Author Topic: George Bush to leave a troubled legacy  (Read 54114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: One Bush Left Behind
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2008, 06:32:01 am »
Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act !

Calls restrictions unconstitutional !

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  January 30, 2008

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/

WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.

The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

"Every time a senior administration official is asked about permanent US military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities," said Senator Robert P. Casey Jr., Democrat of Pennsylvania, in a Senate speech yesterday. "Yet this signing statement issued by the president yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the administration wants to hold this option in reserve."

Several other congressional Democrats also took issue with the signing statement.

"I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that."

Bush's signing statement did not explain the specific basis for his objection to the prohibition on establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.

But last year, the White House told Congress that a similar provision in another bill "impermissibly infringes upon the president's constitutional authority to negotiate treaties and conduct the nation's foreign affairs."

Some legal specialists disagreed with the administration's legal theory.

"Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq," said Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who was the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration.

Bush's frequent use of signing statements to advance aggressive theories of executive power has been a hallmark of his presidency. Previous presidents occasionally used the device, but Bush has challenged more sections of bills than all his predecessors combined - among them, a ban on torture.

Bush signing statements prompted widespread controversy when his record came to light in 2006. After Democrats took over Congress in 2007, Bush initially issued fewer and less aggressive signing statements. But his new statement returned to the previous approach, observers said.

The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts. The new law expands employees' ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.

In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion" requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days. If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.

Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan" to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors.

The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel "expeditiously" upon its request.

The signing statement did not make clear whether Bush is objecting to the creation of the commission because some of its members will be appointed by Congress or whether he is reserving the right to turn down its requests for information - or both.

Phillip Cooper, a political science professor at Portland State University, noted that Bush's statement does not clearly spell out the basis for any of his challenges. Cooper, who has been a pioneer in studying signing statements, said the vague language itself is a problem.

"It is very hard for Congress or the American people to figure out what is supposed to happen and what the implications of this are," Cooper said.

The White House did not respond to a Globe request to explain the objections in greater detail. But the Bush administration has repeatedly insisted that its use of signing statements has been both lawful and appropriate.

Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said.

"What this shows is that they're continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president's unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that's a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition," said Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s.

In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."

Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: One Bush Left Behind
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2008, 07:33:16 am »
Bush increased use of state secrets privilege !

Josh White, Washington Post

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

(01-30) 04:00 PST Washington - --

The U.S. government has been increasing its use of the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing classified information in civil lawsuits, prompting legislation in the Senate that would provide more congressional oversight of the practice.

Though there have been modest increases in the use of the state secrets privilege every decade since the 1960s, some legal scholars and members of Congress contend that the Bush administration has employed it excessively as it intervened in cases that could expose information about sensitive programs. These include the rendition of detainees to foreign countries for interrogation and cases related to the National Security Agency's use of warrantless wiretaps.

The privilege allows the government to argue that lawsuits - and the information potentially revealed by them - could damage national security. It gives judges the power to prevent information from reaching public view or to dismiss cases even if they appear to have merit.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in a speech on the Senate floor last week, said one reason for more congressional oversight is the risk that the privilege will be overused and abused.

He said the Bush administration's use of the privilege since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "has dramatically increased, and the harmful consequences of its irregular application by courts have become painfully clear."

Kennedy cited statistics that show the Bush administration has used the state secrets privilege substantially more than previous administrations to block or dismiss lawsuits.

The cases include El-Masri vs. Tenet, in which Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen, sued the U.S. government claiming that he was sent to Afghanistan for interrogation as part of a secret government program. The case was dismissed after government lawyers argued that el-Masri's civil claims could expose state secrets should CIA officials have to admit or deny the existence of the program or its details.

Amanda Frost, an assistant professor at American University's Washington College of Law, contends in a 2007 law review article that Congress should provide more oversight of government use of the privilege because the Bush administration "has raised the privilege with greater frequency than ever before, and has more often sought to remove cases entirely from judicial dockets."

However, the researcher who totaled the use of the privilege in published legal opinions said the increase is insignificant. Robert Chesney, an associate professor at Wake Forest University School of Law, showed that the Bush administration had invoked the state secrets privilege 20 times since 2001, while the same privilege was invoked 26 times from 1991 to 2000 and 23 times from 1981 to 1990.

Chesney, who published a paper last fall, said this week that while the numbers show an upward trend, administration critics do not take into account the fact that the nation has been at war since 2001. As a result, the government is undertaking a larger number of secret operations.

"There's this strong desire to show that this is something the Bush administration has seized upon to put things under the rug," Chesney said. "They have seized on it, but they also have been confronted with dozens and dozens of lawsuits seeking to explore classified programs."

Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that has fought the Bush administration's secrecy efforts on the NSA surveillance program, said the state secrets privilege is being abused regardless of the number of times it has been invoked.

"The administration is attempting to use the privilege as a back-door immunity to obtain dismissal of any case that attempts to put the NSA wiretapping issue in front of a judge," said Bankston. "It is no secret such a program existed."

Patrick Philbin, an associate deputy attorney general until November 2005, said this week that the statistics do not tell the story about the state secrets privilege.

"I don't think that this administration is applying or using the standard differently," Philbin said. "The privilege exists to protect national security information, and they're using it to do."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/30/MNIOUO84S.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
No Funds in Bush Budget For Troop-Benefits Plan
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2008, 09:59:07 pm »
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
Re: No Funds in Bush Budget For Troop-Benefits Plan
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2008, 10:20:13 pm »
Bush's logic:

USE THEM, ABUSE THEM, TOSS THEM, BUT DON'T SUPPORT THEM!
John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline Sub-X

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,828
  • FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real...
Bush claims US still holds moral high ground.
« Reply #44 on: February 15, 2008, 08:19:17 pm »
Bush claims US still holds moral high ground.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/international/Bush-claims-US-still-holds.3782409.jp
15 February 2008

US President George Bush has insisted America occupies the "moral high ground" in the face of international pressure over the war on terror.

He said he was "comfortable" with decisions he had made over Guantanamo Bay and backed the use of waterboarding as an interrogation tactic.

The president also said he was "pleased" with progress in Iraq but spoke of the difficulty he faced when he decided to commit more troops there.

In an interview with BBC World News America, president Bush urged China to "do more to relieve the suffering in Darfur".

He described the situation in Darfur as "genocide" – but stood by his "seminal decision" not to send US troops to the region.

Looking ahead to his legacy, Mr Bush said: "You know, dealing with liberating 25 million in Afghanistan is part of what I hope people think of when they look at my presidency.

"Being the first president to propose a two-state solution on Israel and Palestine.

"I mean, there's a lot of other issues. And I'm happy with Iraq.

"The... decision to move Saddam Hussein was right. And this democracy is now taking root.

The US senate this week voted to ban waterboarding – an interrogation tactic which simulates drowning.

