.

While critical of President Bush, O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied. Rather, O'Reilly blamed CIA Director George Tenet, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.

"I don't know why Tenet still has his job." He added: "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is
not as good as it should be."

O'Reilly anticipated the presidential election would be a close race, adding he thought Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts would be a formidable opponent against Bush.

"It will be a very close race. The nation is divided," he said.

How can the nation be divided? GWBush said he's a "uniter, and not a divider." I remember!

So do I, c.i. And every time I remember that, I also remember that when Clinton's staff left the White House, they labeled doors throughout the West Wing with humorous signs including (my favorite) "The Division of Uniting."

Looking back, that seems almost prophetic, doesn't it?

Iraq will not disappear as an issue, neither here nor in Britain. There has been a sea change in media coverage (moreso here, as the Brit press are far less effectively manipulated) of the administrations, and the credibility of both Bush and Blair have suffered greatly. How willing, do you think, Americans and Brits would be now to trust administration claims of WOMD in, say, Syria, and then support another military action?

Adding to the problem for both administrations is the gap between their boasts regarding the ease of post-war solutions and the reality of the present.

They were wrong about why to go in, and they were wrong about what would follow. That's a lot of wrong.

And then, there is the lying, which is becoming more evident to more people each day.

Iraq won't go away. The turmoil and the bombs and the attacks will continue, and worse may yet follow. And also, there is Afghanistan, where the Taliban are apparently consolidating again. As the press has finally lost its disgusting posture of fealty, these matters will continue to impinge on the electorates.

The attempt will be to divert attention. We might have a glimmer of a specific strategy in Bush's latest project...to control the spread of nukes. Nukes provide, of course, the bigest boogey man in our noggins. I'm expecting to see more of this from the administration. But of course, they'll only talk about nuke dangers if their focus groups and polls show that such a PR strategy actually does create fear and diversion of attention.

"Fear" works in politics.

Yes, but there has to be a better way.

blatham, about this strategy of controlling the spread of nukes: I wonder if they'll stick with calling them "weapons of mass destruction". Just in case they decide to use that as a reason to blow up some other country. Then, if they don't find nukes, they can always tell people that's not what they meant by "weapons of mass destruction". Technically that's not a lie!

It's always interesting to see how politicians rape the language for their own selfish desires.

Like:?:

'Clean Air Act' and 'Healthy Forest Act'. Rape the language - yes, but the current raping is felonious.............

Well, it looks like the smear campaign is beginning. I saw this on a conservative news site today.

Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."

"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.

"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.

"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml

I think that if the republicans pursue this, they will be making a mistake. It's only going to make them look bad in the end. Of course, if this becomes a big issue, I'm sure it will be so distorted by the right that by the time they're done, the history books will show that we actually won that war.

I love this type of logic. GWBush attacks Iraq and kills untold thousands of innocent people, our military losses in excess of 500 (and still counting), our wounded in the thousands, he spent over 180 billion of our tax money in Iraq that is sorely needed by our own children and people, and they're talking about Viet Nam? Give me a break!

This just about wraps it up!
************************
Dubya's visit

George W. Bush pays a visit to a primary school to talk about the war.
After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand
and George asks him his name.

"Bob," answers the young lad.

"And what is your question, Bob?"

"I have three questions," says Bob. "First, why did the USA invade Iraq
without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al
Gore got more votes? And third, what happened to Osama Bin Laden?"

Just then the bell rings for recess. Bush informs the kiddies that they
will continue after recess.

When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh that's right . . .
question time. Who has a question?"

A different little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks
him what his name is.

"Steve," says the boy.

"And what is your question, Steve?"

"I have FIVE questions," proclaims Steve. "First, why did the USA
invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, what happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth, why did the recess bell go 20 minutes early? And fifth, where is Bob?"