Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I believe he made profit from all his "failed" business ventures. Those failures probably taught him more then success would have.

He may have, but his investors? Not so much.

I do believe that he did learn something from that, McG.

Cycloptichorn

Can you demonstrate for me any businessman that goes into business to make others wealthy instead of himself?

I don't believe any investment is safe from failure, ask those poor souls that invested in Enron.

I don't disagree with that, but we generally don't point to those who lead companies which fail as Captains of Industry. The fact that Bush turned a personal profit is immaterial to the point that the businesses that he heads didn't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Talk about diversionary tactics, this one takes the cake! McG has to mention Enron to make the point! LOL

0 Replies

Here are some interesting quotes from Hillary, the deceived one:

October, 2002, from this website:
http://s171185354.onlinehome.us/2005/12/

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.''

Did George tell Hillary exactly what to say, when to say it, and how to say it, or did she do any original thinking here? Could the smartest woman in the world have been deceived by the stupid, ill informed, and country bumpkin, George Bush?

0 Replies

okie, This isn't relevant; we had UN inspectors in 2003 before Bush chased them out. After Bush's preemptive (illegal) attack, he demanded the army find those WMDs. None were ever found. You're trackihg up old info based on misinformation. We know what happened in 2003 to now; chaos and the killings of tens of thousnads of innocent Iraqis for so many justifications, it's difficult to keep count.

0 Replies

Hillary Clinton had to represent New York views and there are a lot of nervous Jewish voters there.

The were made nervous principally by Gen Powell's "intelligence" and security misinformation.

0 Replies

The usual tactics. Refuse to answer difficult questions and divert discussion into zones one is familiar with.

0 Replies

I think we can rest easy with Bush behind the wheel. :wink:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/caterpillar.jpg

Quote:

Does President Bush have it in for the press corps? Touring a Caterpillar factory in Peoria, Ill., the Commander in Chief got behind the wheel of a giant tractor and played chicken with a few wayward reporters. Wearing a pair of stylish safety glasses--at least more stylish than most safety glasses--Bush got a mini-tour of the factory before delivering remarks on the economy. "I would suggest moving back," Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor. "I'm about to crank this sucker up." As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety."Get out of the way!" a news photographer yelled. "I think he might run us over!" said another. White House aides tried to herd the reporters the right way without getting run over themselves. Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor's window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned. The episode lasted about a minute, and Bush was still laughing when he pulled to a stop. He gave reporters a thumbs-up. "If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes.

source

The guys a maniac and to think we have to put up with him for two more years. Even more bizarre is that he was actually elected and still defended to this day by people in this country.

0 Replies

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/492/070130warpowerxhw3.gif

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

You want to present that as a DEMOCRATIC problem?

"Boy, have we got you guys in a fix! Ha ha!"

0 Replies

Certainly it is a Democrat problem. The Republicans, by a large majority, won't make statements that undercut the President and/or the troops in Iraq. The Democrats have been doing so regularly for political gain and now they are in a quandary. Do they put their votes where their mouths have been running? Or will all that rhetoric prove to be as empty of substance as so much of their other rhetoric has been?

0 Replies

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AL910_CONSER_20070124194853.gif

Meanwhile, the President's conservative base continues to fret that he is too distracted by Iraq and is not focusing on or fighting for the other issues important to his conservative base.

The following is cited by the American Conservative Union in their current newsletter and was posted by other groups focused on and promoting conservative issues:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116969100575587100-xmhyV5Nts2GBEUw9o4X25gg0sWA_20070223.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

0 Replies

Discounting Iraq, I'd guess that's pretty much the inverse of most leftist's concerns.

0 Replies

Dear fellow A2Kers:

I have the distinguished honor of being named to the committee to
raise $5,000,000 for a monument to George W. Bush. I am contacting
you in
hopes that you will be willing to contribute to this noble cause. But
first, a
little about what the committee has been doing to date.

