PDA

View Full Version : More of Bush’s Lies



elder999
2nd July 2003, 13:56
Talk of some sort of national service on another thread reminded me of this, and then......

Anyone remember President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address?

No, not the one where he said Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, the one where he said he was going to expand AmeriCorps by 50%, from 50,000 to 75,000 positions, because giving all those young people a chance to work their way through college by doing good for the community is so noble and effective.


“USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.”
George Bush, 2002 State of the Union Address

Last week, Bush and Republicans in Congress cut AmeriCorps by 80%.

According to Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, Congress, under pressure, restored some of it, but it still leaves AmeriCorps with a 58% cut and tens of thousands of fewer participants out there teaching poor kids to read, helping old folks in nursing homes, setting up community gardens, and a thousand other good and useful tasks-many of which get young people started in careers in that kind of work.

Alter notes that restoring AmeriCorps to its current level would take $185 million, about one half of one percent of the president’s latest tax cut.

The more radical Republicans in Congress, apparently egged on by a Heritage Foundation study from April 2003, have decided AmeriCorps is (gasp, shudder) a jobs program.

What have these people got against national service?

FYI: If you put “George W. Bush” and “lies” into Google search, you get about 200,000 hits in 9/10ths of a second.

Tamdhu
2nd July 2003, 16:22
Ah yes, GWB, the Demon, shoveling old people and children into incinerators as he cackles with maniacle delight.

Thank heavens for Al Gore's Internet to save us from ourselves.

Save us, Hillary! Save us from the lies!

elder999
2nd July 2003, 16:27
Originally posted by Tamdhu
Ah yes, GWB, the Demon, shoveling old people and children into incinerators as he cackles with maniacle delight.

Thank heavens for Al Gore's Internet to save us from ourselves.

Save us, Hillary! Save us from the lies!

Sarcasm aside, did he or did he not lie? Do the opposite of what he proposed-no bragged about in his State of the Union address?

and it's "maniacal."

2nd July 2003, 16:51
Just out of curiosity, Aaron, do you ever talk on any martial arts related subjects, or are you a Bush Basher alone?

elder999
2nd July 2003, 16:52
Originally posted by Jeff Boler
Just out of curiosity, Aaron, do you ever talk on any martial arts related subjects, or are you a Bush Basher alone?

Just out of curiosity, Jeff, do you know how to use the "search function?"

That's a "yes," by the way......see Ms. Jaraqui's "Are you a Lounge Rat" thread.

And how is posting the truth "Bush Bashing?" I'm sure he stands behind his lies.

Shitoryu Dude
2nd July 2003, 17:29
You don't really expect any politician to be honest now do you?

The last honest politician was Barry Goldwater, and see where that got him.

:beer:

elder999
2nd July 2003, 17:37
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
You don't really expect any politician to be honest now do you?

The last honest politician was Barry Goldwater, and see where that got him.

:beer:

Yet there are those here who will insist that our President does not.

There are all sorts of lies. How were the American people served by this one?

Shitoryu Dude
2nd July 2003, 17:53
"Served" has many connotations - pick one that fits how you perceive it.

Politicians are typically all about self-interest. I'm sure it all makes sense if you look at from the perspective of the President.

:beer:

Jack B
2nd July 2003, 18:24
Didn't Roosevelt get us out of the Depression (in part) by massive public works projects? Dams, bridges, roads -- all of which are now permanent infrastructure assets that still strengthen the country. Was that a "jobs" program?

Oh yeah, Roosevelt was a Democrat, wasn't he. Nevermind.

Tamdhu
2nd July 2003, 18:34
and it's "maniacal."

Sarcasm paramount, thanks for the spelling edukation. It's nice to think that your posts can contain at least some informative content.

; )

Really, though. Did he lie or didn't he? Hmmm...good question. Too bad you weren't so curious about this sort of thing during the Clinton administration! That's beside the point, though, and I could rightfully be accused of waffling and misdirection. As a Republican, I must have the whereithal to face squarely any evidence that may indicate that my President of choice is, in fact, a red-faced blathering liar of dreadful proportions.

Let's see...

Here's the dreaded quote from the 2002 SOTU address, in all it's bare-faced deceitful glory:


Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.

Brrr...(shudder)...the aura of EVIL that positively RADIATES from that quote. I think I'm growing faint...

: ) Sorry! I digress again.

Even the most casual glance of the quote should tell you that he is not promising here to 'expand AmeriCorps by 50%, from 50,000 to 75,000 positions'. In fact, that concept, in any shape or form, does not occur anywhere in the 2002 State of the Union address, which is available here. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html) He is, of course, promising (or leveler heads would say 'proposing') expanding the 'USA Freedom Corps' by 200,000 new volunteers. It may be possible that he later, elsewhere, expanded this thought to express numbers applied to AmeriCorps in particular, but he does no such in his 2002 State of the Union Address. Someone else is lying, apparently, or is misguided or letting google do his thinking for him or whatever.

