I would have loved to see the Presiden'ts face after reading this....

[elizabethann]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060912/cm_thenation/15120539 (http://)

FROM YAHOO:
Keith Olbermann is without a doubt the best news anchor on television today. Two weeks ago, echoing the spirit of the legendary Edward R. Murrow, Olbermann took Donald Rumsfeld to task for comparing critics of the Iraq war to Nazi appeasers. Tonight, broadcasting live from above a desolate and still demolished Ground Zero, Olbermann delivered a stirring eight minute commentary indicting the Bush Administration's shameful and tragic response to 9/11. The entire speech is worth watching and reading, so I'm posting the full text below.


Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

[Lady's Human]

and Mr Olbermann, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, et al are absolute jackasses for not taking a day or two off.

There is NO excuse for turning a national Day of Mourning into a political event. :mad:

[Lady's Human]

Things that had to be done to make the Gettysburg Battlefield a national memorial:

Map it

Put up a monument.

job done.

Things that have to be done at ground zero:

Clear away hundreds of thousands of tons of debris

While doing the above, watch for remains, and separate the remains

soil stability studies, assessments of total damage to the NYC infrastructure

Repair said infrastructure

Engage in endless wrangling between NYC and the owner of the property (after all, RE in midtown manhattan is worth HUGE $$$$, unlike Gettysburg, which was farmland) over what was going to replace the twin towers.

endless wrangling between the above, the WTC survivors and families, and any and every organization with even a minor stake in ground zero over who was in charge

Legal battles over who's paying for what

ad nauseum.

Even after the construction of the replacement tower(s)? is begun, it will take years to complete.

[Edwina's Secretary]

and Mr Olbermann, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, et al are absolute jackasses for not taking a day or two off.

There is NO excuse for turning a national Day of Mourning into a political event. :mad:


psst....Hey LH....these guys aren't politicians.....GWB IS

[RICHARD]

psst....Hey LH....these guys aren't politicians.....GWB IS

But they do spew and lie like the big boys, eh? :mad:

[lizbud]

I've never seen proof that Bush actually does read. :D Well, maybe if
someone writes in down in BIG letters & rehearses him day & night, then
maybe he can parrot a few sentences.

Latest Bushism, I love it. :)

bushisms: The president's accidental wit and wisdom.

Bushism of the Day

By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006, at 5:29 PM ET
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

.

[mugsy]

Most politicians and journalists spin and spew with the best of them...You have to look at all sides to get the real story and even then it's hit or miss. Olberman is a former ESPN commentator anyway....'nuff said....

Liz, I think that maybe Laura, being a certified teacher in library science, probably reads the "big" words.... ;)

[Edwina's Secretary]

bushisms: The president's accidental wit and wisdom.

Bushism of the Day

By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006, at 5:29 PM ET
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

.

But how about in his speech the other night....helping each other in a time of crisis is "uniquely American??????

Ouch!

And that wasn't even accidental!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Right now we have more things to be concerned about than if our president reads or talks correctly. A lot of the countries not friendly to USA are meeting in Cuba. Iran is among them. Probably planning on who gets to blow us up first. :eek: :(

[Lady's Human]

ES, what I meant was that taking something apolitical, like a terrorist attack, and turning it into a soapbox for your own personal views is unacceptable.

It would be expected for the President to deliver a speech on the anniversary of Sept 11th. It's his job, and any president would have been crucified in the media (and rightfully so) for not marking the day with a speech of some sort.

I would also expect the pundits to stuff a sock in their mouths for a day or two, which they didn't. I heard Franken right after the prime time speech playing sound clips and repeating "that's just crap" over and over again, Olbermann's piece, Limbaugh, et al. There are times when you just need to shut the h**l up.

[Edwina's Secretary]

ES, what I meant was that taking something apolitical, like a terrorist attack, and turning it into a soapbox for your own personal views is unacceptable.

It would be expected for the President to deliver a speech on the anniversary of Sept 11th. It's his job, and any president would have been crucified in the media (and rightfully so) for not marking the day with a speech of some sort.

I would also expect the pundits to stuff a sock in their mouths for a day or two, which they didn't. I heard Franken right after the prime time speech playing sound clips and repeating "that's just crap" over and over again, Olbermann's piece, Limbaugh, et al. There are times when you just need to shut the h**l up.

So how did you fel about the VERY political nature of GW's speech?

[LilacDragon]

ES, what I meant was that taking something apolitical, like a terrorist attack, and turning it into a soapbox for your own personal views is unacceptable.

It would be expected for the President to deliver a speech on the anniversary of Sept 11th. It's his job, and any president would have been crucified in the media (and rightfully so) for not marking the day with a speech of some sort.