We originally wanted to put him on Mount Rushmore until we discovered
that
there was not enough room for two more faces.

We then decided to erect a statue of George in the Washington, D.C.
Hall of
Fame. We were in a quandary as to where the statue should be placed.
It was
not proper to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who
never told
a lie, or beside Richard Nixon, who never told the truth, because
George
could never tell the difference.

We finally decided to place it beside Christopher Columbus, the
greatest Republican of all. He left not knowing where he was going,
and when
he got there, he did not know where he was. He returned not knowing
where he
had been, decimated the well-being of the majority of the population
while
he was there, and did it all on someone else's money.

Thank you.
George W. Bush Monument Committee

P. S. The Committee has raised $1.35 so far. So, please be generous.

______________________________

0 Replies

Dear fellow A2Kers:

I have the distinguished honor of being named to the committee to
raise $5,000,000 for a monument to George W. Bush. I am contacting
you in
hopes that you will be willing to contribute to this noble cause. But
first, a
little about what the committee has been doing to date.

We originally wanted to put him on Mount Rushmore until we discovered
that
there was not enough room for two more faces.

We then decided to erect a statue of George in the Washington, D.C.
Hall of
Fame. We were in a quandary as to where the statue should be placed.
It was
not proper to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who
never told
a lie, or beside Richard Nixon, who never told the truth, because
George
could never tell the difference.

We finally decided to place it beside Christopher Columbus, the
greatest Republican of all. He left not knowing where he was going,
and when
he got there, he did not know where he was. He returned not knowing
where he
had been, decimated the well-being of the majority of the population
while
he was there, and did it all on someone else's money.

Thank you.
George W. Bush Monument Committee

P. S. The Committee has raised $1.35 so far. So, please be generous.

______________________________

0 Replies

Hillary's big lie grows

The senator needs to end the victim act and
stop blaming Bush for her vote on Iraq

There she goes again. Hillary Clinton told another whopper. Actually, it's the same whopper she and her husband told before.

In Iowa last weekend, Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote to suppport the Iraq war. It's a tough question for her, given the war's unpopularity among Democrats. Moreover, her two leading opponents for the 2008 presidential nomination have crowd-pleasing positions. Former Sen. John Edwards said his vote for the war was a mistake and he regretted it, and Sen. Barack Obama opposed the war before the invasion.

So Clinton's camp sees her pro-war vote as heavy baggage. She has never denounced it or said it was wrong, but, at times, has done something worse. She has lied about the reasons for it.

Sunday in Davenport, Iowa, was one of those times. Asked about her vote by a man in front of a mostly adoring rally, Clinton trotted out the whopper. She said she was misled by President Bush about the resolution. "He said at the time he was going to the United Nations to put inspectors back into Iraq, to figure out whether they still had any WMD," she said, adding, "He took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it."

That's very similar to how Bill Clinton defended her last year. In an interview with ABC News, he said Dems who voted for the resolution did so only to force Saddam Hussein to give up, not to use force. "They felt, frankly, let down" about the invasion, Clinton said, painting Dems as dupes of Bush.

It's a clever argument, but it's not true. It's not even within spinning distance of being true.

Here are the facts. The resolution passed the Senate on Oct. 10, 2002, by a vote of 77 to 23, with support from Clinton, Edwards and about 20 other Dems.

Its purpose was clear from its title: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Opponents, including Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), voted no because they thought it meant war was inevitable.

They had good reason to worry. Bush made it clear he intended to "disarm" Iraq and the resolution gave him that authority. He could use our armed forces, Section 3 said, "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend America and enforce UN resolutions. Separately, an amendment requiring Security Council approval for an invasion was defeated. Clinton helped to defeat that amendment.

To hear the Clintons fudge now, you would think the invasion began the very next day. In fact, it began five months later, in March 2003. During those months, as U.S. troops massed in the Mideast, there is no record of Hillary Clinton opposing the invasion or claiming she had been misled.

