|
> Bush actually is in support of women's rights, and abortion. The left would
> have you believe otherwise, but it is true.
Simply put, this is completely and utterly false.
Bush brought back the Mexico City law, making it illegal -- ILLEGAL -- for any US nonprofit to teach foreign women about any form of birth control, or to lobby a foreign country to allow women the right to vote, or to lobby a foreign country to make rape illegal. If the Peace Corps were to talk to a woman in Kenya about condoms, the Peace Corps would lose its nonprofit status. If Doctors Without Borders were to tell a woman in Turkmenistan that she needs to get an abortion or she'll die, then Doctors Without Borders would lose its nonprofit status. Across the world, Americans who want to do good have their hands tied by the vile, despicable Mexico City law.
John Ashcroft, Bush's US Attorney General, once tried to make the birth control pill illegal. The birth control pill, not RU486.
RU486 -- the abortion pill -- has been proven safe through undergoing 14 years of testing, double what the FDA has demanded of ANY other drug. It would provide a safe, non-intrusive substitute to abortion. Tommy Thompson, Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, has declared RU486 illegal. Why? Because these are men who want to be sure that women seeking an abortion have to undergo as traumatic a procedure as possible. Millions of women could simply take a pill before bed, but instead they have to be cut open.
This is the nature of evil, and its name is George W. Bush.
> Financial dynamics of a country don’t happen over night, it can take 4-10
> years to for the economy to reflect the policies made by the government.
Bush himself commissioned a report on the economy, with Republican economists doing the survey. Their assessment: the single largest factor in the economic failings, larger than the bursting of the internet "bubble," larger than 9/11, was the irresponsible Bush tax cuts.
> Clinton’s terms in office benefited from the decisions made by those
> preceding him, and the economy was already turning south when he handed the
> country over to Bush.
No, it wasn't.
Clinton’s decisions
> allowed Saddam to murder 300,000 people in Iraq. Most of the people killed
> in the fight in Iraq are responsible for carrying out the executions of
> those 300,000 people.
That is a TOTAL crock.
First of all, it was George H.W. Bush who decided to withdraw all our troops from Iraq without unseating Hussein, not Clinton.
The people killed in Iraq -- the 40,000 or so murdered by Bush the younger -- were randomly targeted. "Shock and awe," they called the campaign, a remarkable phrase. It was only slightly more remarkable when Hitler said it. "Shock and awe" meant that they bombed so hard and so fast across everywhere in Iraq that the Iraqis would feel overwhelmed. The people killed were not targeted. The victims of our brutal dictator were random. They were women and children, they were innocent men, they were soldiers, they were people, they were people, they were people, and now they're dead. Dead in the name of evil.
Not to mention another half a million or so who lost limbs or were crippled by this evil attack.
> Bush had to break UN resolutions to uphold UN resolutions that had been
> broken for 10 years.
This logic is INSANE. By its thinking, the US should now be invaded, shouldn't it? Because we broke UN resolutions.
And what UN resolutions had been broken? The Bush liars and apologists will tell you that Saddam Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction, that he hadn't gotten rid of his old ones, that he wasn't allowing weapons inspectors into the country. Except he hadn't been developing WMDs, he had gotten rid of his old ones, and the weapons inspectors had to be evacuated from Iraq before the invasion began. The only dictator who broke UN resolutions was Bush.
> Had Al Gore won the last election, he would have had to deal with all of the
> issues that Bush has had to deal with, and he would also be held much more
> responsible for the events leading up the 911, he would have been held
> responsible for the downturn in the economy.
Except there would have been no 9/11, and there would have been no downturn in the economy.
That kind of thing happens when there aren't any grownups in the White House.
We would have been much more
> open to attack, because the Democrats are known for being too soft on
> protecting the country.
Bill Clinton had a daily briefing on terrorism, where he "shook the tree" with all the heads of the various departments: CIA, FBI, NSA. It's how he was able to stop the Lincoln Tunnel attacks and the LAX attacks, both of which were going to be larger in scale than 9/11. (I was in the Lincoln Tunnel that day in 1993; Clinton and Sandy Berger saved my life.) In the nine months after Bush took office, he had two meetings about terrorism. TWO. Gore at that time would have had 270. Richard Clarke and John O'Neill, two lifelong Republicans, anti-terrorism experts, became exasperated that no one in the Bush White House was paying attention to their warnings; no one in the Bush White House cared about terrorism. On August 6th, 2001, Bush received a PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within US." Then he went on vacation.