I would also expect the pundits to stuff a sock in their mouths for a day or two, which they didn't. I heard Franken right after the prime time speech playing sound clips and repeating "that's just crap" over and over again, Olbermann's piece, Limbaugh, et al. There are times when you just need to shut the h**l up.

Yes, it was very appropriate that he mark the occasion with a speech. What was inappropriate was that he turned it into yet another opprotunity to tell us what a great guy he is by saving the Iraqi's from Saddam.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Yes, it was very appropriate that he mark the occasion with a speech. What was inappropriate was that he turned it into yet another opprotunity to tell us what a great guy he is by saving the Iraqi's from Saddam.Strange, I don't remember him saying he was a great guy. I must have taken a bathroom break or something?

[Lady's Human]

The President, by nature of the job, is a politician. Any speech the President gives is going to be political in nature. Give it a rest for a couple days, then say whatever you want.

[lizbud]

Any speech the President gives is going to be political in nature. Give it a rest for a couple days, then say whatever you want.

You want a break from having to defend Bush? Well, I think a lot of folks
are tired of listening to the same old crap over and over, ad nauseam. I wish
he'd give his tired old ,stay the course messages, a rest too. :p

[Lady's Human]

No, I think everyone would appreciate a break from people politicizing everything.

The president could stand at the podium and state "the sky is blue" and the next three hours of airtime would be spent debating the issue and attacking the president for making such a stupid statement (Regardless of who is in office), with the requisite experts stating that the sky is actually not blue, it is pink, etc.

[Edwina's Secretary]

No, I think everyone would appreciate a break from people politicizing everything.

The president could stand at the podium and state "the sky is blue" and the next three hours of airtime would be spent debating the issue and attacking the president for making such a stupid statement (Regardless of who is in office), with the requisite experts stating that the sky is actually not blue, it is pink, etc.


must be something......uniquely American...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[LilacDragon]

Strange, I don't remember him saying he was a great guy. I must have taken a bathroom break or something?

Puleeze - every speech he gives any more is a tribute to himself and how he knows better then anyone how to run the world.

[Lady's Human]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/bush.transcript/index.html


How is this speech in ANY way self congratulatory? :confused:

[LilacDragon]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/bush.transcript/index.html


How is this speech in ANY way self congratulatory? :confused:

I'm sorry. You are right. At no point does he take personal credit for much of anything.

I see that he does go on a bit about removing Saddam and his threat from power. He mentions Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam hasn't ever been an express threat to us! We sold him weapons not all that long ago. And the first time we went into the Gulf was because he had sent troops into Kuwait - it had nothing to do with protecting America. And if he was such a threat, why didn't we take care of it while we were there the first time. At no time has he supported Al Qaeda - that would be Syria. Ah, but not only are Syrians the "friends" of the U.S. in general - Syrian officials are friends of the Bush family.

Sorry, but if we can consider impeaching a President for a stupid stain on a dress, why is it that a man who lies to Congress to follow a personal agenda that gets thousands of people killed is allowed to stand at a podium and tell me how much God loves me?

[Lady's Human]

We didn't take care of Saddam Hussein the first time we were in Iraq because it was outside of the UN mandate for the operation, and we were invading with troops on line next to US troops who would have thought nothing of turning the turrets of their T-72s 90 degrees left or right and engaging US Forces (Syrian) had we crossed that line.

The Syrian Monarchy has never been a friend of the US, merely an ally of convenience during DS because Iraq was as much a threat to Syria as anyone else. Both sides play that game, and have for aeons, as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

The US sold Iraq conventional weapons during the early 1980's while they were fighting Iran as a counterbalance to Iranian power. During the 1970's we sold arms to Iran for the same reasons, so there was a counterweight to growing Iraqi power. Geopolitics is ugly, and makes for strange and temporary alliances.

[LilacDragon]

You know what - we are going to have to agree to disagree on the current administration. Apparently you like it - I do not.

[Lady's Human]

As discussed ad nauseum in other political threads, there are things that the present administration has done that I like, and there are things that the current administration has done that I don't like. That statement holds true for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 41 administrations, and holds true for my historical knowledge of all administrations. There are Democrats I would support, there are Republicans I would support. No administration is perfect.

[RICHARD]

Sorry, but if we can consider impeaching a President for a stupid stain on a dress, why is it that a man who lies to Congress to follow a personal agenda that gets thousands of people killed is allowed to stand at a podium and tell me how much God loves me?


Because you could get the stain out with Permatex Hand Cleaner with Lanoline and Aloe!


Think of all the little "swimmers" that Clinton and Monica killed, and then Billy lied about it. :eek: :confused: :mad:


Since we argue about the 'beginning of life' let's take a mircroscopic look at it., eh?


LH, the sky is GRAY!

That's what Al Gore said, and he's not the prez....

[Edwina's Secretary]

On September 11, 2001, a group of horrible men...most from Saudi Arabia, planned and executed a terrible attack on buildings in New York and Washington. A horrible, horrible tragedy in which nearly 3,000 innocent people were killed.