A google search, in fact, reveals a 'plethora' of documents, on all sides of the issue, misquoting the President as promising to 'expand AmeriCorps by 200,000.' Can't believe everything you google, I guess.

A critical google search, done by someone who might not be so tremendously eager to swallow without chewing each and every hysterical accusation of 'Bush is a liar' that comes along from the protest peanut gallery, shows that the 'expand AmeriCorp by 50-75,000' quote is attributable to Bush's 2004 budget request, the text of which is available in full here. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/budget.html)

Let's look at the 'USA Freedom Corps' which is what he's expressing support for in his State of the Union address. It's a parent organization for a number of sub-organizations including AmeriCorps, SeniorCorps (both of which were created by Bill Clinton), the Peace Corps (we all know and love) and the new, nefarious beastie that ConcernedActivists have already expressed bucketloads of fear, angst and loathing for, the CitizenCorps (Postal workers and such reporting suspicious activity, neighborhood watch programs, retired doctors acting as medical reservists and other deplorable evils that seek to grind our freedoms into dust).

I don't know, Elder, are you sure you want GWB to fulfill that promise? Are you REALLY sure?!

Or do you just want to moan, complain and make mountains out of mole-hills until mama Hillary can make it all better?

; )

I digress. Forgive me for indulging. So what, you ask, is the verdict? Did he lie or did he not?

What do you think?

Did Clinton or any other president get everything he asked for in his budget proposal? No? LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! (Whoops, someone might mistake that for a crude reference to a certain cigar which led him to tell certain LIES under a certain OATH, but nevermind that, it's all in the past, right? Except for that crotchety and conniving wife of his...oops! Is it still legal for me to refer to a woman in those terms? Did I just commit a Hate Crime?)

I mean really, is it fair to assume that anything Bush doesn't get in his 2004 budget proposal equates to a barefaced lie?

Is it 2004 yet?

Even if it was 2004?

Beuller?

Anyways, here's the offensive text from his 2004 Budget Proposal:


CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) provides service opportunities for more than 1.5 million Americans through programs such as AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps, also known as Senior Corps. CNCS is a part of the USA Freedom Corps Coordinating Council—the President’s initiative to engage Americans in domestic and international volunteer service. The 2004 Budget proposes $962 million, a $200 million, or 26 percent, increase above the level expected to be available when the Congress completes its work on the 2003 Budget. However, if the 2003 appropriation is higher than expected, the Administration will work with the Congress on the 2004 Budget to ensure additional resources are provided to support the President’s call to service. The request would support a target enrollment of 75,000 AmeriCorps members, strengthen homeland security efforts that utilize volunteers, and provide service opportunities for 585,000 seniors. The budget also includes support for about 6,800 AmeriCorps Volunteers in Service to America members to provide outreach and technical assistance to community and faith-based organizations.


Eek! He said faith-based! Run for your lives! It's the Spanish Inquisition!

Really though, there it is. A clear expression of support for a target enrollment of 75,000 AmeriCorps members among other homeland security (eek!) and service initiatives.

Even here it doesn't say 'increase by 75,000'. It says target enrollment (as in 'total') of 75,000. That's how I define the terms, anyways. Pundits of varying stripes will always differ, but it can not be said in any way that he is 'promising' to 'expand AmeriCorps' by 75,000.

In conclusion, I believe that I have exposed the accusation that Bush LIED in his 2002 State of the Union address by promising to 'expand AmeriCorps by 50%, from 50,000 to 75,000 positions' as utterly, outrightly, completely and totally FALSE.

Does ANYONE disagree? Please inform me if I have erred in this conclusion.

Regarding the degree to which the President has or has not acted in earnest to fulfill the goals stated in his 2004 Budget Request, this topic is totally open for discussion. Equally open for discussion is the degree of wisdom shown (or not) in Bush's offer of support for these programs.

An interesting article expressing concern over the President's support for programs like AmeriCorps is available here. (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bandow061702.asp)

But why discuss when all we really want to do is chant slogans, wave our arms and try to gain attention by convincing everyone that the sky is falling?

Starkjudo
2nd July 2003, 19:08
Originally posted by Jack B
Didn't Roosevelt get us out of the Depression (in part) by massive public works projects? Dams, bridges, roads -- all of which are now permanent infrastructure assets that still strengthen the country. Was that a "jobs" program?


There's no doubt that if the New Deal did nothing else, it increased the morale of the Average American by providing more jobs. But evidence also indicates that the depression continued until a period some time after the start of WW II.

Rob Thornton

Shitoryu Dude
2nd July 2003, 19:13
Roosevelt just started us on the way to socialism and government control of your lives. After all, you are too stupid to live it properly and have the correct thoughts and motivations. His wife was an out-and-out communist who took her orders from Moscow.