John O'Neill was so pissed with the Bush administration ignoring terrorism that he quit his job as Anti-Terrorism expert at the FBI. On September 11th, he was in the north tower of the World Trade Center; he did not survive.
> The idea that Bush alone is responsible for all of the things that have
> happened during his terms of service in Texas, and as President is
> unrealistic.
Yes, he certainly isn't responsible for what happened while he was Governor of Texas. Certainly not responsible for executing a retarded child, or an innocent man, when he could have given clemency. Certainly not responsible for making fun of Carla Faye Tucker as she begged him to spare her life.
Certainly not responsible for removing the Public Defender system in Texas. Remember the speech that cops say on TV? "If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you." Not in Texas. And Bush certainly isn't responsible for supporting and signing that bit of legislation that makes Texas the most unjust state in our country.
There are thousands of people involved in coming to the
> decisions made by the government. A president is more of a spokesman on a
> committee than the sole proprietor of all actions.
Yes, except he appoints the committee too. He is responsible for choosing the people whom he's chosen. The disastrous mis-administration of these last three-and-a-half years is entirely the doing of Bush and his appointees.
> These issues are not new, Philosophy presents many issues that have been
> unresolved for centuries. Humility plays a huge part in being able to learn.
Humility does help one learn. Perhaps that's why Bush has never learned from his mistakes; Bush is a man without humility. When asked if he could think of any mistakes he's made over the last three years, he couldn't name one. Kennedy, when asked the same question, launched into a litany; he mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he said that to him, his failure to support the women's rights march was the one that haunted him. Jack Kennedy was a great man -- and a humble one.
George W. Bush, in Oklahoma, tried to sound folksy; he said, "There's an old saying that goes, 'Fool me once, shame on you; uhh, fool me twice -- we don't get fooled again!"
It's funny that he had some kind of flashback to his cocaine days and quoted The Who, but what I find so telling is that the phrase he found impossible to say was, "shame on me."
Shame on you, George W. Bush. You have done so much to retard the American dream.
I learned about the American dream from Ronald Reagan: if you are smart, if you are ambitious, if you work hard, you only need a little bit of luck and you will get ahead.
Ending the estate tax WILL put an end to the American dream. It will bring about a new aristocracy. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett agree with me here. It means, the children of the wealthy will inherit ALL their wealth, and their children's children, and their children. It means a poor kid will never be able to be on an equal footing with someone whose grandfather was wealthy.
This is the end, the goal, of all the Bush administration economic policies: to freeze the potential mobility across economic strata. Tax cuts for the rich are designed to make sure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Why?
Because they want an aristocracy. If a rich and powerful man, like George H.W. Bush, were to have a son who is stupid and lazy, like George W. Bush, they want to be sure that their own stupid lazy kid will have all the advantages and no child who was born poor will EVER be able to compete.
Do you remember the California energy crisis? Enron had been planning it for years. They were going to ship California-produced energy to other states, then ship it back, pretending that California wasn't producing enough energy, and sell them their own energy at a drastic markup. Tapes of Enron executives have been found, laughing at "niggers" and "grannies" who were going to have to pay through the roof.
They had this plan, and they didn't execute it while Clinton was president. The president could intervene and establish a price cap. They waited till they had a president in their pocket.
When Gov. Davis asked Bush to set a price cap, he refused. Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, was a close personal friend, and also the largest lifetime individual contributor to Bush's election campaigns; Enron was the largest lifetime corporate contributor to his campaigns.
Enron got what they wanted. "Niggers" and "grannies" suffered and died of heatstroke, because they couldn't afford the thousand-dollars-plus per month that Enron and their sleazeball president were defrauding from them.
Bush does not consider this a mistake.
That has been the model of Bush policies. "Leave No Child Behind," which will strangle schools, will put a hundred million dollars per year into the hands of Neil Bush, the president's brother, who was convicted of embezzling more than 90 million dollars from the US government, through the Silverado Savings and Loan. The fingerprinting program, which all the experts say will INCREASE the threat of terrorism, is a billion-dollar windfall for Bush's friends. The war in Iraq, to disarm an unarmed old man writing romance novels, is a war that funnels money into Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown, & Root. And so on and so forth. It's safe to say, if Bush supports it, it's a bad idea whose only goal is to give money to his buds, and they don't give a damn if it's bad for America.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