Shortly afterwards, the current administration made the decision to invade one of the many countries in the world ruled by a despicable dictator.

George Bush has acknowledge on many occasions that there was NOT any connection between the Iraqi government nor Saddam Hussein and the men who committed the horrible crime of 9/11.

George Bush's speech of 9/11/06 was mostly devoted to justifying his decision to invade Iraq, a war which has cost almost 3,000 American soldiers' lives and the lives of tens of thousands Iraqis -- to date.

And THAT is politicizing a national tragedy....and THAT is self-serving. And THAT is turning this speech into a soap box for the administration's unpopular war.

[Lady's Human]

The Pres can't win. If he mentions Iraq at all, the speech is all about justifying Iraq. If he doens't mention Iraq, he's avoiding the subject.

[LilacDragon]

The Pres can't win. If he mentions Iraq at all, the speech is all about justifying Iraq. If he doens't mention Iraq, he's avoiding the subject.


LOL!!

That probably wouldn't be a problem if he had had a legitimate reason to go in in the first place.

[Edwina's Secretary]

The Pres can't win.

And it has become painfully obvious he has no plan for winning in Iraq!

[mugsy]

You know what? At this point it doesn't matter if it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. The point is that we are there. We need to finish things up and bring them home.

And whether we like it or not, presidents are never right for everyone and are never going to make everyone happy. GW is disliked as much by the Democrats and Clinton was by the Republicans. Truth be told, neither one of them are truly fine upstanding members of the community. I would say that Clinton is much smarter than Bush and Bush is probably more "moral" than Clinton, but, I think both of them are idiots, but, then I think that most politicians are idiots simply because they are not in politics to better the country, they're in it for the glory and fame and to get themselves on TV...I'm so tired of politicians I can't stand it and I'm sick of the parties bad mouthing each other instead of working together to fix things.

Ok, I'm done now...

[Edwina's Secretary]

You know what? At this point it doesn't matter if it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. The point is that we are there. We need to finish things up and bring them home.



I think it does matter if it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. If we don't learn from the past we will be forced to repeat it.....

[momoffuzzyfaces]

The Pres can't win. If he mentions Iraq at all, the speech is all about justifying Iraq. If he doens't mention Iraq, he's avoiding the subject.
I've noticed that too. He can't win for losing.

Actually this is all Florida's fault!!! Because some of them messed up when they voted, Gore lost way back when and the Democrats have never gotten over it. Sometimes it seems like congress has been throwing a big temper tantrum for 6 years. :rolleyes:

By the way, I am an Independent. I don't want to be affliated with either party.

[Lady's Human]

Right or wrong won't be known until 20-30 years from now, when all of the classified info has been declassified, and when people are no longer looking at the war from the standpoint of getting re-elected. Many of the analyses done immediately after WW2 are so innaccurate they are amusing when compared with later studies.

[lizbud]

Right or wrong won't be known until 20-30 years from now, when all of the classified info has been declassified, and when people are no longer looking at the war from the standpoint of getting re-elected.

Oh, I don't think it will be near that long and I don't think the majority of
Americans are worried about getting themselves elected to anything.

A few weeks ago the big 3 (Bush, Cheney,& Rumsfeld) all went out to publicly push the fear message and insist that they had the right path to peace on earth all along. This was an interesting observation of Rummy's
speechs.

Seeing through Rummy's fantasy


Leonard Pitts, a syndicated columnist based in Washington:
McClatchy/Tribune newspapers

September 5, 2006

On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack that devastated a U.S.
naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. And the United States rose in
righteous fury, immediately declaring war on Thailand. Because, you know, it
was in the same part of the world as Japan and the people kind of
looked alike and besides, those Thais had been getting a little uppity and
were due for a smackdown.

Which is not the way it happened, of course, but if Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld wants to use World War II allusions to describe the
War on Terror, I submit that my fantasy comes a lot closer to the truth
than his. Rumsfeld's fantasy, if you missed it, was shared in a recent
speech before the American Legion in Salt Lake City. There, the Sec Def
said that critics of the war in Iraq--a designation that now includes
most Americans--are like those who thought they could avoid fighting by
negotiating with, or "appeasing," the Nazis in the days before World
War II.

The war's critics--again, that's the majority of us--need to crack a
history book, he thinks. "Once again, we face similar challenges in
efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. But some
seem not to have learned history's lessons."

Rumsfeld's rant was but the shrillest of several recent statements by
members of the federal regime--Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and the great and powerful President Bush
himself--in defense of the war in Iraq. Which must mean--hold on, let me
check my calendar--yep, there's an election coming.