The president said he would veto the bill and claimed the families of victims of the July 7 terror attacks in London would understand his position in using the method to extract information that could save lives.

On Guantanamo Boy, he said he would "like it to be empty" but he was "comfortable with recognising this is still a dangerous world". Asked by the BBC's Matt Frei whether he could claim America still occupied the moral high ground, Mr Bush replied: "Absolutely."

As for Zimbabwe, Mr Bush said the way to stop the crisis was to "speak to the conscience of the world" and urged South Africa to play a greater role in tackling Robert Mugabe.

Mr Bush's also commented on the growing pressure for an international boycott of the Olympics because of China's economic and diplomatic support for the Sudanese government held responsible for the situation in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been killed and a further 2.5 million forced from their homes.

He said he would attend the Games this summer, saying: "I view the Olympics as a sporting event."

And he dismissed the protesters calling for an boycott as "the Dalai Lama crowd, you've got the global warming folks, you've got Darfur," a remark which later drew an angry response from Tory MEP Edward McMillan-Scott.

He said: "I think it's extremely disappointing that George Bush should dismiss these people's concerns – especially the people of Tibet."

Olympics minister Tessa Jowell also yesterday attacked calls for a boycott over Darfur saying it would not serve any purpose and would be "a great pity".

Aspects of Chinese policy were "wholly unacceptable", she continued, but the Games had been awarded to China nevertheless.

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday it was time for Prime Minister Gordon Brown to show "bold and decisive leadership" over Darfur and said Mr Brown seemed to have "forgotten" his pledge to put the troubled Sudanese province at the top of his foreign affairs agenda.

Mr Hague wrote: "We are not advocating a boycott of the Olympics, or using sport as a political weapon, but China – more than any other major power – could make a change."
“If you strike at,imprison,or kill us,out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you,and perhaps,raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”-James Connolly 1909


DARK HALF-END GAME

Offline Sub-X

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,828
  • FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real...
Re: Bush claims US still holds moral high ground.
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2008, 09:10:30 pm »
“If you strike at,imprison,or kill us,out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you,and perhaps,raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”-James Connolly 1909


DARK HALF-END GAME

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
BUSH, A funny kind of Christian !!
« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2008, 09:41:50 am »
A funny kind of Christian

His thirst for scapegoats shows how poorly George Bush understands the meaning of Easter


Giles Fraser The Guardian, Saturday March 22 2008


 Somewhere in the Middle East, Jesus Christ is strapped to a bench, his head wrapped in clingfilm. He furiously sucks against the plastic. A hole is pierced, but only so that a filthy rag can be stuffed back into his mouth. He is turned upside down and water slowly poured into the rag. The torturer whispers religious abuse. If you are God, save yourself you f**king idiot. Fighting to pull in oxygen through the increasingly saturated rag, his lungs start to fill up with water. Someone punches him in the stomach.

Perhaps this is how we ought to be re-telling the story of Christ's passion. For ever since the cross became a piece of jewellery, it has been drained of its power to sicken. Even before this the Romans had taken their hated instrument of torture and turned it into the logo of a new religion. Few makeovers can have been so historically significant. The very secular cross was transformed into a sort of club badge for Christians, something to be proud of.

Two weeks ago, the most powerful Christian in the world vetoed a bill that would have made it illegal for the CIA to use waterboarding on detainees. "We need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," said George Bush in a passable impersonation of Pontius Pilate. "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe."

Throughout his time in office, the president has frequently been photographed in front of the cross. Yet as his support for torture demonstrates, he has understood little of its meaning. For the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is supremely a moral story about God's identification with victims.

The French anthropologist René Girard is the modern voice that has done most to explain the nature of this moral change. Human societies, he argues, are often held together by scapegoating. From the playground to the boardroom, we pick on the weak, the weird or the different as a way of securing communal solidarity. At times of tension or division, there is nothing quite as uniting as the "discovery" of someone to blame - often someone perfectly innocent. For generations of Europeans, the Jews were cast in the role; in the same way women have been accused of being witches, homosexuals derided as unnatural, and Muslims dismissed as terrorists.

The crucifixion turns this world on its head. For it is the story of a God who deliberately takes the place of the despised and rejected so as to expose the moral degeneracy of a society that purchases its own togetherness at the cost of innocent suffering. The new society he called forth - something he dubbed the kingdom of God - was to be a society without scapegoating, without the blood of the victim. The task of all Christians is to further this kingdom, "on earth as it is in heaven".

Yet, for all his years in office, it is hard to think that President Bush has done anything much to make this kingdom more of a reality. Instead he has given us rendition, so-called specialised interrogation procedures, and the blood of many thousand innocent Iraqis. Given all this, what can it possibly mean for George Bush to call himself a Christian?

Easter is not all about going to heaven. Still less some nasty evangelical death cult where a blood sacrifice must be paid to appease an angry God. The crucifixion reveals human death-dealing at its worst. In contrast, the resurrection offers a new start, the foundation of a very different sort of community that refuses the logic of scapegoating. The kingdom is a place of shocking, almost amoral, inclusion. All are welcome, especially the rejected. At least, that's the theory. Unfortunately, very few of us Christians are any good at it.

· Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney [email protected]

Offline pogolina

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: BUSH, A funny kind of Christian !!
« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2008, 11:21:52 am »
http://www.tmz.com/
scroll down to bush and bunny pic..notice anything about the bunny's hand?

Offline kairosan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Jesus love everybody.
    • Kairoworld
Re: BUSH, A funny kind of Christian !!
« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2008, 11:28:52 am »
well Bush is apart of The Boheminion Grove which in part isn't very Christian....... :(



God Bless

Offline own

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Who says Bush is a bad President?
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2008, 11:54:17 am »
Who says Bush is a bad President?

In my opinion, George W. Bush is the greatest President of all time. People bash him all the time, but really, he's only made a few mistakes.

    * He failed to protect America against the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
    * He started two illegal wars based on false intelligence, despite his election promise of a "humble foreign policy".
    * When subtly building up the Iraq war, he said, "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden", exploiting his reputation for stuttering in speeches.
    * He turned America's trade surplus into a $10 trillion dollar deficit, the highest of all-time.
    * He devalued the dollar by over 200%.
    * He destroyed America's reputation overseas.
    * He failed to protect the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
    * He played to the religious zealots by claiming "God told me to go fight those terrorists".
    * He said that the constitution is just "a god damn piece of paper".
    * He claimed that failing to stop the threat of Iran might lead to World War III.
    * He signed the Patriot Act, overwriting one of the core rights outlined in the constitution: the right to a fair trial. This has essentially legalised torture in Guantanamo Bay, such as water boarding.
    * He signed an act in 2006 giving him dictator power and the ability to declare Martial Law in the event of any national crisis.