:beer:

Kimpatsu
3rd July 2003, 02:34
No, Harvey, she took her orders from ME! Long live the glorious Marxist revolution! (Groucho, not Karl.) :cool:

Iain
3rd July 2003, 04:38
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude

...
Politicians are typically all about self-interest. I'm sure it all makes sense if you look at from the perspective of the President.

:beer:

And that makes it OK? Politicians are as honest as the public forces them to be. If you take an active role in the government of your country, and make your elected officials accountable for their actions, they become honest. If you don't give a damn, they'll do whatever they see fit to. Bush is a patsy and a dolt of heretofore unknown proportions. He is mentally incapable of doing his job, and does whatever his advisors/ business associates/ lobby groups tell him to. He cannot now nor will he ever be able to govern in a democratic fashion as he is incapable of articulating views other than those fed to him by his senior counsel. He simply lacks the wit and will to gauge public reaction to impending legislation, and to assess the effect of said legislation on his constituents.

Al Gore was far from my favourite choice for the job, but at elast he knew how global and national politics functioned. He could have kept the wheels on the cart until a more suitable choice surfaced. George Bush is a dead weight and an impediment to democratic governance within the United States.

The only way to avoid mistakes like Bush Jr. is to actually give a damn about your country and its future.

Shitoryu Dude
3rd July 2003, 06:48
It doesn't make it OK, it just explains the actions of politicians.

Nearly all of them are corrupt. The vast majority of them that aren't soon get that way. Very, very rarely will you ever find a politician that isn't an outright evil sonofabitch that doesn't need to be taken out and summarily executed.

Most people won't get into politics because they have too much integrity and self-respect. What are you going to do, draft people into office?

:beer:

Iain
3rd July 2003, 10:59
Political corruption is due in large to the inactivity of the general populace. Politicians, just like everyone else, have careers to think about. Now, if their careers are best served by listening to and acting upon the interests and concerns of their constituents, that is what they will do. If, however, he can rely on reelection by a disinterested populace, he will look to other groups for advancement. This inevitably leads to a corporate (in the broader sense of the word) or partisan controlled system, hence the problem of corrupt government officials. if people were willing to take a an hour or two out of their busy days to engage in civic discourse and to act upon that discussion, we'd have an immeasurably more responsive, active, and honest government.

Bush isn't an out and out liar, I simply do not believe he has the wit to follow through on any of his numerous budget proposals. The vast amount of money that will inevitably be consumed by his expensive, excessive and ineffectual military excursions abroad will cut into whatever domestic spending he planned to do. He seems to have forgotten that his job is to run the US, not Iraq. Whatever domestic security concerns he has (and there are a great many, no doubt) should be dealt with in the most expedient and efficient manner possible. If the colonial era taught us nothing else, it was that the direct occupation of belligerent states is expensive and does not necessarily provide the best results. We beat the soviet union through an arduous and lengthy period of containment and de-escalation. It worked, and was much less wasteful of both capital and lives than all out war.

Bush is in danger of overextending his reach abroad and leaving his country to run itself into the dirt much like the English during their colonial days. The US faces the age old security dillema, and is in danger of bankrupting itself in an attempt to wage a conventional war against an enemy who is using non-conventional means. Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and the rest of the anti-western crowd are forcing the US to expend colossal amounts of military hardware whilst expending a fraction of that cost themselves. The math just doesn't add up. If this turns into a war of attrition, the US will inevitably bankrupt itself before the enemy does.

Mitch Saret
3rd July 2003, 20:05
Iain, just curious....you say that President Bush is a patsy, a dolt, and mentally incapable of doing his job. Where is your evidence to support this? You also say that he can do nothing but articulate the views of his senior counsel. My question to you is, what are those counselor's for? Every administration has themand they are usually hired because they have expetise in various areas know what the president wants to accomplish. Shouldn't he listen to them? AS for your latest, which oddly appeared as I was going to the add a post function, the same disinterested populace re-elected our last president as well. You also state that Mr. Gore knows how global and national politics funtion. In his eight years as VP I saw very little in his international actions. And most of what he did was in the vein of coddling those against us and putting us in situations such as we now have in regards to Osama bin Laden and North Korea.

Every point that you make towards President Bush could also be applied to President Clinton as well. And in the case of Iraq, his job currently is to see that the military does have a self governing institution installed. Some people think this can be done in a matter of weeks,or even months. That task alone will take several years. And that task, which is in fact, part of the war on terror, will make our country, and yours, a safer place. Direct Occupation of a belligerent state may not be the best method, but in the case of Iraq it may be the only method that will work. It seemed to do ok in Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Kimpatsu
4th July 2003, 01:23
Did you ever see the interview with Bush before he became president? He couldn't answer a single question correctly. He thought Pervaiz Musharraf's name was "general"! His syntax and mangled English imply lack of clarity in his thought processes, giving rise to the conclusion that he is indeed a dolt.

