How Bush Is Killing America

Agreed. But, Bush the head lemming has just enough home support to stay the course, for the time being. Plus, I don't hear any would be presidents with a clear message to challenge him.

Playing by Bush Rules
Playing by Bush Rules
By Bob Burnett
10.13.2005

If you have ever played a competitive sport, you understand that there are actually two sets of rules. In regular games, there are formal rules and, usually, referees to ensure that all players abide by them; the competition is governed by an ethic, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." In irregular contests, pick-up games, there are informal rules - in some venues called "jungle" rules - and no referees; in this situation, the game is often reduced to doing whatever it takes to win.

The contrast between the two is the difference between boxing, conducted by the Marques of Queensbury rules where fighters may only strike the head and upper body with their gloved hands, and extreme fighting, where anything goes.

When we question the actions of the Bush Administration, it's useful to keep this distinction in mind, as the President and his cronies talk as if they abide by the political version of the Marques of Queensbury rules but actually play by jungle ethics where anything goes - Bush rules.

Two recent news stories graphically illustrate the nature of Bush rules. It's been well documented that the Administration was indifferent to the tragedy wrought by Hurricane Katrina, until there was an enormous public outcry. What hasn't been talked about is the contrast between this occasion and their response to Hurricane Frances in September of 2004. Two months before the presidential election, Frances was threatening Florida, with its 27 electoral votes, and the Bush Administration leaped into action. The National Guard was mobilized and federal-state-non-profit task force was launched - before Frances hit. Bush rules dictated that the Administration had to perform well in this time of crisis, because it represented a political opportunity. Katrina didn't command the same urgency as it didn't occur in an election year - Bush was making speeches in California on the day the Hurricane hit the Gulf Coast.

Bush rules have also governed the White House response to the outcry over the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The President told the press that he wanted "to get to the bottom" of the leak scandal; his press secretary, Scott McClellan commented, "The President has set…the highest of standards for people in his Administration…If anyone in this administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration." Since those comments, we learned that top Administration officials - including key presidential adviser, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney's chief-of-staff, Scooter Libby - were involved. Yet, no one was punished by the White House. Moreover, according to a July 24th New York Times story and comments made by political commentator, George Stephanopolous on October 2nd, The President and Vice-President were also engaged in the discussions about Valerie Plame, before her identify was revealed by conservative columnist Bob Novak. (Federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, questioned Bush for 70 minutes on June 24, 2004; at the time, legal observers remarked on how unusual this was and opined that it indicated a suspicion that the Plame leak occurred at a high level in the Administration.)

The hypocrisy of Bush rules might be dismissed as political business-as-usual if it were Richard Nixon who was President; "tricky Dick" was known to be a slippery character, more interested in political gain than in the common good. However, George W. Bush has made a huge issue of his personal integrity. When he was first nominated to run for President, he made it a point to distinguish his morality from that of Bill Clinton and, by implication, Al Gore.

"Behind every goal I've talked about tonight is a great hope for our country … we must usher in an era of responsibility. And our nation's leaders our (sic) responsible to confront problems, not pass them onto others. And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, that president himself must be responsible. So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."

Bush promised to bring honor and responsibility to the Presidency. Moreover, he claimed to be a Christian; not a superficial believer like Clinton, but a "born again" Christian. His profession of faith bolstered his declaration of integrity.

Americans know a lot about Christianity as more than 80 percent identify with that religion. We understand that orthodox Christians do not lie, put their personal fortune above the common good, or believe that the ends justify the means. Proper Christians operate by the ethical equivalent of the Marques of Queensbury rules. Most believe that it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.

But George W. Bush plays by his own rules. As American watch this administration unravel - as the electorate begins to understand the folly of the Iraq occupation, the fantasy of homeland security, and the abandonment of governance in the pursuit of political gain - one wonders which realization will come first: Will it be that Bush the President is incapable of leading the U.S., or will it be that Bush the man doesn't deserve to be called a Christian?

I've been looking into the 'one world government' and 'new world order' theories. They make more sense then I would like to believe. Freaky s**t. I just watched Eisenhowers last speech of his presidency where he warns America about the Military Industrial Complex. We didn't listen and now here we are. Where will we be tomorrow? Thats up to us. If you want to see the speech video go www.freepressinternational.com then go to New world order and you will see the speech listed

Screwing The Poor, Big Time
Opinion: Screwing The Poor, Big Time
Bob Herbert
New York Times
10/14/05

[Bush went] on national television from the French Quarter of the stricken city of New Orleans and promised "bold action."...As the president spoke, it never occurred to me that anyone would buy into the notion that Mr. Bush and his supporters would actually do something about poverty and racism.

Bush is the standard-bearer par excellence of his party's efforts to redistribute the bounty of the U.S. from the bottom up, not the other way around. This is no longer a matter of dispute. Mr. Bush may not be the greatest commander in chief. And he may not be adept at sidestepping the land mines of language. ("I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here.") But if there's one thing the president has been good at, it has been funneling money to the rich. The suffering wrought by Katrina hasn't changed that at all.

Poverty has steadily increased under President Bush, even as breathtaking riches (think tax cuts, cronyism, war profiteering, you name it) have been heaped upon those who were already wealthy. Class divisions are hardening, and economic inequality continues to increase dramatically....In the end, much of the money to help lower-income victims of the recent storms will most likely be siphoned from existing, badly needed and already underfunded programs to help the poor and near-poor. A real effort to fight poverty and combat discrimination? From this regime? You must be joking.

BBB - It would be nice to see some of your thoughts on the issue. Anybody can cut and paste long articles. I'd like to come here to discuss issues but there is no conversation with all of these pasted articles.

Amen.

In Business the most important soft issue is 'good will'. People pay a lot for it. GWB (Good Will Baloney) destroyed much of the good will for America in most parts of the world.

Reply
Him will get more money for America after the war against terrorists (In Iraq will end because the peoples send there to control Iraq will make special prices for US and the allies so, money will get back in US.

Greatly agreed! It was however explained by her in another thread to some degree. Add to this that in a very limited way each thread title is actually her first comment about the matter.

I think it is comes down to being both a service and dis-service on BBB's part. It is clearly a useful matter since she has apparently an access and ability to post numerous articles which might otherwise go past my viewing. The down side is her failure to immediately comment in detail on the article...in most cases.

In the final picture BBB can only do so much. She provides us with topics and it is then our choice to discuss it or not. Look through the many posts BBB has begun and it becomes clear that many topics are never responded to.


Just wish BBB would start posting those pro-Bush articles instead of all the negativity.

Instead of denigrating the messenger, it would be much more beneficial to focus on the message.

There you go again using common sense.