And sure, on top of all of this, he can barely complete a sentence and has been classed by his former university students and teachers as a habitual liar, who would say something and then 30 seconds later claim it never happened --- but so what? He's George Dubya Bush and he's a reaaaaal Texas cowboiaa. There's no way he got into the Presidency because of his father's connections. There's no way he got into Harvard only because of his father's connections. George Bush is a real American. He should get a third term in my opinion.



Offline Ponce

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
Re: Who says Bush is a bad President?
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2008, 12:30:46 pm »
Bush was not chosen by the people therefore he is not a president.......... before the nex elections (specially now that Obama will be the winner) there will be another "terrorist" attack and Bush will become King George the first.
"If you don't hold it, you don't own it"... Ponce

"To be ready is not"... Ponce

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
Re: Who says Bush is a bad President?
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2008, 01:04:17 pm »
Bush was not chosen by the people therefore he is not a president.......... before the nex elections (specially now that Obama will be the winner) there will be another "terrorist" attack and Bush will become King George the first.

That was going to be my point. I was going to say that Bush is definitely a terrible tyrannical dictator, but he is no president because he hasn't been granted that authority by the people. It's just a stolen position in the whitehouse covered with a mask looking like a president.

John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline Sub-X

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,828
  • FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real...
Re: Who says Bush is a bad President?
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2008, 01:06:49 pm »
As George Carlin says"Governer Bush,because thats the last elected position he held "  ;)
“If you strike at,imprison,or kill us,out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you,and perhaps,raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”-James Connolly 1909


DARK HALF-END GAME

Offline yanaar

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Freedom
    • Yanaar
Re: Who says Bush is a bad President?
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2008, 01:49:30 pm »
You mean this guy? 


                                                                   


"The man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace." 
Chaucer

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Bush Plays the Hitler Card by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #54 on: May 20, 2008, 07:35:56 am »
 

May 20, 2008

Bush Plays the Hitler Card
 
by Patrick J. Buchanan



"A little learning is a dangerous thing," wrote Alexander Pope.

Daily, our 43rd president testifies to Pope's point.

Addressing the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's birth, Bush said those who say we should negotiate with Iran or Hamas are like the fools who said we should negotiate with Adolf Hitler.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement."

Again, Bush has made a hash of history.

Appeasement is the name given to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich in September 1938. Rather than fight Germany in another great war – to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule they despised – he agreed to their peaceful transfer to German rule. With these Germans went the lands their ancestors had lived upon for centuries, German Bohemia, or the Sudetenland.

Chamberlain's negotiated deal with Hitler averted a European war – at the expense of the Czech nation. That was appeasement.

German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson's 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.

From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism, and terror.

In that same speech to the Knesset, Bush dismissed the idea we could ever successfully negotiate with Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before."

But did not Ronald Reagan's negotiations with the Evil Empire, as he rebuilt America's military might, bear fruit in a reversal of Moscow's imperial policy and an end to the Cold War?

Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the greatest mass murderer of them all, Mao Zedong, when Maoists were conducting a nationwide purge: the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Yet Nixon ended a quarter century of implacable U.S.-Chinese hostility. Was Nixon's trip to China useless?

Three years after Nikita Khrushchev drowned the Hungarian revolution in blood, Ike had him up to Camp David. John Kennedy ended the most dangerous confrontation of the Cold War, the Cuban missile crisis, by negotiating with that same Butcher of Budapest.

Were Ike, JFK, and Nixon all deluded fools? For the dictators they negotiated with – Khrushchev and Mao – were far greater mass murderers and enemies of America than is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Bush's father negotiated with Syria's Hafez al-Assad, the Butcher of Hama, and made him an American ally in the Gulf War.

Was President Bush's father a deluded fool?

The president's own diplomats negotiated an end to the nuclear program of Col. Gadhafi, who was responsible for the air massacre of American school kids over Lockerbie.

Bush's own diplomats are negotiating with Kim Jong-Il's North Korea, a state sponsor of terror. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is negotiating with Iranians in Baghdad. Egypt is negotiating on behalf of Israel with Hamas to retrieve a captured Israeli soldier. Are they all deluded fools?

Bush refused to talk to Yasser Arafat because he was a terrorist. But four Israeli prime ministers negotiated with Arafat. Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin shared a Nobel Prize with him. "Bibi" Netanyahu ceded Hebron to him. Ehud Olmert offered him 95 percent of the West Bank.

Were all four Israeli leaders deluded fools?

True, the Chamberlain-Hitler summit at Munich proved a disaster, as did the FDR-Churchill-Stalin summits at Tehran and Yalta, and the JFK-Khrushchev summit in Vienna. But JFK's diplomacy in the missile crisis may have averted a nuclear war. And Eisenhower, Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Reagan all met with foreign dictators with blood on their hands, without loss to America, and sometimes with impressive gains.

What has Bush's refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus, and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
 

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12868 

Offline jannerbob

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Bush Plays the Hitler Card by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #55 on: May 20, 2008, 11:05:07 am »
Poor old Chamberlain always gets the flak but there were other players in the Munich agreement like the French and Italians.Yes in hindsight Europe should have declared war on Germany then but who in their right mind wants war?except Bush that is.I watched Bush,s speech live and laughed my ass off at the most imbecilic speech i had ever heard.He used Hezbollah,Hamas and Al Qaeda in the same sentence like they are the same and not three separate entities with three different agendas.The positive for me is that Americans are now aware that the speech was moronic and have finally woken up to this mans bullshit en masse.

This man George W Bush comes from a family that came to prominence by backing and funding Hitler.The very fact he mentions Hitler whilst giving Olmert a blow job at the same time clearly marks him out as the most despicable American in history.The man is a laughing stock,the King of all Morons,a man who has lied so often that he no longer has any concept of what truth is.We lock our nuts up in padded cells,America let them become president.George W Bush has been a sad,whiskey sodden,depraved,sick and twisted man for quite some considerable time.In the Knesset he reached his ultimate low.So low he could crawl under the belly of a snake.Chamberlain gave away the Sutenland to the Germans,what part of another country do Iran want?.What so you mean they don,t.Talking to other countries is called diplomacy and without it the Cuban missile crisis would have been more than a crisis.Diplomacy is the first option,war is the last.Bush has got everything twisted back to front in his already twisted mind.Appeasement and diplomacy mean the same thing in George Bush,s world.If only he lived in the same world as the rest of us.

Offline Dan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • Change? YOU BE THE CHANGE! Don't HOPE others will
    • Wake Up People
Re: Bush Plays the Hitler Card by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #56 on: May 20, 2008, 11:32:28 am »
I am reading the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and I am now getting to this point in the book.  (Read about it in my blog; www.getinformedtoday.blogspot.com

Bush and Hitler are, to me, the same kind of delusional, power hungry, psycotic, ruler of the world wannabe.  Hitler conned his way, legally, into power and then through a series of well played cards, seized total control of Germany.  Bush conned his way into office, legally, and once there, through a series of not so well played cards, is stumbling to gain total control of this country. 