Iain
4th July 2003, 05:07
During the Allied occupation of Japan and Germany during the Post WW2 period, the US was, on averge, expending 140% of its GNP annually. It was the restructuring efforts that incurred the massive debt that currently saddles the US. The US can no longer afford to rack up those kinds of massive costs, as debt inflation already consumes a sizeable chunk of government liquid assets.

As for proof that that George Bush is functionally incapable of performing his job, one only needs to look at the supposed 'war on terrorism'. No only has his administration failed to capture either Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, they have clearly not made much progress into making inroads into either the Baath party resistance movement or Al Qaeda.

His pointless tax cut programme has as of right now failed to stimulate either the stock markets or the economy at large. He wants to simultaneously expand military spending, expand existing social programmes, and cut taxes. You can't do that. Money doesn't magically appear at the wave of Mr. Bush's hand.

Yes, the president should pay close attention to his senior counsel, but nobody voted for them, they voted for George Bush, ostensibly because they believed he was a capable politician. He should be able to act and think independently. Colin Powell doesn't have a democratic mandate (he should, but he doesn't).

Mitch Saret
4th July 2003, 05:35
Kimpatsu, Yes I saw the interview, several of them in fact. Mr. Bush not knowing the names of all the players didn't really bother me. The interviewer could have chosen from over a dozen people who weren't in the forefront at the time. As things change so do the players. As to his speech patterns, he speaks plainly, like most americans. My big beef in that context is his pronounciation of the word "nuclear." I can get past that. He speaks as well as FDR, Truman, and LBJ.

Iain, true, those were the beginnings of our debt load. And an over spending government, led for 40 years by the democrats, by the way, kept it increasing. We'll always have a debt until the government runs it's checkbook like we have to run ours. As to the war on terrorism....Al Qaeda has been functionally stopped. As has the Baath party in Iraq. Pockets of resistance? Sure, but nowhere near the organization they once had. Have we seen or heard from either bin Laden or Hussein? Well, that's debatable, but I say no. Is having them in custody necessary to accomplish the goal. No. Would it help? Sure, but again it's not needed. If you'll recall your history again, we did not have proof of Hitler's death for almost 5 years after victory was declared in Europe. By your standard, we couldn't have called WWII a success until 1950.

How long do you think this war on terror is going to take? A few months? I was, and still am, prepared for a few years.

Kimpatsu
4th July 2003, 06:35
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Kimpatsu, Yes I saw the interview, several of them in fact. Mr. Bush not knowing the names of all the players didn't really bother me.
How very American of you. ;) Can Bush even find Chechnya on a map? These were critical issues in 2000, and Bush couldn't answer a single question. Such lack of general knowledge is disheartening.

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
The interviewer could have chosen from over a dozen people who weren't in the forefront at the time. As things change so do the players.
These were major players at the time. Musharraf still is.

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
As to his speech patterns, he speaks plainly, like most americans. My big beef in that context is his pronounciation of the word "nuclear." I can get past that. He speaks as well as FDR, Truman, and LBJ.
That's not saying much for FDR, Truman, or LBJ, then. It's not his Texas twang that bothers me; it's his dyspraxia. Viz.:

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."

"Dick Cheney and I do not want this nation to be in a recession. We want anybody who can find work to be able to find work."

"I knew it might put him in an awkward position that we had a discussion before finality has finally happened in this presidential race."

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."

"I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure."
And the pièce de résistance:

"They misunderestimated me."
I think that says it all. Sloppy English is a result of sloppy thinking, unless Dub*ya's really an illegal immigrant who strove valiently to learn English as a second language and succeeded. Almost.

Sam
4th July 2003, 13:08
This is what happens when you type in weapons of mass destruction into google and hit "I'm feeling lucky"

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Mitch Saret
6th July 2003, 05:36
First, let me thank you for the complement....I am an American!

And yes, I know all about these quotes. What's the big deal? Not much different than his opponent. I don't have the quotes handy, But I am sure you are familiar with them. Al Gore stating he was the model for the Movie Love Story when it was later found out he was but a mere portion of what the director was writing about. He made it seem Like it WAS his and Tipper's life. He also created the internet, actually he was the head of a bi-partisan group that authorized the legislation, but we all knew that. The prvious president not sure of the definition of the word is....that even caused his own party to think twice, if but for a moment.

When I look at the quotes you bring up, as well as others like them I am still asking in this context, what's the big deal. I believe most people understood what he was trying to say. I do wish he were more eloquent in his speech patterns. He's not. He is what our government was intended to be....citizen leaders. In this case, a pretty plain spoken guy, but he is our president. President Clinton was, and is, very eloquent in his speaking, and when he needed support I supported him, and when I felt he was not worth supporting, I didn't support him and was not shy about saying why. The same holds true for me and President Bush.