The War on Terror has, after all, been this gang's get-out-of-jail-free
card for years. High gas prices, a hurricane fiasco, red ink, an
overall patina of ineptness overtopped by arrogance, and it's all forgotten
the moment they say Sept. 11, 2001. Small wonder they say it loudly now
with midterm elections looming and polls suggesting more Americans are
seeing through the president like Saran Wrap.

Indeed, there was an interesting exchange between Bush and a reporter
at a news conference last month. In the process of answering a question
about Iraq, Bush reflexively invoked Sept. 11, leading the reporter to
interrupt him.

"What did Iraq have to do with that?" the reporter asked.

"Nothing," Bush said irritably. The reporter somehow resisted saying,
"Then why did you bring it up?"

Or maybe that's self-evident. After Sept. 11, the nation needed some
Muslims to hit. And the Bush administration, already looking for a
pretext to attack Iraq--which once plotted the assassination of Bush's
father--gave us some.

Since then, the White House missed no opportunity to falsely conflate
Iraq with the terror war. The most recent example came last month when
anti-war candidate Ned Lamont defeated Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman
in the Democratic primary. Cheney said this rebuke of the war would
embolden "Al Qaeda types."

For the record: On Sept. 11, 2001, we were attacked by men directed
from a terrorist base in Afghanistan. We quickly knocked over Afghanistan
and just as quickly forgot about it, turning instead to the troublesome
dictatorship the president just knew in his gut was behind the carnage.
Now we find ourselves mired in a poorly defined, poorly designed
mission in a nation that, with all due respect to the presidential gut, had
no known connection to Sept. 11.

And with more than 22,000 U.S. casualties--meaning dead and
injured--and thousands more dead Iraqis, the nation finally begins to question
this pig-in-a-poke it has been sold. We're all for killing the terrorists.
Heck, after you kill them, dig them up and kill them some more. But
people are beginning to see that the only terrorism in Iraq is that which
we, by our presence, have helped create.

Rumsfeld calls that kind of talk appeasement. I call it understanding.

And the bad news for the secretary is, it's spreading.

[Lady's Human]

Most of the statements in the mass media about Iraq and Afghanistan are being made by people with an axe to grind in the elections, not unbiased observers.

It will be at a minimum 20 years before classified papers are de classified and made public, and until all the evidence is on the table, no accurate judgement can be made.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Hey Liz...how about Cheney on Meet the Press this last Sunday....even if we had known there were no WMD in Iraq, we still would have invaded..... Oh my!

signed....

an unbiased observer.....

(who could possibly be an unbaised observer...someone who didn't vote...someone in a coma?????)

[Lady's Human]

Last time I checked, journalists were supposed to adhere to professional ethics and be unbiased observers, but that's obviously been shot to hell.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Most of the statements in the mass media about Iraq and Afghanistan are being made by people with an axe to grind in the elections, not unbiased observers.

This refers to journalists? Or politicians? If journalists are reporting the statements of politicans.....who has the axe to grind and who is suppose to be unbiased?

Do those ethics books for journalist make a distinction between reporters and say....columnists? Are editorial writers required by this code of ethics to be unbiased?

[lizbud]

Hey Liz...how about Cheney on Meet the Press this last Sunday....even if we had known there were no WMD in Iraq, we still would have invaded..... Oh my!

signed....

an unbiased observer.....

(who could possibly be an unbaised observer...someone who didn't vote...someone in a coma?????)

I didn't watch Cheney on that show nor did I watch Bush's speech on
the anniversity of 9/11/01. I've actually heard the same crap that they
pass off as answers to serious questions so many times, heck I could
repeat them by heart.

[BOBS DAD]

As discussed ad nauseum in other political threads, there are things that the present administration has done that I like, and there are things that the current administration has done that I don't like. That statement holds true for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 41 administrations, and holds true for my historical knowledge of all administrations. There are Democrats I would support, there are Republicans I would support. No administration is perfect.

LH,

I find this statement of yours to be be disingenious at best and at worst, an insult to an intelligent person's intelligence!!!

I think you ARE A "HUGE" FAN of this President, and like many others who I am friends with (who are similarly inclined) - you most likely find it increasingly more difficult to defend him and his dreaded performance in your own mind, but cannot openly admit it!

I believe this because I feel that you find a caveat in everything he does and that your defense of this President and his administration always has a ring of "quit picking on them". Yet I suspect that when the media and the right wing commentators went after President Clinton for 8 years, you were all for it! Interestingly, when the economy was strong, the federal deficit beginning to decline, interest rates low and people were making a fortune in the stock market, pundits went after "that" President on a "Character" level. Yes... they attacked him "below the belt" so to speak.

But although I voted for him, and believe that as an administrator and leader of the country, he did a good job (and all in all - was "good" President), it was fair game to expose him for the Cad that he was. Sorry... but he exposed a weakness and a personal shortcoming with a lack of personal control regarding his sexual urges - and he paid the price for it.