Indeed, an article in The Washington Post on March 9, 2003, lamented that Congress had been mostly silent since the resolution passed. The only major exception came when Kennedy, Byrd and some House members urged Bush to let weapons inspectors finish their work. Clinton was not recorded as being part of that effort.

That the war has gone badly is a tragedy and a disaster. It is why Democrats won Congress last year. But anybody who wants to be President and commander in chief cannot play the role of victim when the going gets tough on the campaign trail. Blaming others for your own conduct and fudging history are not the right stuff for the Oval Office. Even, or especially, when your name is Clinton.

Originally published on January 31, 2007
SOURCE

0 Replies

I agree completely with that piece Fox, and think it is the #1 reason why Hillary will not get the nod for the Democratic party.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I thought Hillary was out of the running when she supported the Iraq war.

I don't think the American People are ready to elect another member of a past president.

0 Replies

That graph is disturbing in so many ways. Talk about skewed priorities.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Founders Fumbled

"The system worked" is what so many of us breathed with relief when Nixon fled Washington in disgrace. ...

What we told ourselves was that the country escaped its worst constitutional crisis ever because the Constitution contained within itself the mechanisms needed to overcome catastrophe.

Looking at what's happening in Washington today, I can't help thinking that it's time to revisit that awe. We treat the Constitution like fundamentalists treat the Bible; we treat the Founders like Deities; we hold an unshakable faith in the inherent perfection of our system, ...

Bush is certifiably delusional, but impeachment is off the table, because Democrats can't muster the kind of political will and outrage at a tragically misconceived war that Republicans could summon for a blowjob.

Cheney is an outlaw, a Rasputin, a tyrant, a liar, but there is no check to check him, no balance to balance him.

Throughout the executive branch, secrecy reigns, laws are violated, scholarly whackballs formulate doctrines like the "unitary executive," but neither the courts nor the Congress have the cojones or the clout to intervene.

Citizen-statesmen were supposed to govern us. Farmer-legislators were supposed to lead us. Where are our wise men today? Colin Powell, instead of blowing the whistle, sulks in his tent; Rumsfeld rants on the moor; George Tenet takes a bullet for The Man and gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom; Condi Rice appears as oblivious of her humiliation as any of the pathetic victims on American Idol; Paul Wolfowitz, the stain of our neocon nightmare on his hands, plays not Lady Macbeth, but Mother Teresa.

Sweet reason, the faith of our rationalist Founders, has been supplanted by strategic pseudo-science. Contested facts are adjudicated not by evidence, but by polling, and by mud-wrestling. Swift Boating is the new epistemology. Propaganda -- the breathtakingly big "big lie" -- is triumphant, its practitioners on the federal payroll, but Washington's courtier culture precludes calling a Goebbels a Goebbels. Though protected by the First Amendment, the media are less a Fourth Estate than a Fifth Column, a source of narcotizing infotainment. The Murdoch-Moonie axis has become the MSM.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/the-founders-fumbled_b_40080.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But anybody who wants to be President and commander in chief cannot play the role of victim when the going gets tough on the campaign trail. Blaming others for your own conduct and fudging history are not the right stuff for the Oval Office. Even, or especially, when your name is Clinton.

Originally published on January 31, 2007
SOURCE

Let's allow that she has lied. There, that's done.

Now, WTF are you not focusing in on the lies that have cost the Iraqi people dearly? [That's a rhetorical question; you don't give a fat f**k]

Why are you not focusing in on the lies that have cost the USA some 3000 plus dead sons and daughters? Why are you not focusing in on the monstrous aftermath of a president who lies as easily as he breathes, who is so wrapped up in his own insecurities that he cannot function in such a high position.

You are so petrified as a people to admit, to even think of the possibility, that this great land can produce such a monumental failure in the very thing you mistakenly believe is one of its greatest virtues.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know