I don't think sloppy english always stems from sloppy thinking. Thinking on your feet and doing it before an audience is not an easy task. Some of the world's greatest minds were not eloquent speakers. Please don't all of sudden think I am saying that President Bush is one of the world's great minds, I am not.

One other point, BTW. Earlier you mentioned that it was the president who was elected not his advisors. I would point out that we know our president, whomever he may be, relies heavily on his advisors. One of the things we elect is our belief that he will surround himself with the best available for the various areas required. No president,or prime minister, or whatever, of any country, can be an expert on every aspect of the job. You hire the experts and listen to them.

Kimpatsu
6th July 2003, 05:48
Thinking on your feet is a prerequisite for being a leader of anything, including the Boy Scouts. Bush's problem is his inability to grasp even basic concepts; his lack of intellectual curiosity is a major problem. His dyspraxia is clearly an example of sloppy thinking; note that although Einstein was a confusing lecturer, he was not lecturing in his mother tongue. And politicians are supposed to be orators.
What of Al Gore? He's an oafish (ex-) politician. He would still have been preferable to the current White House incumbent, however. Better yet would have been Ralph Nader. And best of all would be ME! :D
Interesting that you take lack of general knowledge to be a complement, Mitch. Would you take lack of prowess in any other spehere to be a complement as well? Unlike American minds, inquiring minds want to know... ;)

elder999
7th July 2003, 18:02
I almost forgot about this thread.

I see John Clayton's up to his usual defense. John, please note that I referenced Newsweek-no doubt, a liberal media mouthpiece.

Your issues with that particular "lie," notwithstanding, the fact is that our President has continually said one thing, and , fiscally done the complete opposite.
Here are several examples,and please note the dates. Some of these statements were made AFTER Bush had acted in the opposite way...


This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality…There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded.” – Egleston Children's Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 3/1/01

Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children’s hospitals.

Here's a lie that I find particularly onerous:


“We're dealing with first-time responders to make sure they've got what's needed to be able to respond. “ – Bush, 3/27/2002

Bush had been saying that he was proposing $3.5 billion in “new” money for first responders. However, his budget tried to cut more than $1 billion out of existing grants to local police/fire departments to fund this. Then, in August of 2002, Bush rejected $150 million for grants to state and local first responders. Bush’s decision prompted the President of the Firefighters Union to say, “President Bush, don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe.” The President of the Virginia firefighters association said, “The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity.”


“I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause.) I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.” – Bush at South Dakota Ethanol Plant 4/24/02

According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. [4/22/02]



Under the headline “Bush lauds Albuquerque woman for volunteerism” the AP reported on Bush’s visit to New Mexico to tout Lucy Salazar, a volunteer with the Even Start literacy program. “One of the things I try to do when I go into communities is herald soldiers in the armies of compassion, those souls who have heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, and have followed through on that call; Lucy Salazar is a retired federal government worker. She teaches reading skills to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children -- incredibly important…And oftentimes, citizens such as her never get the praise they deserve. Lucy, thank you for coming and representing thousands of people like you.” - Bush, 4/29/02


According to the Associated Press, Bush proposed “to slash funding 20 percent for the Even Start program, which offers tutoring to preschoolers and literacy and job training for their parents” – the very program he was touting in New Mexico [2/4/02].


"Part of being a secure America is to encourage homeownership." He also went on to talk about his experience meeting the residents saying, "You know, today I went to the -- to some of the home -- met some of the homeowners in this newly built homes and all you've got to do is shake their hand and listen to their stories and watch the pride that they exhibit when they show you the kitchen and the stairs...They showed me their home. They didn't show me somebody else's home, they showed me their home. And they are so proud to own their home and I want to thank them for their hospitality, because it helps the American people really understand what it means." – Bush, 6/17/02, Atlanta, the Carver Affordable Housing Initiative

According to AP, “President Bush's proposed 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, announced Monday, phases out HOPE VI” the program Bush visited and touted in Atlanta. “Renee Glover, executive director of the Atlanta Housing Authority said. ‘We didn't anticipate that HOPE VI would be eliminated.’” [AP, 2/5/2003]

Here’s another that sticks in my craw, personally and professionally:


“We're working hard to make sure your job is easier, that the port is safer. The Customs Service is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about.” – Bush, 6/24/02]

The President’s 2003 and 2004 budget provides zero for port security grants. The GOP Congress has provided only $250 million for port security grants (35% less than authorized). Additionally, in August, the President vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security Initiative which he specifically touted.

Big haha here:


“One of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility.” Bush, 9/16/02

Less than 6 months after this pronouncement, Bush proposed a budget that would put the government more than $300 billion into deficit. As National Journal noted on 2/12/02, Bush’s own 2004 budget tables show that without Bush’s tax and budgetary proposals, the deficit would decline after 2006, but with Bush’s proposals the deficit would grow indefinitely.