I could not and would not defend him on this front and to this day I think less of him and feel sorry for him that his record, as a President, was tarnished in this way.

But "this President"!!!??? I also voted for him - once. But I am convinced by his performance that I made a mistake. I took his good ol' boy country charm for a real down to earth-i-ness - and not his being just "plain dumb". I think he has made a mess of things and I feel sorry for all Americans who will now pay the price for his ineptness and global blunders for generations.

History will undoubtedly view him as one of, if not "the worst" of all American Presidents!

[Lady's Human]

Bob's dad

I think you ARE A "HUGE" FAN of this President, and like many others who I am friends with (who are similarly inclined) - you most likely find it increasingly more difficult to defend him and his dreaded performance in your own mind, but cannot openly admit it!

You're free to think whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true.

[mugsy]

Is there a particular reason why this has become so venomous? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and should be respected for it, whether you agree with it or not. You know what they say about opinions.

As for the worst president of all time...I believe the history books will probably continue to rate Warren G. Harding as the worst in history...he was REALLY bad! He made Clinton look like a saint and Bush Jr. look like a genius! There are many worse, but, I'm certain there are many better. I do not defend the berating of any president the way the last 2 have been. The position itself demands at least the slightest bit of respect. I personally think Bush is a blooming idiot, but, then I wasn't all too thrilled with Clinton's performance either.

And like LH, I vote the person not the party. I lived with a dyed in the wool Democrat who voted straight ticket without regard of who was running for 37 years of my life and I swore I would never do that...and I haven't. I have never voted a straight ticket...ever...and I have voted since 1980.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I voted for Clinton. I voted for Gore. I voted for Bush jr.
I feel my vote for Clinton was my worse mistake!!!

Now, having said that: I do believe Bush is trying to do what HE feels is best for our country to keep us safe. He is in a situation where no matter what he does is going to be wrong for someone.

Lord help us when the next 9/11 happens, and as much as we don't want to think it, it will happen.

How do I know? Well for one reason, there are at this time 50 countries that hate the USA meeting in Cuba with another nation that hates us. A country only 90 miles from our coast. Believe me, they aren't planning a surprise tea party for us.

All parties need to stop bickering and start fighting to keep our country safe and build up a stronger national defense system.

Maybe we should look to the welfare of our own country before we try to help the rest of the world because like it or not, we aren't the mother of the world.

On 9/11 our world changed forever. We can't always be politically correct any more. We need leaders who are not afraid to stand up for our country.
By the way, when did Congress stop working FOR the good of our country and start working FOR their own interests? They should be ashamed of themselves. Their money won't do them a bit of good when we get over taken by another country, and don't for one second believe it can't happen. It's being planned by those who hate us even now.

Just my own opinions. Feel free to disagree, which I'm sure lots of you will, but it won't change my mind a bit.

[LilacDragon]

I find it interesting that some seem to think that a President who's only major problem was he couldn't keep his pants on - he did manage to balance the budget and put us in the black for the first time that I can remember - is some paragon of ineptitude while praising the current administration.

And yet a President who lied to get us into a war, sent troops to war with inferior equipment, uses religion as a reason to sign laws, has put us so far into debt that I doubt my great grandchildren will find relief, and has all but handed our country over to big business is made out to be such a great guy.

I have never voted for a Bush in my life and if Jeb gets elected President then I will seriously consider becoming a Canadian citizen.

And yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I have never voted for a Bush in my life and if Jeb gets elected President then I will seriously consider becoming a Canadian citizen.

And yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
Yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinions.

By the way, lots of people threatened to leave if Bush were elected. He was and they didn't. I wouldn't want you to go either.

[LilacDragon]

Yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinions.

By the way, lots of people threatened to leave if Bush were elected. He was and they didn't. I wouldn't want you to go either.

LOL! I probably wouldn't but I sure would think long and hard before I dismissed the idea. Being married to a military man, and being a veteran myself, the thought of leaving one's country is pretty serious.

[BOBS DAD]

I voted for Clinton. I voted for Gore. I voted for Bush jr.
I feel my vote for Clinton was my worse mistake!!!

Now, having said that: I do believe Bush is trying to do what HE feels is best for our country to keep us safe. He is in a situation where no matter what he does is going to be wrong for someone.

Lord help us when the next 9/11 happens, and as much as we don't want to think it, it will happen.

How do I know? Well for one reason, there are at this time 50 countries that hate the USA meeting in Cuba with another nation that hates us. A country only 90 miles from our coast. Believe me, they aren't planning a surprise tea party for us.


I am not sure I understand your reasoning Mom, but I am always willing to listen and consider another point of view.

