Why do you still support Bush?

What's his job title?


You guys act as if it's a bad thing to be associated with the PNAC.

Some of us think it's a crime to plan and carry out criminal acts. PNAC called for a new Pearl Harbor. Georgie got his new Pearl Harbor or his Trifecta as he called it via Cheney & others of the PNAC group.

I sincerely think some people don't think at all.

McG, Your sincerity is misplaced; look in the mirror.

(cough)

I agree.

Otherwise there would not be an American conservative movement.

Friday, February 04, 2005

05:41:51 PM
State Of the Union Analysis
From Address was full of lies, contradictions by Andrew Meyer
Sickening. Watching George W. Bush take the podium Wednesday night can be described as nothing else. Nevertheless, I stomached the entire State of the Union address and observed something I already knew: W can't go five seconds without contradicting himself or just plain lying. Here are a few excerpts from his speech:
"We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing."

Reality: England, France and Germany are negotiating with Iran over these issues. Yet, despite the European Union's urgings, the administration is steering clear of these discussions altogether. If the United States does not step in as Bush claims we have, Iran will become a nuclear power.

"We are working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Again, this is false. The six-party talks involving the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea are in suspension. Bush has rejected diplomacy in this instance, saying it would "reward bad behavior." North Korea resumed reprocessing two years ago and most likely has built a couple nukes since.

"There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction - but no longer without attention and without consequence."

That's a strange thing to say when we apparently are ignoring both Iran and North Korea. It's funny Bush was so concerned about WMDs a couple of years ago, but now most of our military is committed to the one "Axis of Evil" country without any.
[The Independent Florida Alligator, 2/4/05]


01:52:13 PM
State Of the Union Analysis
From The Dangers of Overconfidence by Ivo Daalder
In sharp contrast to his previous post-9/11 appearances before Congress, Bush talked [in his State Of the Union address] about the war on terror as if victory was close at hand. He spoke of the defensive efforts undertaken at home, and the success of his policies in countering terrorism abroad. A new department had been created, and many al Qaeda leaders had been killed and rounded up. In Iraq, which Bush once again depicted as the central front in the war, America and its allies were fighting terrorists and winning, "so we do not have to face them here at home."

But while there have been successes in the war on terror, much remains to be done. Spending on homeland security remains dangerously inadequate - leaving our ports, chemical facilities, transportation systems, and critical infrastructure needlessly vulnerable to attack. Reform of the intelligence community remains a fact only on paper - more than two months have gone by without the president appointing the new intelligence czar everyone knows will be critical to that task. The Department of Homeland Security is such a dysfunctional agency that the entire top layer of management has resigned, giving a sense of all the smart people abandoning a sinking ship. As for confronting terrorists in Iraq, that effort is failing: despite killing or capturing 15,000 insurgents in 2004, the number of fighters increased from 5,000 to 20,000 over the same period.

A similar disjunction characterized Bush's remarks on Iraq. The president talked about Iraq as if there, too, victory was around the corner. The large turnout of Kurdish and Shiite Iraqis in last Sunday's election was proof that the Iraqi people wanted their country to be democratic. The only thing left was to train Iraqi security forces - and once that task was accomplished we would leave a prosperous, democratic, and peaceful country behind.

Would that it were so easy.
[Center For American Progress, 2/3/05]


01:01:22 PM
Social Security News
From Bush Shops Social Security Plan: Seeking Support, President Visits States of Vulnerable Democratic Senators by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
President Bush pressured skeptical lawmakers Thursday to back the most dramatic Social Security changes in the program's 70-year history, targeting politically vulnerable Democratic senators to rally support for his plan.
One day after he used his State of the Union address to promote his plan to carve personal accounts out of the public retirement system, Bush emphasized the financial benefits of allowing Americans younger than 55 to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

"It's your money," Bush told thousands of supporters at the University of North Dakota. It's money you can decide to leave to whomever you want. It's money the government can never take away."

In his campaign-style appearances, Bush did not address the costs and risks associated with his proposal.
...

Bush told the mostly partisan North Dakota crowd that he would never "play politics with the issue."

He is campaigning, election-style, for the new accounts this week in the back yards of three Senate Democrats the GOP is targeting for defeat in 2006: Kent Conrad in North Dakota, Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Bill Nelson in Florida.
[Washington Post, 2/4/05]

Well, it is nice to hear he's not playing politics with the issue.
11:52:50 AM

General Malfeasance Editorial
From Bush's costly modus operandi
As a "moral values" president, George W. Bush has some explaining to do about bearing false witness.
Perhaps the president is not lying, which implies conscious intent. Perhaps he simply does not recognize what he's doing. But conscious or not, his modus operandi - fixate on a policy goal first, then manufacture a problem it purports to solve, regardless of the truth of the matter - has things backward. Policy should arise in response to real problems in need of repair, not adopted and then justified by problems spun out of thin air.

The latest example, stressed in Bush's State of the Union speech Wednesday night, is "privatizing" Social Security. It is needed, the president said, to save a program otherwise headed toward bankruptcy.

But the program isn't headed for bankruptcy. No less a conservative eminence than columnist George Will has noted that a case against Social Security cannot be made on fiscal grounds.

Social Security is hardly the first example of the Bush modus operandi.

As a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush cited then-robust economic growth and the federal budget's then-surpluses to justify tax cuts. After his election, he cited the economic slowdown and federal deficits to justify tax cuts.