I’ve got more….LOTS more….

Shitoryu Dude
7th July 2003, 18:45
Nader as president? Are you totally nuts? That retard isn't fit to shine my shoes, much less be president.

As messed up as the other two options were, Nader is buffoon.

:beer:

Tamdhu
7th July 2003, 21:59
No only has his administration failed to capture either Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, they have clearly not made much progress into making inroads into either the Baath party resistance movement or Al Qaeda.

'Bath party resistance'? Are they a 'resistance' movement now? Weren't they the big-shots in that part of the world just a little while back? Hmmm...some failure!

And when is Osama going release a fully produced CD instead of those crappy basement tapes? Must be having trouble running ProTools in that cave of his.

Saddam who? Most people now believe (according to a recent fictitious BBC poll) that Saddam Hussein doesn't exist. I mean, clearly, the war's over and they haven't found him, have they?

Tamdhu
7th July 2003, 22:08
I almost forgot about this thread.


Oh really? (snicker)


Your issues with that particular "lie," notwithstanding, the fact is that our President has continually said one thing, and , fiscally done the complete opposite.


Being utterly WRONG in regards to that 'particular lie' is your issue, not mine.


I’ve got more…LOTS more…

Issues? Ain't that the truth!

; )

Iain
7th July 2003, 23:31
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Nader as president? Are you totally nuts? That retard isn't fit to shine my shoes, much less be president.

As messed up as the other two options were, Nader is buffoon.

:beer:

For a buffon, he is involved in a lot of highly sucessful citizen action groups, non-profit organizations, and has done an amazing job of furthering the various fringe causes he supports in the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition. You can disagree with his policies, that's fine, but he's far from stupid. I didn't like Bush Sr, and I disagreed with a great many of his foreign policy initiatives, but he was an intelligent and capable president. Just because someone doesn't think the way you do doesn't mean their stupid.

Kimpatsu
8th July 2003, 00:08
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Nader as president? Are you totally nuts? That retard isn't fit to shine my shoes, much less be president.
As messed up as the other two options were, Nader is buffoon.
Why do you say that, Harvey? (I'm being serious here.)
Of course, we all know it's only temporary until I become world dictator.

Iain
8th July 2003, 02:36
Originally posted by Tamdhu


'Bath party resistance'? Are they a 'resistance' movement now? Weren't they the big-shots in that part of the world just a little while back? Hmmm...some failure!

And when is Osama going release a fully produced CD instead of those crappy basement tapes? Must be having trouble running ProTools in that cave of his.

Saddam who? Most people now believe (according to a recent fictitious BBC poll) that Saddam Hussein doesn't exist. I mean, clearly, the war's over and they haven't found him, have they?

If the US and the UK have done such a sterling job of stopping the violence in Iraq, why are their froces being continually harrassed by Iraqi leftovers? That war will be long, protracted, and wickedly expensive. The Baath Party was entrenched in that country for the better part of two decades, and its going to take years to eliminate whatever underground infrastructure was built in country after the war. It will cost less to run a guerilla campaign than it will to run an occupation, and through attrition, Saddams lot will inevitably win.

Mitch Saret
8th July 2003, 19:55
Much from earlier was just fluff, these cuts Elder mentions are substantive with one clarifier. Now I will be honest I don't have the numberes here and I haven't gone to look them up, but will if I have to....but many "cuts" are reductions in growth, not an actual cut. The democrats have always hollered about cuts when republicans scal;e back growth in a program, but never actually cut it. Even the wise Hillary Clinton, when she was merely First Lady, appeared before congress looking for a "reduction in growth" for a program and got a taste of here own medicine. There are some of the issues brought up that I am in complete agreement with you...others not, that's what's great about debate. The mentioning of one thing, in this regard, and doing another is no different than any other politician or administration. Does that make it right? Of course not.

Now, for something else...politicians are not supposed to be orators. Many of them become orators out of necessity. Many are just average people. Truman was a haberdasher, Washington was a farmer, Ike was a military man. Few politicians, at least it used to be few, went into the job with the idea of it being a career. Many just started on their local city council and kept thinking they could do more.

Next, the resistance of the Baath party was to be expected. And mostly their targets, which we don't here about, are the Iraqi people. Everyone talks about how President Bush said the war was over...he never said that. He said that major combat operations had ended. I think we can agree that there has been no major combat since, but minor skirmishes. Many of these antagonizers are playingagainst the odds, hoping to be in Saddam Husseins good graces should he come back to power.

And lastly, I was taking the complement on being an American, nothing more. To say it was based on ignorance is just rude and goes against what we have been discussing.