The similarities are astounding and should scream themselves at anyone who opens their mind to the obvious.

Dan
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state". - Claire Wolfe

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. -Rush Limbaugh

The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freeme

Offline birgit

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,500
  • A red pill a day- keeps NWO at bay
Re: Bush Plays the Hitler Card by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #57 on: May 20, 2008, 11:45:24 am »
The similarities are astounding and should scream themselves
at anyone who opens their mind to the obvious.
Dan

bush plays a fool pretty well.I think he has studied hitleristics  , and knew he had
to portray a bumbling nice christian look/act-a-like to carry it off.
Hitler said lucky for gubermint that the people do  not think.
And knowing that fact bush appeals to the majority of the non thinkers. :( >:( :P
TRUTH  is  INCONTROVERTIBLE

  Malice   may  attack it
Ignorance  may  deride it
     But in the  end...
             HERE  IT IS ! 
                      ~ unknown

Offline Mr Grinch

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,715
Re: Bush Plays the Hitler Card by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #58 on: May 20, 2008, 02:40:41 pm »
I am reading the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and I am now getting to this point in the book.  (Read about it in my blog; www.getinformedtoday.blogspot.com

Bush and Hitler are, to me, the same kind of delusional, power hungry, psycotic, ruler of the world wannabe.  Hitler conned his way, legally, into power and then through a series of well played cards, seized total control of Germany.  Bush conned his way into office, legally, and once there, through a series of not so well played cards, is stumbling to gain total control of this country. 

The similarities are astounding and should scream themselves at anyone who opens their mind to the obvious.

Dan


Good book...
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/23wuwbhgjouqj3snohnm.pdf
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/23wuwbhgjouqj3snohnm.pdf
The History Of Political Correctness or: Why have things gotten so crazy?

Common sense is not so common.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire

Offline telstar10

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Bush Plays the Hitler Card by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #59 on: May 20, 2008, 03:11:04 pm »
Well when you think about it, Bush is for the NWO as we all know, so he has no allegiance to the U.S. like Blair and Brown, they have jioned the Elite and that agenda and now only use their countries, so the country in turn owe them not ellegiance they have forfeited their right to be a citizen as they have the act of treason against them.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Former aide (Scott McClellan) : Bush should tell all on CIA leak
« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2008, 09:20:11 am »
Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak
By LAURIE KELLMAN – 21 hours ago
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jh7ElHY9QqjAH63ueSVISAEdH4kQD91DU5BO0

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday said President Bush has lost the public's trust by failing to be open about his administration's mistakes and backtracking on a promise to tell all about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday laid the blame for much of the public's mistrust of the White House firmly at President Bush's feet, saying he backtracked on a promise to open up about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."

The former White House press secretary suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his credibility on the Plame matter and his reasons for going to war in Iraq if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle."

The White House was dismissive of the event and McClellan himself.

"I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn't know, so I don't know if anyone should expect him to say anything new today," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

In his recently released book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," McClellan said he was instructed to tell what turned out to be lies about the role of senior White House officials in the leak of Plame's name.

Bush's spokesman from 2003-2006, McClellan said that former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff at the time, was not involved in the leak.

"I was reluctant to do it," McClellan said. "I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, 'Were you involved in this in any way?' And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not."

In fact, both Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove had discussed Plame's identity with reporters. Libby resigned from office the day he was indicted on charges of covering up the leak. Rove remained, eventually leaving office in August 2007. Rove has never been charged in the case.

Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters as retribution for criticism from her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, of Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Last July, Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time. "It was special treatment," McClellan said of the commutation.

McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee that he doesn't know if a crime was committed and does not believe that Bush knew about or directed the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."

Lingering public mistrust of the administration in the sunset of the president's second term comes from errors in Bush's justifications for the war and broken presidential promises, McClellan told the panel.

He said the White House "packaged" prewar intelligence to justify going to war.

"It's public record that they were ignoring caveats and ignoring contradictory intelligence," he said.

Bush also backtracked on his promise of accountability in the Plame matter, McClellan said.

The White House had said in 2003 that anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise in June 2004.

By July 2005, Bush qualified his position, saying he would fire anyone for leaking classified information if that person had "committed a crime." He then commuted Libby's sentence.

McClellan said the White House helped the Justice Department investigate the leak, but he knew of no internal White House probe to ferret out and fire the leaker.

"I certainly think that the president should have stuck by his word on the matter, and I certainly view the commutation as it was special treatment," McClellan said. "It does undermine our system of justice."

Republicans cast his testimony as old news. Ranking Republican Lamar Smith of Texas questioned the impartiality of McClellan's publisher and said that whatever McClellan had been instructed to say about the Plame affair was typical work of the White House press office.

"It should be of no surprise that there was spin in the White House Press Office," said Smith. "What White House has not had a communications operation that advocates for its policies? Any recent administration that did not try to promote its priorities should be cited for dereliction of duty."

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Former aide (Scott McClellan) : Bush should tell all on CIA leak
« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2008, 09:22:46 am »
McClellan: Bush must blame himself for mistrust


By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, June 20, 2008

 
(06-20) 22:56 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

If the nation doesn't trust the Bush White House, it's the president's and Dick Cheney's own fault, Bush's former spokesman told Congress Friday.

From life-and-death matters on down — the rationale for war, the leaking of classified information, Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend — the government's top two leaders undermined their credibility by "packaging" their version of the truth, former press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He described the loss of trust as self-inflicted, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Bush and his administration failed to open up about White House mistakes.

The focus of the panel's hearing was the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and McClellan said that was a good example of the administration damaging itself by backtracking on a pledge be upfront.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan said. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."

The White House dismissed Friday's hearing as unenlightening and McClellan, the president's former top spokesman, as uninformed. Republicans on the committee accused him of writing about sensitive matters to make money, a reference to his recent book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

"I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn't know, so I don't know if anyone should expect him to say anything new today," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Fratto, who is Bush's deputy press secretary, came to the White House after McClellan left, apparently in good standing, in April 2006.

McClellan, considered an ultimate Bush loyalist until the book came out, worked for Bush when the future president was Texas governor, jumped to his presidential campaign and then followed him to Washington when he won.

On Friday, McClellan returned repeatedly to his theme that Bush, Cheney and others in the administration had done great damage to themselves — and by extension to aides like McClellan — by being less than truthful on a range of official matters.

"This is a very secretive White House," McClellan said. "There's some things that they would prefer not to be talked about."

McClellan took aim at Bush's personal honesty when discussing the president's handling of allegations that he had long ago used cocaine.