Could you elaborate on why Clinton was by far your worst choice - minus the obvious tag of philanderer and womanizing? I did quite well under the Clinton administration - personally and with my business. My business took a nose dive under GWB from which we are still trying to recover (I can't really say that GW had any effect on that fact or the overall economy in Pgh - it could have very well merely been a timing/cyclic thing.) People say taxes are a big voters issue - yet, many of them, in fact - let me be frank, pretty much all of them can not "even tell me what they pay in taxes". DON'T HAVE A CLUE!!! It just comes out in their paychecks. Staunch Reublicans tell that they pay less under Republican Administrations and more under Democrats. Dems tell me they pay less under Democrats (because they are supposedly for the working man) and penalized more in the form of a higher pay/tax ratio under the Republicans. Sounds all pretty stereotypical doesn't it?

Fact is the truth lies somewhere in a clouded space in between. If you make less than 100,000.00 a year - then your tax base pretty much hasn't changed much - if at all - in the last 2 decades (that is the percentage of your annual gross paid to Federal income tax ). If you don't believe that, go back and check your income tax returns. It is very simple... just look at what you declared in earnings and see what you paid in FEDERAL income tax. Divide the larger number by the smaller and check it against who was in office. It may be a real eye opener for you.

Your savings as an under 100,000 (even as high as 150,000.00) taxpayer will come in the form of write offs and deductions. One of the biggest losses in deductions to the average working family came under the Reagan administration. It was in the form of the progressive scaling back of declarable personal interest charges (YES... this is your car, your credit cards and any other "personal" loans you may have) and it's eventual elimation. This was done in 4 years - 80%, 60, 40, 20 and GOODBYE. Kinda sneaky, cause most never saw it coming and since most people don't even understand their own tax return, they couldn't figure out why they were declaring more money earned while they did not get a raise and they were spending more on credit (credit cards).

But please check your returns. See if you pay any more or less under Clinton or Bush (by percentage of declared earnings). See if Bush "really" saved you any money or if Clinton was "really" robbing your wallet... and yes, don't forget to add that 300-500.00 dollars that you probably got back last year in the form of a tax break.

You say Clinton was your worst choice. I too voted for him. I say Bush - I also voted for him once. To me, their is no comparison. When you mention those those 50 or so countries who "hate us", why do you think they hate us??? Do you think Bush has done anything to improve those relations or exasperate them? Has he practiced any real diplomacy with any of our longtime allies (excluding England), or has he shown a Cowboylike mentality that suggested to the rest of the world - "WE DON'T NEED YOU"?

Being a strong defender of our country and standing up for our way of life doesn't mean that we need to become a rogue nation bent on forging democratic states in tribal countries. If you don't think that "whoever was in office" at the time of 911 would not have acted as swiftly and aggressively as Bush did to defend and retaliate against our aggressors, then you just aren't thinking it through. America and Americans would have stood for nothing less!!!!!!!!!! The standing President had a open invitation to attack and punish whomever was responsible and "all Americans" were standing right behind him - it was an easy if not solemn decision.

I guess I could ramble on endlessly, but I guess that my final point for now is please don't cast your vote in November with the notion that only one party or one political strategy has a lockhold on national defense - or the best way to implement it.

[BOBS DAD]

LOL! I probably wouldn't but I sure would think long and hard before I dismissed the idea. Being married to a military man, and being a veteran myself, the thought of leaving one's country is pretty serious.

I hadn't seen your quote and now after reading, I am glad that someone who is and was military personnel have made it known - and have doubted this President at the same time. Somehow, it has always been painted on 2 different canvasses.

If you think that this President and his administration have made a terrible mess of things, then you must be unpatriotic - and definitely not military material!!!

I have had Uncles and a father serve in all branches of the military with 3 of my Uncles dying in batlle (WWII and Korea). My cousins and brother served in Vietnam. Most (not all) are in agreement that we can do better than GWB as a nation and the leader of the free world!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Sorry but I do base my opinion on Clinton mainly on his womanizing while in office. If you can't trust a man to be true to his wife, you sure can't trust him to be true to his country, in my opinion, that is. Not being a man, I man have a slanted point of view on this.

As for taxes and the rest; I am so far below the poverty level I can't even see the top. Even when working 50 to 60 hours a week at an insurance co that was the best paying place to work in our town. My part of Kansas is not on the high pay end of the pay scale unless you are a CEO. Since being disabled, well, lets just say, it's not a walk in the park or happy sunsets!!! If it wasn't for my brother, I'd be homeless. I wouldn't even have a computer or Internet access.

My savings and retirement all vanished while fighting the government for my disability which I was entitled to after working for over 25 years. I started working when I was 16. I was disabled in 1995.

If you are lucky enough to have a savings and a comfortable income, I'm happy for you. My advise is to buy a home of your own because you sure won't be able to later in life if you have no nest egg, and save every cent you can. If you get to where you have to depend on Social security, you will have a very rough time of it. And it won't improve with the dinky little raises the government give you each year while giving themselfs fat $5000 or more a year raises. (and don't think they don't)

As to the other countries; we couldn't make some of them like us no matter what we do. Some of them just hate democracy. It's past that, they are after us and we need to protect our country. We can't wait until one of them launces a nuke that hits our country to be ready for it.

[LilacDragon]

I hadn't seen your quote and now after reading, I am glad that someone who is and was military personnel have made it known - and have doubted this President at the same time. Somehow, it has always been painted on 2 different canvasses.

If you think that this President and his administration have made a terrible mess of things, then you must be unpatriotic - and definitely not military material!!!

I have had Uncles and a father serve in all branches of the military with 3 of my Uncles dying in batlle (WWII and Korea). My cousins and brother served in Vietnam. Most (not all) are in agreement that we can do better than GWB as a nation and the leader of the free world!

I don't think that disagreeing with the administration makes one unpatriotic. I used my vote in the manner that I deemed right. That gives me the right to speak my mind about things that I disagree with so far as how my government does things. Our soldiers agree to defend our freedoms and they include oh, so many things. What would be unpatriotic would be if our soldiers walked away from their duty when they disagreed with the Commander in Chief. Loyalty to Country isn't about loyalty to a man - it is about loyalty to the regular people and a way of life.

My BIL was in Iraq a couple of years ago as a tank driver. He was pulled off his tank for some reason right before a mission and his tank was blown up, killing his entire crew including his best friend. He is currently retraining as Airborne. My husband just returned (he is National Guard) and was awarded a Purple Heart for an injury he recieved when his unit was fired upon in the Anbar Province.

My Grandfather's both served in WWII. My mother's father is buried in Belgium.

Oh, I was Air Force for several years, way back when I was young. :D

[BOBS DAD]

Lilac,

did you understand "my" post. I hope you did "not" think I was challenging you or your patriotism!!! Heavens NO - QUITE THE CONTRARY!!! I was commending you and saying that I was glad that someone like you and your family (someone with current military experience) was OK with expressing general disapproval of this administration and it's handling of many matters.

It adds a little credence to your position. It seems that many who are in complete support of GWB seem to suggest that those of us who are not - must be unpatriotic - or definitely not militray people. I just wanted to say that that is certainly not the case. That many of us have been in or have many family members involved in the military, and we can be and are patriotic. But most importantly, that we can be all of that - and still be allowed to disagree with the President's handling of our country's affairs.

And Mom...
Wow... I feel for you and your misfortunes. I know what it is like to be poor (I grew up in poverty with my family and know the pain of being looked down upon). But I can't yet understand your position on Clinton and/or Bush. I generally believe that if it were up to the GWB's of the world that you would be totally on your own. It would be up to you, your family and local charitable groups to look out for you. Forget that you worked for 25 years... that was then and this is now! GOVERNMENT needs to "get out of people's personal lives" is their mantra. ...and Oh Yeah, give people back their AK47's - cause that is important!!!

Ironically, it is the Bill Clinton's (with his own demons and vices) that believe in social programs and the payback deserved to honest, hardworking Americans who through no fault of their own, can no longer fend for themselves. As for the countries who hate us... your solution is to what... blow them up before they blow us up. Violence begets violence. Of course we need to be prudent and protect ourselves by every means imaginable, but again, GW has no unique answers to this age old dilemna.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

As for the countries who hate us... your solution is to what... blow them up before they blow us up. Violence begets violence. Of course we need to be prudent and protect ourselves by every means imaginable, but again, GW has no unique answers to this age old dilemna.
Now, I never said a word about blowing anyone up.
BUT we do need to have a stronger defense system in place where if we are being attacked, we can defend ourselves.

There used to be what was called "fail safe" where military planes were continually in the air monitoring the coasts. If there was a missile of any kind heading toward the US, they could notify NORAD (which has sense been closed down) and they could shoot the missile down. Maybe there needs to be more than one red button in the oval office. I don't know what the answer is but I do know sitting on our behinds and not doing anything is not the answer either.

As for GW, I don't agree with everything he has done. If fact when the Medicare drug cards came out, they were a nightmare. But now, the bugs are being worked out. I'm on 4 meds for my blood pressure that I couldn't afford to take without the card. So SOME things are working out right.
By the way: How can you think they want to get out of people's personal lives when they are the ones wanting to tap everyone's phone and email?) ;)

As for Clinton, I'm sorry but if a person has the morals of an alley cat, I just don't trust them. Of course, I may be biased because both men I were engaged to, cheated on me. I don't need a cheating President too!!!
I do admire Hillary for not kicking him to the curb like I would have done. If she runs, who knows? :)

[Edwina's Secretary]

MOFF..the non-aligned nations (as they call themselves....dating from the Cold War...) have been meeting around the world for decades. None of them have nukes.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

If they don't have already, North Korea and Iran are awfully close to it.

Meeting around the world is different than meeting 90 miles from our shores.

[Lady's Human]

The meeting of Non-aligned nations has at least three, possibly more nations that have either nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea), Chemical weapons (Syria, Iran) or advanced Nulear weapons research programs (Iran, South Africa(possible live nukes), Saudi Arabia).

NORAD still exists. The HQ's for NORAD is Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. While NORAD until recently did not have any ABM capability, NORAD was in charge of warnings and communications in case of a nuclear strike. NORAD no longer has a strong alert force (budget cuts), but is still very much an active multi-service US and Canadian organisation.

The email taps are an NSA program called ECHELON, which has been in existence for at least a decade. It is not a creation of the Bush administration. When it was implemented, there was much protest, but the protest went away until recently.

The hatred of the United States in the world is not a new phenomenon. Want to get elected in South America? Run on a platform of hatred for the US. This is a legacy from US meddling in SA affairs that started over 100 years ago. Any nation that has the power the US does is going to be hated, it doesn't matter whether the country acts like a lamb or a lion. France has long had mistrust for the US. The same goes for Germany, but with the specter of the USSR looming over the horizon it wasn't safe to openly voice that mistrust. While France is a titular member of NATO, it has not participated in NATO in any meaningful way in a long, long time.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

The hatred of the United States in the world is not a new phenomenon.
:eek: What? Something that can't be blamed on Bush? ;) :D

One thing about this Iraq situation, last I knew we still had a congress and they have to approve before we go into a country with the military. Or am I wrong there too? Seems it was both the senate and the house and both parties that gave the okey dokie to go in there. ?

[Edwina's Secretary]

The meeting of Non-aligned nations has at least three, possibly more nations that have either nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea), Chemical weapons (Syria, Iran) or advanced Nulear weapons research programs (Iran, South Africa(possible live nukes), Saudi Arabia).



And to think we invaded Iraq because we THOUGHT (opps!) they had WMD.....

I still don't believe whether they meet in Cuba or Outer Mongolia makes us any more or less at risk from the meeting!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I still don't believe whether they meet in Cuba or Outer Mongolia makes us any more or less at risk from the meeting!
Forgive me! I keep forgetting you youngsters who weren't here for the Cuban missile crisis in the 60s. If you lived through that, you would understand.

[Lady's Human]

AT least meeting in Havana we can keep a close eye on them, and maybe a few nights in Havana will losen them up a bit! :p

[RICHARD]

LH,

I find this statement of yours to be be disingenious at best and at worst, an insult to an intelligent person's intelligence!!!





I guess some of us wont have to worry... ;)

[BOBS DAD]

The meeting of Non-aligned nations has at least three, possibly more nations that have either nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea), Chemical weapons (Syria, Iran) or advanced Nulear weapons research programs (Iran, South Africa(possible live nukes), Saudi Arabia).

NORAD still exists. The HQ's for NORAD is Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. While NORAD until recently did not have any ABM capability, NORAD was in charge of warnings and communications in case of a nuclear strike. NORAD no longer has a strong alert force (budget cuts), but is still very much an active multi-service US and Canadian organisation.

The email taps are an NSA program called ECHELON, which has been in existence for at least a decade. It is not a creation of the Bush administration. When it was implemented, there was much protest, but the protest went away until recently.

The hatred of the United States in the world is not a new phenomenon. Want to get elected in South America? Run on a platform of hatred for the US. This is a legacy from US meddling in SA affairs that started over 100 years ago. Any nation that has the power the US does is going to be hated, it doesn't matter whether the country acts like a lamb or a lion. France has long had mistrust for the US. The same goes for Germany, but with the specter of the USSR looming over the horizon it wasn't safe to openly voice that mistrust. While France is a titular member of NATO, it has not participated in NATO in any meaningful way in a long, long time.

Very good post LH.

I learned somethings and got a better perspective on some of these issues!

Can't say I knew those things!!!

[BOBS DAD]

I guess some of us wont have to worry... ;)

Just getting caught up... been away for a few days. I like that quip... I am thinking that some might suggest I too don't need to be overly concerned!!!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Yep, we can all feel better with the president of Iran telling the UN that Bush is the Devil. Bush in HIS speech mentioned how the US looks forward to being friends with Iran some day!

Yep, I sure feel safer now!!! :p

[lizbud]

Yep, we can all feel better with the president of Iran telling the UN that Bush is the Devil. Bush in HIS speech mentioned how the US looks forward to being friends with Iran some day!

Yep, I sure feel safer now!!! :p


It was the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez ,that said that.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Strange, they showed the president of Iran. Must be a media booboo.
It doesn't make me feel any safer if it was the president of Venezuela.