Tamdhu
9th July 2003, 16:09
No question about it Mitch, once a government program is in place, any attempt to reduce it (let alone eliminate it completely) in any way is sure to be met with squeals of "Cuts! Cuts! The evil (opposition party)'s are taking food from our mouths! Save us!" Sad but true. I remember hearing recently that we're still paying out massive subsidies to llama farmer for raising mohair or some such, based on a program that was put in place to support soldiers during WWII. Funny, in a sad (and expensive) way. That money could do a lot of good somewhere else.


That war will be long, protracted, and wickedly expensive. The Baath Party was entrenched in that country for the better part of two decades, and its going to take years to eliminate whatever underground infrastructure was built in country after the war. It will cost less to run a guerilla campaign than it will to run an occupation, and through attrition, Saddams lot will inevitably win.

This goes right up there with all the other retarded predictions that were made before the war in Iraq by egg-heads like Noam Chomsky.

Massive civilian casualties
Massive refugee problems
Another Vietnam
Fierce resistance
Retaliatory strikes here at home in the US

Pardon me while I...yawwwn. Bush said that we will remain there until the job is done, and unlike any other President we've had in a long time, he tends to keep to his word.

We WON'T be pulling out before order is restored. Order WILL be (is being) restored. Saddam's lot (wasn't that a TV miniseries by Stephen King?) will win a whole lot of NOTHING but shame and obscurity.

Cheers to the Iraqi people who, despite the annoying interruptions in their air-conditioning, have as much to celebrate in terms of Freedom and Independance this July as anyone anywhere. They are on the road to recovery, after a twenty long years on the road to nowhere.

Also cheers to the Iranian students, who may or may not be protesting today as their 'democratic government' (according to people like Chomsky) cracks down on them by closing the universities, banning rallies on campuses as well as on the streets, crack down on thier own media's coverage of any protest event, and fill their own streets with members of the revolutionary guard, the Hezbollah militia, plainclothes thugs, foreign mercenaries, and others hired to immediately suppress and crush any gatherings.

elder999
9th July 2003, 16:29
Originally posted by Tamdhu
No question about it Mitch, once a government program is in place, any attempt to reduce it (let alone eliminate it completely) in any way is sure to be met with squeals of "Cuts! Cuts! The evil (opposition party)'s are taking food from our mouths! Save us!" Sad but true. I remember hearing recently that we're still paying out massive subsidies to llama farmer for raising mohair or some such, based on a program that was put in place to support soldiers during WWII. Funny, in a sad (and expensive) way. That money could do a lot of good somewhere else.



“We're working hard to make sure your job is easier, that the port is safer. The Customs Service is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about.” – Bush, 6/24/02


The President’s 2003 and 2004 budget provides zero for port security grants. The GOP Congress has provided only $250 million for port security grants (35% less than authorized). Additionally, in August, the President vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security Initiative which he specifically touted.

9th July 2003, 16:37
http://www.razmatazzrules.com/images/liberal.gif

Iain
10th July 2003, 04:50
Wasn't it Iranian students who overthrew the Shah and installed the Ayatolla in the first place?

Unlike Noam Chomsky, I am not in the buisness of flagrant anti-americanism. I am only observing that historically, occupations are costly, arduous and rarely succeed in their self-appointed missions. Just because the US is what it is doesn't make it invulnerable to historical analysis.

Ian McDonald
10th July 2003, 14:16
Some of the dunderheads out there cannot see the forest for the trees. What is it that constitutes the United States? Well for one thing, we tend to be vastly uninformed, misinformed, and ignorant of the everyday lives of people in other parts of the world, even outside of our own communities within our own states. It is very sad because this is easily remedied if folks were to actually want to be informed. There is a lot of denial in this country; it is institutionalized in our consumerism, among other things.

After all, how seriously can people in other countries take us. We allowed an incompetent sycophant to steal our presidency without any real protest or prosecution, even in the face of evidence of criminal intent and wrongdoing. Some deep psychology of Shrub is evident in the fact that he was born as a New England Blue Blood, with all of the silver spoons and indulgences wealth can buy, and he had a New England education, yet the insecure nincompoop has to talk and act like some sun-baked trigger happy Texas hick (real Texans, please excuse me). Now why do you suppose he acts like that? Is he ashamed of his birthright and heritage? This basic underlying phoniness betrays all of his weaknesses in a nutshell. Some just can't see the forest because they cut it down so they wouldn't have to look at it anymore.

Tamdhu
10th July 2003, 18:47
quote:
“We're working hard to make sure your job is easier, that the port is safer. The Customs Service is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about.” – Bush, 6/24/02

quote:
The President’s 2003 and 2004 budget provides zero for port security grants. The GOP Congress has provided only $250 million for port security grants (35% less than authorized). Additionally, in August, the President vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security Initiative which he specifically touted.


I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Did the President promise a particular dollar amount somewhere in support of the Container Security Initiative and fail to deliver? Did he deprive them of funding? Cancel them out completely?

Is this supposed to be a dreadful example of 'Bush duplicity'?

The implication you seem to make is that Bush promised support for the initiative and then withdrew it. Truth be told, President Bush has done nothing to indicate a lack of support; he as only chosen not to give them everything they asked for. Extreme left-wingers like call this 'duplicity' when it suits their aims (to smear the President) and 'sound judgement' otherwise. I can't judge them too harshly for this because right wingers do the same thing when the tables are turned.

Articles like this (http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/press_releases/92002/09252002.xml) show that the Container Security Initiative is moving forward steadily, with more nations joining all the time. That doesn't sound like an unsupported project to me.

Tamdhu
10th July 2003, 19:01
Well for one thing, we tend to be vastly uninformed, misinformed, and ignorant of the everyday lives of people in other parts of the world, even outside of our own communities within our own states. It is very sad because this is easily remedied if folks were to actually want to be informed.

Informed of the latest vogue in Far Left Intellectual Navel-Gazing ideology, you mean, right?


After all, how seriously can people in other countries take us. We allowed an incompetent sycophant to steal our presidency without any real protest or prosecution, even in the face of evidence of criminal intent and wrongdoing. Some deep psychology of Shrub is evident in the fact that he was born as a New England Blue Blood, with all of the silver spoons and indulgences wealth can buy, and he had a New England education, yet the insecure nincompoop has to talk and act like some sun-baked trigger happy Texas hick (real Texans, please excuse me). Now why do you suppose he acts like that? Is he ashamed of his birthright and heritage? This basic underlying phoniness betrays all of his weaknesses in a nutshell. Some just can't see the forest because they cut it down so they wouldn't have to look at it anymore.

When the EU learns to take it's own problems a little more seriously, then maybe I'll worry about them taking us a little more seriously.

Truth be told, of course, after failing in their ploy to prop up Saddam and nurse their self-inflicted ills at the teats of his oil wells and the blood of his people, they take us VERY seriously indeed, thanks to the steadfast perseverance of one 'insecure nincompoop' who shall remain unnamed.

Since when are 'Texas hicks' not 'real Texans'? Whatever, you're on your own there, pal!

Mitch Saret
10th July 2003, 19:09
Ian, Ian, Ian,

Another person who can't get out of the past. You need to move on. Personal attacks such as the one you have leveled do nothing to encourage useful debate, particularly when you seem to be one of the uninformed you complain about.

The main problem with the Florida election debacle of 2000 was an activist state Supreme Court. How can you say there was no protest? Did not Mr. Gore and his camp take things to court? Was that not protest and prosecution? Does your definition differ from mine? When the Florida Supreme Court decided to change the rules in the midst of the process, that was making law and as such a violation of law. The Court is supposed to interpret the law, not change it. The U. S. Supreme Court saw that and overturned Florida. Besides, you should be concentrating on the upcoming election, review what happened in the past, learn from it, apply it to the future, and MOVE ON!

elder999
10th July 2003, 19:13
Originally posted by Tamdhu

The implication you seem to make is that Bush promised support for the initiative and then withdrew it. Truth be told, President Bush has done nothing to indicate a lack of support; he as only chosen not to give them everything they asked for. Extreme left-wingers like call this 'duplicity' when it suits their aims (to smear the President) and 'sound judgement' otherwise. I can't judge them too harshly for this because right wingers do the same thing when the tables are turned.

The Container Security Initiative consists of four core elements.
These are: (1) establishing security criteria to identify high-risk
containers; (2) pre-screening containers before they arrive at U.S.
ports; (3) using technology to pre-screen high-risk containers; and
(4) developing and using smart and secure containers. The fundamental
objective of the CSI is to first engage the ports that send highest
volumes of container traffic into the United States, as well as the
governments in these locations, in a way that will facilitate
detection of potential problems at their earliest possible
opportunity.

Now number one really didn't cost anything, nor does sending U.S. Customs officers overseas to do prescreening-not significantly, anyway.

But 3 and 4.....are absolutely necessary to make these efforts more efficient; a great deal of the technology is ready to be imnplemented, though it is in a developmental phase.That implementation is what the $39 milliion was for, and without it , those inspectors will be looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.




Also, John, you seem to take my view on these events as some sort of personal affront, or "Bush Bashing."

I'm not a leftist; you're confused....

I'm not Bush bashing. I'm just telling the truth-as many people did about Bill Clinton.I think any number of decisions the President has made or contemplated were measured and necessary, adn that some wer...well, NOT.I've said so, in both cases.

You really ought to pay more attention.Part of my work comes under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security-I've said it more than once. It is appalling to me that things that should be being done for our security are not being done-because of the President, while things that will accomplish very little than the curtailment of civil rights are being done, because of the President, and because the one costs money, and the other only costs us our rights as Americans.

I'm on your side, whether you realize it or not.