In the book, McClellan recounts hearing Bush on the telephone telling a supporter that "I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not."

McClellan called that kind of response to sensitive questions by Bush and other politicians "essentially evasion" that for Bush later "transferred over to other issues" of policy.

"It tells something about his character," he maintained.

Committee Republicans said McClellan was the one with the credibility problem.

"Some would say that you included that sensational information about the alleged drug use and his denial not to promote bipartisanship and civility but rather to promote book sales," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.

McClellan made clear in the book and in person that he felt especially burned by the Plame matter.

He said that former White House chief of staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was not involved in the leak.

"I was reluctant to do it," McClellan said Friday. "I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, 'Were you involved in this in any way?' And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not."

In fact, both Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove had discussed Plame's identity with reporters.

State Department official Richard Armitage first revealed Plame's CIA identity to columnist Robert Novak, who used Rove as a confirming source for a 2003 article. Around that time Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson was criticizing Bush's march to war in Iraq.

Plame maintains the White House quietly revealed her position to reporters as retribution for criticism from her husband. McClellan told the panel he agreed.

Libby resigned from office the day he was indicted on charges of covering up the leak. He was later convicted, but last July Bush commuted his 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time. "It was special treatment," McClellan said of the commutation.

Rove left the White House last August. He has never been charged in the case.

McClellan told the House panel he doesn't know if a crime was committed and does not believe that Bush knew about or directed the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."

Fratto disputed the notion that the Plame issue concluded with Libby's conviction, freeing the White House to talk about it openly. He pointed out that she and Wilson are suing several administration officials.

"The White House has the consistent position that we would refrain from comment while there was ongoing litigation," Fratto said. "Scott must have forgotten the policy he repeatedly stated from the podium."

McClellan cited several other examples, some stemming from the Plame incident, of what he said was a lack of candor pervading the Bush administration.

The White House had said in 2003 and 2004 that anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed.

By July 2005, Bush qualified his position, saying he would fire anyone for leaking classified information if that person had "committed a crime."

When Cheney accidentally shot a friend during a hunting trip in 2006, McClellan initially quoted the owner of the ranch as saying that the injured man had been at fault for not letting Cheney know he was nearby. Cheney himself later said it was not his friend's fault.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/20/national/w070424D33.DTL


Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Former aide (Scott McClellan) : Bush should tell all on CIA leak
« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2008, 09:25:26 am »
McClellan: Cheney should testify about CIA leak


Story Highlights:

NEW: Cheney should testify about the leak of a CIA operative's name, McClellan says

"Suspicion" remains about Cheney's office in CIA leak affair, he says

He says president, vice president told him to say Libby not involved

McClellan says officials lied to him about the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney should testify before Congress about his role in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity, former White House spokesman Scott McClellan told members of the House Judiciary Committee on Friday.

"The vice president has information that has not been shared publicly," McClellan said in response to a question from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, about whom Congress should question in connection with the leaking of Valerie Plame Wilson's name to the media.

"You could go down the list: Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer ..." McClellan added, referring to President Bush's former political adviser and first White House spokesman.

McClellan said he does not think the president knew in advance about the Plame Wilson leak.

Earlier, he told the committee that suspicion still surrounds Cheney's office because of unanswered questions about the leak.

McClellan also also said he could not rule out that Cheney had ordered his former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to leak Plame Wilson's identity. A later investigation showed that Libby, in fact, had been involved in the leaking of the CIA operative's name.

The FBI and a federal grand jury later investigated the leaking of Plame Wilson's identity. No one was convicted for the actual leak, but Libby was later convicted of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice in 2007.

"I think that [special prosecutor] Patrick Fitzgerald stated it well when he talked about the cloud that was remaining over the vice president's office because of Scooter Libby's actions that led to his conviction on four counts, I guess," McClellan said Friday.

"But there's a lot of suspicion there because there are questions that have never been answered, despite the fact that we said at some point we would address these issues," he said.

"I do not think the president had any knowledge" of the revelation of Plame Wilson's identity, McClellan said. "In terms of the vice president, I do not know."

McClellan also testified that he was asked at the behest of Bush and Cheney to provide assurances to the media that Libby was not involved in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

"I was reluctant to do it, but ... I talked with [former White House chief of staff] Andy Card," McClellan said. He also talked to Libby.

Libby "assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not, meaning the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity to any reporters, and then I contacted reporters to let them know about that information," McClellan said. "But it was Andy Card that had directed me to do that, at the request of the president and vice president." Watch McClellan detail his talks with Libby »

McClellan said the White House is still concealing information about its role in the CIA leak affair.Watch McClellan say 'the American people deserve better' »

"This matter continues to be investigated by Congress because of what the White House has chosen to conceal from the public," McClellan said. "Despite assurances that the administration would discuss the matter once the special counsel had completed his work, the White House has sought to avoid public scrutiny and accountability.

"I do not know whether a crime was committed by any of the administration officials who revealed Valerie Plame's identity to reporters," he said. "Nor do I know if there was an attempt by any person or persons to engage in a cover-up during the investigation. I do know that it was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons."

Two senior administration officials say the White House decided not to invoke executive privilege to stop McClellan's testimony because "there's nothing new."

Members of the House Judiciary Committee believe that McClellan, who was the president's press secretary before leaving the White House in 2006, would be able to provide valuable insight into the leaking of Plame Wilson's name as well as a number of issues that the committee is investigating.

In his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," McClellan said he was specifically lied to about White House staff members' involvement in the leaking of Plame Wilson's identity -- including Rove and Libby -- in 2003. Read excerpts of McClellan's book »

"When I was knowingly misled but only learned that much later, that's really when I started to become disillusioned at the White House."

Libby was convicted of lying to investigators and a grand jury about his involvement in the CIA leak case. Bush commuted his sentence.

"I'm glad to share my views," McClellan said. "I think I've made them very clear in the book. ... Essentially, everything I know on that leak episode is written in the book -- what I was told by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

The committee is also looking into the use of prewar intelligence and whether politics was behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006.

As White House spokesman, McClellan defended Bush's policies during much of the war in Iraq, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the scandal that followed the leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

He said that the latter episode was a "defining moment that caused me to become dismayed and disillusioned with the way things were going in Washington, D.C."

McClellan's critics say he was not in a position to know details of the innermost workings of the White House, particularly as he was deputy press secretary for domestic affairs in the time before the Iraq war.

In his memoir, McClellan says the administration became mired in "propaganda" and political spin and played loose with the truth at times.