Then, of course, there's Iraq. Whatever the merits of the U.S. invasion and occupation, and however it ultimately turns out, the operation was sold by Bush on the specious grounds that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
[Roanoke Times, 2/4/05]

The man doesn't have an honest bone in his body. But his disciples can't see it, and in fact see the opposite. The system is not going bankrupt. If Bush wants to argue for privatization, he can do that, but he can't base his argument on the impending bankruptcy of the existing system
[The Oregonian, 1/24/05]
Is it me, or people seem to be getting the message? Won't get fooled again?


01:19:11 PM
Social Security Opinion
From Weapons of Mass Distortion: Bush's New Campaign of Lies About Social Security by Dave Lindorff
Like a man shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, like a charlatan trying to create a run on a bank, the president is trying to create a panicky run from Social Security among younger people with this new WMD-like campaign of lies.
Social Security, the New Deal program that has provided a basic level of economic support for the nation's elderly, disabled and orphaned for 70 years, is in grave danger--not from Baby Boomers, but from a campaign of lies and fear-mongering, led by the president.

The truth? There is no Social Security crisis. None whatsoever.

Yet, in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Bush put the campaign to destroy Social Security and its promise of old-age and disability security front and center in his second-term agenda, claiming that the system founded in 1935 is headed for "bankruptcy" in 2042.

Like the mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, this was a flat-out, deliberate lie. First of all, even if the date were correct, all that would happen in 2042 would be that the trust fund used to pay out benefits to workers would be exhausted, but even then current workers taxes would continue to cover 73 percent of promised benefits to retirees. More importantly, that 2042 projection by the increasingly politicized Social Security Administration was just a conservative projection made a few years ago based upon unrealistically low estimates of future economic growth. It has already been pushed back by several years' good economic performance, and in fact, the Congressional Budget Office and most independent economists say that the trust fund should enable the system to cover all benefits through at least 2052 and perhaps on out through 2080 and beyond.
[ILCA Online, 2/3/05]

This is a little different from the WMD lies. Now Bush is lying about matters that, as this piece and others make clear, are a matter of public record and mathematical calculation. If Limbaugh and Hannity (and Williams, etc.) can convince their sheep that these lies are true - well, those poor people will just believe anything. They're so lost.

11:39:37 AM
Social Security News
From President warns lawmakers not to delay Social Security reform by Rafael Lorente
The president did not offer specific legislation to address the long-term solvency issues of Social Security. Instead he called for an "open, candid review" of the system and touted personal savings accounts that aides admit will not stave off the day when Social Security is paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes.
Bush's proposal would allow workers born after 1950 to put up to 4 percent of their wages into individual investment accounts rather than pay it into the Social Security trust fund. Those born before 1950 would not be allowed to participate, but their Social Security benefits under current law would be protected from cutbacks.

But even as he warned of Social Security's impending doom, Democrats in Congress groaned in disagreement with his assessment of the severity of the problem. Afterward, Democrats said the president is creating or exaggerating the problem that exists with Social Security.

"The president did worse than create an artificial crisis. He actually plainly lied to the American people when he stated that Social Security would be bankrupt," said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Boca Raton. "The only thing that could bankrupt Social Security is the president's proposal itself."

But Republicans praised Bush's call for action, saying that waiting to address the issue is not an option.
[Kansas City Star, 2/2/05]

Waiting to attack Iraq wasn't an option either.

Winning Ben Stein's Mind

It is kind of startling to see Ben railing against the extreme disparity between the income of CEOs vs. the income of those who actually make the products. He is also unhappy about where our economy is trending under the Republicans. Ben's mind is sharper than I thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/business/yourmoney/09every.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Cicerone,
It's very simple. If the righties don't read your responses they never hear the truth so therefore you can't change their minds!

However, we know we will see them whining, crying, moaning and groaning when Chicken george's policies catch up with them at which time they will blame President Clinton and continue to overlook the crimes committed by this sorryass administration.

Here's Nancy Pelosi's 'culture of corruption' and it came from someone within her own party.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202858,00.html

Imagine what those seized files are going to reveal about what the left and their special interest cohorts have been devising behind the average US citizens backs?

This is going to be big I bet.

PNAC propagandist.

It is a bad thing to be associated with the PNAC.

Amigo,



I dont believe thaanyone has said that Iraq obtained uranium from Africa.
The claim was that they TRIED to.

There is a difference.

A claim based on forged documents. Claims so poorly backed up that they were repediatly removed from the state of the union address and put back in again and again right after they were told the intelligence from niger was bad.

Why did they put it back in?

I dont know why they put it back in,I wasnt part of the discussion.

But,its nice to see you admit that this statement...



Is WRONG.

Where did I admit that?

Rex, there was nothing in that piece that denigrates Pelosi. She, in fact, worked to get him kicked off Ways and Means. The situation is that there is a single corrupt Democrat against a slew of Republicans who sold out the country. It was interesting how the Republicans, especially the sleaze Hastert, were so upset when the FBI raided Jefferson's office. I wager Denny is going through his files as we speak.

washingtonpost.com
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01


President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.

Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

Bush continues to lie. However, the Republicans will continue to march lockstep with him and his people. Sad!

PNAC hater.



Sez you.

Because when I said the claim was that they TRIED to,you said it was a claim based on forged documents.

So,you admit that the claim was that they TRIED to,not that they actually did.

So,you admit the claim that they DID obtain uranium was wrong.