All AboutScott McClellan • The White House
 

 
 
 
Links referenced within this article

Watch McClellan detail his talks with Libby »
#cnnSTCVideo
Watch McClellan say 'the American people deserve better' »
#cnnSTCVideo
McClellan
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Scott_McClellan
White House
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/The_White_House
Read excerpts of McClellan's book »
#cnnSTCOther1
Scott McClellan
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Scott_McClellan
The White House
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/The_White_House

 

 
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/20/mcclellan.testimony 
 

Offline oyk152

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
Bush Replaced REX84 With New Martial Law ExecutiveOrder
« Reply #63 on: July 20, 2008, 08:04:08 pm »

New York is at Risk
Don't Be a Victim of the Next Natural Disaster - Get Info Now!
www.FloodSmart.Gov




In May 2007, Bush signed executive new orders NSDP51 and HSDP20 to replace REX84. Everything done in government is done for a reason, and these two new orders are no exception.

Bush Replaced REX84 With New Martial Law ExecutiveOrder
Ted Twietmeyer

Once In Control - Martial Law Will Stay

In May 2007, Bush signed executive new orders NSDP51 and HSDP20 to replace REX84. The older order REX84 was an older directive to establish martial law in the event of a national emergency. Everything done in government is done for a reason, and these two new orders are no exception.

These new directives surprised and alarmed many real conservatives and true patriots at the time. These two orders established that the White House administration would take over all local governments under a national state of emergency, instead of Homeland Security.

In May 2007, The Washington Post apparently saw nothing wrong with it and placed the story back on page 13 (a fitting unlucky number for it), according to a CSPAN television interview with well known author and writer Jerome Corsi:

Page 13 of Washington Post from May 2007 reports that Bush claims he will run the “Shadow Government”

http://dprogram.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/bush-replaced-rex84-with-new-martial-law-executiveorder/
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
The flesh is weak and the mind is strong, but torture the flesh and you destroy the mind.

Stone walls do not a prison make
Nor iron bars a cage
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage

Offline changedname

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,373
Re: Bush Replaced REX84 With New Martial Law ExecutiveOrder
« Reply #64 on: July 20, 2008, 08:18:14 pm »
All the draconion laws passed by our elected\stolen election officials and the signing of orders\laws by Bush (to coin Bush's phrase of the constitution) Is nothing more than a G**d*** piece of paper! So what if they have put some law down on paper as a means to contorl us .. It is only effective if we agree with it and allow it to be... right? We need to challenge all these laws that only serve to bring us under a dictatorship!

Offline oyk152

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
Re: Bush Replaced REX84 With New Martial Law ExecutiveOrder
« Reply #65 on: July 20, 2008, 08:25:31 pm »
Unfortunately we will bring this laws down.There is no doubt that we will win the battle there are to many like us who want' s to fight for freedom really freedom.But still it's amazing that Bush makes the laws and not the Congress anymore.There are not enough politicians with balls any more in this Congress and Senate.That's sed man.I had always in my mind as a small child American Cowboys fighting for There rights to live free,and now where are this cowboys?
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
The flesh is weak and the mind is strong, but torture the flesh and you destroy the mind.

Stone walls do not a prison make
Nor iron bars a cage
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Bush to leave a troubled legacy
« Reply #66 on: September 03, 2008, 06:20:24 am »
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
11:19 Mecca time, 08:19 GMT   
News Americas 
 
Bush to leave a troubled legacy 
 
 By Robert Winder in St Paul, Minnesota
 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/09/20089334344771155.html


The economy will be an issue for the 'Bush Legacy' bus during its nationwide 150-stop tour

Outside the Republican National Convention, a "Bush Legacy" bus tour has reached the city of St Paul, where the Republican National Convention is under way.

The bus, funded by a campaigning organisation from Washington DC, is travelling across the US to highlight once again some of the most unpopular policies introduced during George Bush's eight years as president.

The invasion of Iraq, the government's slow response to hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the struggling US economy all feature heavily on the touring exhibition, alongside concerns over the environment, workers rights and health care.

"Everywhere we go, we have hundreds of people who approach us to talk about how Bush's failed conservative policies have affected them," says Julie Blust the tour's press secretary.

But that view was not echoed inside the Xcel centre, where Bush, who made his last speech to a Republican National Convention as US leader on Tuesday via satellite, was given a warm reception by the crowd.

Bush's speech, made from the White House and broadcast on giant video screen, looked ahead to supporting John McCain's candidacy.

The only talk of legacy was reserved for his response to the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

"We live in a dangerous world," Bush told the convention, to cheers from the crowd.

"And we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001 - that to protect America, we must stay on the offence, stop attacks before they happen, and not wait to be hit again.

'Difficult choices'

 
Bush told the Xcel centre faithful that the US needed to 'stay on the offence' [AFP]

 

 
 
Speaking to Al Jazeera, former Republican administration officials echoed that view that Bush's security polices were his biggest success but acknowledged other areas may have suffered in consequence.

"I was there for six years of George Bush's administration. I remember on the day after 9/11 he went from a peacetime president to a wartime president," Dennis Hastert, the Republican former speaker of the US House of Representatives.

"In peacetime you're talking about healthcare, education real energy reform and that all had to be all put aside to make sure that he could protect the American people."

"And he did that, he made a commitment that we would not let that happen to this country again and he made good on it and I think that's how history will see George Bush and that will be his legacy."

Ed Rogers a former senior adviser to George HW Bush, president from 1988-1992 and the current president's father, agreed.

"There have been no attacks since 9-11," Rogers said, "and Bush himself has not gotten credit for some of the things he has done."

Rogers also said Bush should be credited for the way he has attempted to deal with the rising challenge of Iran.

Plummetting polls

But the legacy he has left the US and Republicans remains in question, even among some party loyalists.

The US leader faces some of the lowest approval ratings since polls began and John McCain, who was set to formally accept the nomination on Thursday, has held few public appearances with the current occupant of the White House.

The challenge for many at the convention this week is how to openly maintain their support for George Bush while still welcoming the changes McCain might bring.

And on the convention floor itself some delegates acknowledged that Bush faced a problem with his image.

"I think that Bush will be judged much more kindly in the future than he is now unfortunately," said Brant Bell a delegate from Tennessee.

"We're not going to know the outcome of Iraq for another 50 or 100 years and we don't know how it is going to play out."

Luis Alvaredo, a delegate from California, said that overall Bush had done a good job.

"He did exactly what he knew was going to be best for the country, despite knowing it would cost him his legacy in terms of foreign policy."

The US leader has, in public at least, the support of Republicans at the convention.

But it seems unlikely that many of them will be calling on George Bush to publicly campaign in their districts on a regular basis ahead of November's poll.
 
 
 Source: Al Jazeera 
 
 
 
 
 

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832
Re: Bush to leave a troubled legacy
« Reply #67 on: September 03, 2008, 10:58:06 am »

Bush is leaving a path to be followed.

McSain will be the looney to continue without much of a change.

Obamam, will spin his pablum, appear to be doing something, when in reality all will be the same. The Spingale of spin.

Two puppets, Fric and Frac.

Offline Dan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • Change? YOU BE THE CHANGE! Don't HOPE others will
    • Wake Up People
Re: Bush to leave a troubled legacy
« Reply #68 on: September 03, 2008, 11:03:30 am »
Bush is leaving a path to be followed.

McSain will be the looney to continue without much of a change.

Obamam, will spin his pablum, appear to be doing something, when in reality all will be the same. The Spingale of spin.

Two puppets, Fric and Frac.

I think Obama will be a sacrificial lamb to the "terror gods".  He picked Biden to be VP and he will inherate the world if anything happens to Obama.  It just so happens that his name comes up in any 9-11 investigation because he was the head of the Foreign Relations Committee that was meeting with the Pakastani ISI Chief.  Coincidence?  Probably not.

Dan
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state". - Claire Wolfe

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. -Rush Limbaugh

The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freeme

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Historians: Stop Bush/Cheney From Destroying Presidential Records
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2008, 02:56:28 pm »
Historians: Stop Bush/Cheney From Destroying Presidential Records

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008
http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/historians-stop-bushcheney-from-destroying-presidential-records/4588/

Thirty-two of the nation’s leading historians have sent letters to congressional leaders calling on them to stregthen the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The effort, led by the Center for American Progress Action Fund and joined by the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the National Coalition for History, notes that while the PRA requires the administration to preserve presidential records, “it fails to provide an effective means
of enforcing compliance with that requirement.” (View the letters here and here.)

This effort has taken on increased urgency as the Bush administration prepares to leave office and may be ready to expunge the record on its tenure. Bush has already repeatedly manipulated and rewritten open government laws in order to cover up his wrongdoings:

– The White House is “missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office.”

– In 2001, President Bush issued an executive order “allowing former presidents to review executive documents before they can be released.” Last year, however, a U.S. District Judge invalidated the order, ruling that former presidents would be able to “indefinitely” keep their documents secret.

– Bush plans to solicit contributions from foreign donors for his $200 million presidential library, but plans on keeping their identities secret.

CAPAF Senior Fellow Mark Agrast told ThinkProgress that although the “prospects for legislative action during the remainder of the 110th Congress are not promising, we felt it was important to lay down a marker for the next Congress and the incoming administration before this Congress adjourns.”

CREW and several historian organizations are also filing a separate lawsuit today, “asking a federal judge to declare that Cheney’s records are covered by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and cannot be destroyed, taken or withheld without proper review.”

Agrast has more here.  Source :

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/presidential_records_act.html

Offline EchelonMonitor

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,934
    • Infowars Ning Network--upload your photos for posting in the forum
Re: Historians: Stop Bush/Cheney From Destroying Presidential Records
« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2008, 04:03:08 pm »
Watchdog group sues Cheney over records
By PETE YOST – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A watchdog group sued Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday, seeking a court order that he comply with the Presidential Records Act.

The group that sued is concerned that Cheney will argue that his records are not subject to the post-Watergate law aimed at safeguarding White House records for eventual release to the public.

The lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stems from Cheney's position that his office is not part of the executive branch of government.

A spokesman for Cheney, Jamie Hennigan, said the office of the vice president follows the Presidential Records Act and will continue to follow the requirements of the law. He said that includes turning over vice presidential records to the National Archives at the end of the term.

"Given the unlawful policies and directives of the defendants, there is an imminent threat that even before the end of this administration, Vice President Cheney and the OVP will destroy, transfer, or otherwise dispose of many of the vice president's records under the theory they are personal records and therefore not covered" by the law, the lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit details Bush administration actions that raise questions over whether the White House will turn over records created by Cheney and his staff to the National Archives in January.

President Bush issued an order in 2001 saying that the Presidential Records Act applies to the "executive records" of the vice president.

In 2003, Cheney asserted that the office of the vice president is not an entity within the executive branch.

On four occasions, the vice president's office has refused to comply with an Ethics in Government Act requirement that all executive branch agencies file reports on any privately paid travel. Separately, the vice president's office has refused to submit its staff list to Congress.

Two months ago, Cheney chief of staff David Addington told Congress the vice president belongs to neither the executive nor legislative branch of government, but rather is attached by the Constitution to Congress. The vice president presides over the Senate.

CREW also is suing the National Archives, which said recently that legislative records of the vice president subject to the Presidential Records Act are the vice president's personal records.

Others joining CREW in the lawsuit are two noted historians and three organizations of historians and archivists.

The lawsuit is before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of President Clinton.

Separately, 32 historians wrote congressional leaders saying that the Presidential Records Act should be strengthened to include some kind of enforcement mechanism for violations. The historians cited the White House e-mail controversy involving millions of apparently missing emails.

The White House is missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office, according to an internal White House draft document obtained by The Associated Press.


Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Historians: Stop Bush/Cheney From Destroying Presidential Records
« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2008, 04:09:34 pm »



   From what we know about Bush?Cheney,  they will do what the damn well want to do,  law or no law!
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage
« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2008, 05:58:52 am »
Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage

The bailout has been designed to keep stealing from the Treasury for years to come.


By Naomi Klein, The Nation
Posted on October 31, 2008, Printed on October 31, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/

In the final days of the election, many Republicans seem to have given up the fight for power. But that doesn't mean they are relaxing. If you want to see real Republican elbow grease, check out the energy going into chucking great chunks of the $700 billion bailout out the door. At a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, Republican Senator Bob Corker was fixated on this task, and with a clear deadline in mind: inauguration. "How much of it do you think may be actually spent by January 20 or so?" Corker asked Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old former banker in charge of the bailout.

When European colonialists realized that they had no choice but to hand over power to the indigenous citizens, they would often turn their attention to stripping the local treasury of its gold and grabbing valuable livestock. If they were really nasty, like the Portuguese in Mozambique in the mid-1970s, they poured concrete down the elevator shafts.

The Bush gang prefers bureaucratic instruments: "distressed asset" auctions and the "equity purchase program." But make no mistake: the goal is the same as it was for the defeated Portuguese -- a final frantic looting of the public wealth before they hand over the keys to the safe.

How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have governed the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush administration announced it would be injecting $250 billion into America's banks in exchange for equity, the plan was widely referred to as "partial nationalization" -- a radical measure required to get the banks lending again. In fact, there has been no nationalization, partial or otherwise. Taxpayers have gained no meaningful control, which is why the banks can spend their windfall as they wish (on bonuses, mergers, savings...) and the government is reduced to pleading that they use a portion of it for loans.

What, then, is the real purpose of the bailout? I fear it is something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business -- that this bailout has been designed to keep pillaging the Treasury for years to come. Remember, the main concern among big market players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but their battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in the banks' honesty, and with good reason. This is where Treasury's equity pays off big time.

By purchasing stakes in these institutions, Treasury is sending a signal to the market that they are a safe bet. Why safe? Because the government won't be able to afford to let them fail. If these companies get themselves into trouble, investors can assume that the government will keep finding more cash, since allowing them to go down would mean losing its initial equity investments (just look at AIG). That tethering of the public interest to private companies is the real purpose of the bailout plan: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is handing all the companies that are admitted to the program -- a number potentially in the thousands -- an implicit Treasury Department guarantee. To skittish investors looking for safe places to park their money, these equity deals will be even more comforting than a Triple-A rating from Moody's.

Insurance like that is priceless. But for the banks, the best part is that the government is paying them -- in some cases billions of dollars -- to accept its seal of approval. For taxpayers, on the other hand, this entire plan is extremely risky, and may well cost significantly more than Paulson's original idea of buying up $700 billion in toxic debts. Now taxpayers aren't just on the hook for the debts but, arguably, for the fate of every corporation that sells them equity.

Interestingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both enjoyed this kind of unspoken guarantee. For decades the market understood that, since these private players were enmeshed with the government, Uncle Sam would always save the day. It was the worst of all worlds. Not only were profits privatized while risks were socialized but the implicit government backing created powerful incentives for reckless investments.

Now, with the new equity purchase program, Paulson has taken the discredited Fannie and Freddie model and applied it to a huge swath of the private banking industry. And once again, there is no reason to shy away from risky bets -- especially since Treasury has not required the banks to give up high-risk financial instruments in exchange for taxpayer dollars.

To further boost confidence, the federal government has also unveiled unlimited public guarantees for many bank deposit accounts. Oh, and as if this wasn't enough, Treasury has been encouraging the banks to merge with one another, ensuring that the only institutions left standing will be "too big to fail." In three different ways, the market is being told loud and clear that Washington will not allow the country's financial institutions to bear the consequences of their behavior. This may well be Bush's most creative innovation: no-risk capitalism.

There is a glimmer of hope. In answer to Senator Corker's question, Treasury is indeed having trouble dispersing the bailout funds. It has requested about $350 billion of the $700 billion, but most of this hasn't yet made it out the door. Meanwhile, every day it becomes clearer that the bailout was sold on false pretenses. It was never about getting loans flowing. It was always about turning the state into a giant insurance agency for Wall Street -- a safety net for the people who need it least, subsidized by the people who need it most.

This grotesque duplicity is an opportunity. Whoever wins the election on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It can be used to call for a freeze on the dispersal of bailout funds -- not after the inauguration, but right away. All deals should be renegotiated immediately, this time with the public getting the guarantees.

It is risky, of course, to interrupt the bailout. The market won't like it. Nothing could be riskier, however, than allowing the Bush gang their parting gift to big business -- the gift that will keep on taking.

Naomi Klein's latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

© 2008 The Nation All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/

Offline tritonman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
Re: Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage
« Reply #73 on: October 31, 2008, 06:30:03 am »
But Naomi, you somehow forgot to mention that as is the case with most of bushies crimes he got full complience from the democrats and republicans alike.  But what makes this crime extra horrible is the fact that even the supporters of both parties were not their to cheer them on.  Now the repubs and dems just get more brazen about it and add more money too the theft and are considering adding more yet..  and still some will vote them back in. Hell too make it that much worse, one of the two senators and I use that term litely here will take over the dictatorship that they both helped create for  bush... 

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage
« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2008, 06:49:01 am »
The bailout was a Democratic spearheaded plan.

Look at the votes and the speeches (Dems voted for this treasonous NWO World Bank crap 2-1 over GOP).  Bush has been outed as a complete socialist that hijacked the GOP (like his daddy did) on behalf of the CFR/Bilderberg.

The dem party is no different now that people like Kucinich and Kaptur are sidelined so that Federal Reserve puppets like Pelosi and Obama take center stage.

The war would have been over in 2006 if Pelosi would have obeyed her oath of office. There would be no MCA, FISA BS, Bailout, extention of state of emergency if Pelosi just obeyed her oath of office. 

We already know Bush and Cheney are complete war criminals and traitors to the people of the US.  But who prevented the impeachment of these traitors? 

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline stangrof

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,402
    • http://www.ipernity.com/home/stangrof
Re: Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage
« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2008, 06:58:11 am »
Naomi Klein or wolf, same propaganda, all is bush fault and i say again that as soon as obama will be in office , we won't hear of them anymore.
Bye
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
Oscar Wild
twitter :https://twitter.com/stangrof

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832
Re: Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage
« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2008, 04:56:57 pm »
Bush, Cheny, they are bad enough, just hearing their names is bad enough.

But I have to admit, this Pelosi had me buffaloed, How the f**¨$k could a woman, with children and granchidren pardon these creatures, especialy so after she had condemed them, after she decieved us into beleiving she would be constitituional bound.

I Must be living in another era mentally. Maternal instincts were supposedly much deeper with mothers. More awareness that wars are a ton of shist, lakes of young mens blood and bodeis in the million mark do not paint a maternal image.

Well, live and learn, she is a creature with a womb, thats it, she drips in lies and deceptions. She may enjoy her bloodline, but friends she doesn't give one twit about ours, nor the infants and children being slaughter in this ongoing genocide. We were decieved by this thing, I can't bring myself to call her human. TREASON, she is a traitor. She makes Benidict Arnold appear a f&¨%¨%*n muppet.

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,842
Tell Bush to pardon Border Patrol Agents
« Reply #77 on: December 18, 2008, 05:41:37 pm »
Please contact President George W. Bush and request that, as one of his last acts as president, he pardon Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. They were each sentenced, in an outrageous miscarriage of justice, to prison for more than 10 years for trying to do their job of protecting our borders. Their conviction sent a chilling and demoralizing message to all Border Patrol agents, one that undermines border security at a critical time when it needs to be incontrovertibly strengthened, not merely offered lip service or Trojan horse measures that actually undermine it further.

President Bush should not turn his back on pardoning two dedicated Border Patrol agents, one of whom, Ignacio Ramos, had even been a nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year. Considering the extraordinary groundswell by American people on behalf of Ramos and Compean, the president’s silence on the matter is deafening! ...


http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=12274066

http://www.grassfire.org/12142/offer.asp?Ref_ID=2013&CID=142&RID=15706921

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Tell Bush to pardon Border Patrol Agents
« Reply #78 on: December 18, 2008, 05:43:55 pm »



One of the worst things Bush did in his 8 years of hell.  The drug dealer is free and the border agents are in prison. 
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: Tell Bush to pardon Border Patrol Agents
« Reply #79 on: December 18, 2008, 06:44:16 pm »
I sent a fax about it to Bush through Numbers USA (www.numbersusa.com) I received a generic response email acknowledging receipt.  LOL

It's a crime that those two men are in prison.  If he doesn't pardon them, it will be a travesty.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson