Pitting Bush for stuff that doesn't seem to rate its own thread [Archive]

RTFirefly

07-08-2004, 11:20 AM

link (http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2004070734)

A worker with the Federal Emergency Management Agency who wore an anti-Bush T-shirt at the president’s July Fourth rally in Charleston has been sent home to Texas.

Nicole Rank, who was working for FEMA in West Virginia, and her husband, Jeff, were removed from the Capitol grounds in handcuffs shortly before Bush’s speech. The pair wore T-shirts with the message “Love America, Hate Bush.”

The Ranks were ticketed for trespassing and released. They have been given summonses to appear in court, Charleston Police Lt. C.A. Vincent said Wednesday.

<snip>

On Sunday, Charleston Police Sgt. R.E. Parsons said Nicole and Jeff Rank were in a no-trespassing area and refused to leave.

The White House coordinated the president’s visit to the state Capitol. Organizers described it as a presidential visit, not a political rally. State and federal funds were used to pay for the presidential visit.

Dozens of people who attended Sunday’s event wore pro-Bush T-shirts and Bush-Cheney campaign buttons, some of which were sold on the Capitol grounds outside the security screening stations.

<snip>

A two-page document given to ticket holders said they were prohibited from bringing certain items to the event, including: weapons, video-recording equipment, food, beverages, umbrellas, signs and banners. T-shirts, political buttons and lapel pins were not on the list of prohibited items.
Judging from the content of the speech at www.whitehouse.gov, it was a legitimate Presidential visit, but that's neither here nor there. People who oppose the President are still entitled to attend his public appearances on the same terms as anyone else. And if his partisans are allowed to wear pro-Bush t-shirts, his detractors have every reasonable expectation that they may wear anti-Bush t-shirts.

BTW, I'm kinda mystified by FEMA's involvement here. As employer of one of the arrested people, their role should be zilch, unless they're alleging a Hatch Act violation. Government employees are free to express their political opinions on their own time, so that shouldn't be an issue.

RTFirefly

07-08-2004, 11:27 AM

Ashtar - that's exactly the sort of stuff I wanted to avoid, actually. Although I can't help but notice the look on his face, I'd rather slam him about substance.

Brutus - :wally

Revtim

07-08-2004, 11:30 AM

How about his administration's appointment of James Leon Holmes to the federal bench in Arkansas?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/politics/07judge.html
Mr. Holmes has a record of saying startling things, like his statement that rape victims become pregnant as often as it snows in Miami. He also wrote in 1997 that in a marriage "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man."

C'mon guys. It's the 21 century. Can't we at least have judges who have ideals from the second half of the 20th? That's actually too much to ask?

And of course, the twits in the Senate confirmed him.

Merijeek

07-08-2004, 11:30 AM

You couldn't actually think of anything when you were writing the OP? Looks like you have a bad case of the dumbass, son.

Yeah, it did take him a whole nine minutes to type that. God, you're such a fucking jackass.

Judging from the content of the speech at www.whitehouse.gov, it was a legitimate Presidential visit, but that's neither here nor there. People who oppose the President are still entitled to attend his public appearances on the same terms as anyone else. And if his partisans are allowed to wear pro-Bush t-shirts, his detractors have every reasonable expectation that they may wear anti-Bush t-shirts.

Anyways, RT, you're forgetting something...this is America. We're so free we have "Free Speech Zones" now. So, speak all you want, just do it in the right place.

-Joe, waits for the day when "speech" becomes "fire"

RTFirefly

07-08-2004, 11:47 AM

Waaaaaaaaaah!! She wouldn't stop following up on questions! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20268-2004Jul1.html)

The White House's ire with Irish reporter Carole Coleman has already been mentioned here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263510&highlight=Carole+Coleman), but not the fact that the Bushies went whining to the Irish Embassy about how cruelly the reporter treated him:

"'The White House rang Thursday evening,'" said Irish embassy spokeswoman Síghle Dougherty. 'They were concerned over the number of interruptions and that they thought the president was not given an opportunity to respond to the questions.'"

Said Dougherty: "They were mostly troubled by what they said was the way the president was 'talked over.' " Considering that, as in most free countries, Irish reporters are not civil servants, and don't report to the Irish government, I'm at a loss to explain why the Bushies complained to the Irish government about her. I guess they just felt the need to complain to somebody when she actually tried to do her job. (Follow my link for links to the transcript and (if it's still up) video of the interview.)

E72521

07-08-2004, 11:50 AM

Brutis, try reading the OP again, dumbass.

For you I suggest popping a Viagra, jerking off, followed by a good nap. Just don't fantasize about sucking W's or Cheney's cock. When you wake up with your brain perfused with blood, you'll be a kinder, gentler robot.

AmericanMaid

07-08-2004, 11:50 AM

The phrase in our National Anthem is "Let freedom ring." Yet our idiot in chief thinks it's:
http://www.anoasis.co.uk/content/2004/06/29/Politics/let_freedom_reign.html

tdn

07-08-2004, 11:52 AM

Extremely stupid and inconsequential, but he wore an interesting face at the Kennedy Center awards this past winter. While some truly amazing people were honored, it was clear from Dubya's face that he was thinking "I don't get it. Does it have something to do with oil?"

RTFirefly

07-08-2004, 11:54 AM

Revtim, it looks like you're being "anti-Baptist" or something. ;) Can't believe you'd oppose somebody because of their religion, even if it's stuffing thier head full of ridiculous ideas that they might turn into public policy.

Merijeek, I can see the day a-coming when we can say anything we want in those government-sanctioned "Free Speech Zone". Which will consist of a few desolate acres of land in western North Dakota.

Scarlett67

07-08-2004, 12:02 PM

The phrase in our National Anthem is "Let freedom ring." Yet our idiot in chief thinks it's:
http://www.anoasis.co.uk/content/2004/06/29/Politics/let_freedom_reign.html
Er, first, you're thinking of "America" (My country, 'tis of thee . . ."), not "The Star Spangled Banner." Second, I'm no Bush fan either, but this seems needlessly nitpicky. We don't know that Bush was claiming to be quoting any lyrics, and "Let freedom reign" stands fine on its own, especially considering that he was referring to Iraq, not the US.

But fear not, there are plenty of other reasons to consider him an idiot. :D

rjung

07-08-2004, 02:00 PM

Considering that, as in most free countries, Irish reporters are not civil servants, and don't report to the Irish government, I'm at a loss to explain why the Bushies complained to the Irish government about her.
Did someone forgot to tell George that Ireland has a free press?

AmericanMaid

07-08-2004, 02:34 PM

Er, first, you're thinking of "America" (My country, 'tis of thee . . ."), not "The Star Spangled Banner." Second, I'm no Bush fan either, but this seems needlessly nitpicky. We don't know that Bush was claiming to be quoting any lyrics, and "Let freedom reign" stands fine on its own, especially considering that he was referring to Iraq, not the US.

But fear not, there are plenty of other reasons to consider him an idiot. :D
:smack: Okay, I knew it was of those songs... But still, how exactly can freedom reign? Reign means to exercise sovereign power. The sovereignty of freedom? Unless in the Bush lexicon America = freedom. Now that would make a lot more sense! :p

Scarlett67

07-08-2004, 02:46 PM

(My God, I'm defending Bush <urk> . . .)

Main Entry:2reign
Function:intransitive verb
Date:14th century

1 a : to possess or exercise sovereign power : RULE b : to hold office as chief of state although possessing little governing power *in England the sovereign reigns but does not rule*
2 : to exercise authority in the manner of a monarch
3 : to be predominant or prevalent <chaos reigned in the classroom>

mack

07-08-2004, 03:06 PM

Then there's August 2002 when the White House floated the idea of invading Iraq without even getting an OK from Congress - never mind the UN.

Clothahump

07-08-2004, 03:27 PM

link (http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2004070734)

Judging from the content of the speech at www.whitehouse.gov, it was a legitimate Presidential visit, but that's neither here nor there. People who oppose the President are still entitled to attend his public appearances on the same terms as anyone else. And if his partisans are allowed to wear pro-Bush t-shirts, his detractors have every reasonable expectation that they may wear anti-Bush t-shirts.

BTW, I'm kinda mystified by FEMA's involvement here. As employer of one of the arrested people, their role should be zilch, unless they're alleging a Hatch Act violation. Government employees are free to express their political opinions on their own time, so that shouldn't be an issue.

The text you quoted was a perfect example of the liberal bias in the media. The article was written with such a slant as to make people think the folks in question were arrested for wearing the t-shirt. One has to dig down through the crap to find the real truth:

"On Sunday, Charleston Police Sgt. R.E. Parsons said Nicole and Jeff Rank were in a no-trespassing area and refused to leave."

One also has to be intelligent enough to do so.

Zakalwe

07-08-2004, 03:58 PM

Hentor the Barbarian

07-08-2004, 05:56 PM

Well, I don't have a cite for this, but I heard today that Bush had another "say my name, bitch" moment yesterday, wherein he made some reporter address him as Mr. President. (You may recall the incident several months ago where he chastized a reporter with "Who you talkin' to?")

If true, all I can say is grow a sack, you weak-ass little punk. You will have to demand respect because you will never be able to command it. You don't deserve the title. In fact, even if the report of this incident isn't true, he is still a punk who doesn't deserve the title.

milroyj

07-08-2004, 06:17 PM

The phrase in our National Anthem is "Let freedom ring." Yet our idiot in chief thinks it's:
http://www.anoasis.co.uk/content/2004/06/29/Politics/let_freedom_reign.html

AmericanMaid, not only were you wrong on the two counts pointed out by Scarlett67, you also apparently didn't read your own link. President Nelson Mandela used the same exact phrase in his Inaugural Address. Is he an idiot too? :rolleyes:

RTA

07-08-2004, 06:23 PM

Revtim

07-08-2004, 06:35 PM

NurseCarmen

07-08-2004, 06:47 PM

This was pointed out in another thread, and I haven't been able to get over it. So, since this is a catch-all pitting, I'll toss it in.

His face is too small for his head.

There. I said it. I never really noticed it before, but now it's all I see.

Apos

07-08-2004, 06:59 PM

The White House's ire with Irish reporter Carole Coleman has already been mentioned here, but not the fact that the Bushies went whining to the Irish Embassy about how cruelly the reporter treated him

This blows my mind. The questions he was to answer were SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE. As requested by the President, as apparently is their quiet SOP. And yet Bush:

1) pretended to be flustered by the questions
2) apparently was then sincerely flustered when the reporter was irritated that, having submitted her questions in advance, he was still avoiding answering them directly, as she had come to expect from politicians in her country, where they are actually expected to answer real questions, not dodge them

bughunter

07-08-2004, 07:11 PM

RTA, I've noticed that, too.

As well as his manner, lately since his justifications for invading Iraq have started crumbling one by one. Haven't you noticed a sort of desperation in his manner, like he's trying to convince or scold a child? He gets a very lecturing, almost angry tone in his voice, but his eyebrows raise and his forehead wrinkles like he's still trying to convince you, and then he finishes with a smirk like he's just said something smart.

But he hasn't. It's his tell.

Whenever he's bluffing, bullshitting us, reciting the party spin that he knows is a bunch of crap, he gets that manner. And he's had it more and more lately. It's a look of desparation, as if he's frustrated that you aren't just buying his line unquestioningly, but he doesn't have any additional convicing arguments to back it up. Just sound bites.

The last time I saw it on TV was a couple days ago. He was asked what he thought the differences were between Edwards and Cheney, and his response was, "Dick Cheney can be president."

Yea, well the last Republican president thought that Dan Quayle could be president, so that's not saying much, George.

And I'd really love to watch that Coleman interview, but can't find it. I've read the transcript, but can't get the video to play.

Hentor the Barbarian

07-08-2004, 08:53 PM

Whenever he's bluffing, bullshitting us, reciting the party spin that he knows is a bunch of crap, he gets that manner. And he's had it more and more lately. It's a look of desparation, as if he's frustrated that you aren't just buying his line unquestioningly, but he doesn't have any additional convicing arguments to back it up. Just sound bites.Exactly. Such as when he was questioned about the 9/11 commissions findings re: al Quada and Iraq. Paraphrasing from memory: "I said there was a connection between al Quada and Iraq because there was a connection between al Quada and Iraq!"

Or when he was being questioned about Abu Ghraib, and he said something along the lines of "I authorized them to stay within US law. That oughta satisfy you."

At times he reminds me of the chain smoking novelty manufacturer in the spoof 60 minutes hotseat played by Martin Short, who looks incredulously into the camera, sweating like a pig, asking "Is it me? It's him, right?"

But mostly he strikes me like a petulant toddler.

RTFirefly

07-08-2004, 09:13 PM

The text you quoted was a perfect example of the liberal bias in the media. The article was written with such a slant as to make people think the folks in question were arrested for wearing the t-shirt. One has to dig down through the crap to find the real truth:

"On Sunday, Charleston Police Sgt. R.E. Parsons said Nicole and Jeff Rank were in a no-trespassing area and refused to leave."

One also has to be intelligent enough to do so.One has to be intelligent enough to keep reading after you find the little bit of info that you think, for just a second, backs up your argument.

As Zakalwe has already pointed out, there were lots and lots of people in this 'no-trespassing' area.

Skipping past the bullshit of being somehow able to 'trespass' at a public speech by a public official (if a public official is giving a speech, is it somehow open to some but not all of the public? Fuck-all if there isn't an obvious answer for that), how can one possibly distinguish the trespassers from the non-trespassers?

You read down, and it seems there were these tickets:
Those who attended Bush’s speech were required to have tickets that were distributed by various employers in the area and by the office of Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.

Those who applied for tickets were required to supply their names, addresses, birth dates, birthplaces and Social Security numbers.

A two-page document given to ticket holders said they were prohibited from bringing certain items to the event, including: weapons, video-recording equipment, food, beverages, umbrellas, signs and banners. T-shirts, political buttons and lapel pins were not on the list of prohibited items.
Nobody ever says that the Ranks didn't have tickets, and the context suggests they must've: how could they have gained admittance to the restricted area without the tickets? (And if it wasn't a restricted area, what use would tickets have been in controlling the crowd?)

At any rate, the officials haven't indicated the manner of their trespass, and they haven't claimed that the Ranks had engaged in any sort of disorderly conduct or other rules violation, just that they were trespassing. But how they were identified as trespassers is completely unclear.

Other than their T-shirts, of course.

Typo Negative

07-08-2004, 09:55 PM

Skipping past the bullshit of being somehow able to 'trespass' at a public speech by a public official (if a public official is giving a speech, is it somehow open to some but not all of the public? Fuck-all if there isn't an obvious answer for that), how can one possibly distinguish the trespassers from the non-trespassers?
I don't know about this. I mean, at functions open to the public, there can still be restricted areas, right? Sectioned off with that stupid yellow tape?

And if the President is giving a speech, there are always gonna be several areas that the general public is not gonna have access to that day. Some for management reasons, some for security reasons, some for safety reasons.

All I'm saying is that the story may not be telling the whole story.

RTFirefly

07-09-2004, 05:14 AM

I don't know about this. I mean, at functions open to the public, there can still be restricted areas, right? Sectioned off with that stupid yellow tape?

And if the President is giving a speech, there are always gonna be several areas that the general public is not gonna have access to that day. Some for management reasons, some for security reasons, some for safety reasons. Well, yeah. And if a member of the general public tried to go in one of those, they'd be arrested for trespassing.

But the thing is, there have been three or four stories about this incident now. And in none of them have the cops simply said, "these guys tried to get into the secure area, so we arrested them."

Anyhow, found another AP story (http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=111986&SecID=2): CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A couple from Texas was taken out of a speech given by President Bush in West Virginia Sunday.

Police placed Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi in restraints after they entered the event with a ticket and then removed their clothes to reveal anti-Bush T-shirts, according to the acting director of the Capitol police in Charleston.

He said the two were asked to go out to the designated protest area, but refused.

<snip>

As police rushed her out, Nicole Rank shouted that they were told they couldn't be there because they were wearing anti-Bush shirts.

Police say the two were issued citations for trespassing and released.

So: they had tickets; the problem, according to the Charleston police spokesman, seems to have been entirely with their T-shirts.

GaWd

07-09-2004, 08:48 AM

If you guys remember correctly, Bush and his freedom-loving fucking cronies have now set up "protest zones" wherein your free speech is actually free. If these two were wearing their T-shirts out of that area, they were trespassing.

What a joke. I weep for our lost liberties.

Sam

Psycho Pirate

07-09-2004, 09:58 AM

lieu

07-09-2004, 10:56 AM

99% of Farenheit 911 was odiferous, bullshit spackled hogwash but when G.W. sat for 7 or 9 minutes or however long it was in the elementary classroom after being told the nation was under attack and didn't issue an order, didn't do anything other than sit there and fume... well, that more than anything else he's done pisses me off to no end. If find it indefensable and, given the opportunity, I'd really like to be able to question him on it.

ElvisL1ves

07-09-2004, 11:11 AM

Homer: "NU-cu-lar. It's pronounced NU-cu-lar."

RTFirefly

07-09-2004, 11:46 AM

Oh please. If they were so proud about boldly protesting Bush, why did they hide that fact from the authorities and keep their idiotic anti-Bush t-shirts away from view? Because they are cowardly morons, and would rather "make a big splash" than protest legally? Those in the crowd came to see and hear the President...not some moronic protesters who are just there to raise a stink. They weren't "Protest legally"?? Explain. They had their tickets, and they were following the stated rules. In what manner was their presence or their actions illegal?
Your freedom of speech isn't being taken away. You have the right to say whatever you want (except "Fire" in a crowded theater), but you do not have the right to a captive audience.Exactly how were these folks demanding a 'captive audience'? If I wear a Hawaiian shirt in the subway, did I just make the other subway riders the 'captive audience' of my Hawaiian shirt?

This isn't an argument, it's a load of fetid, steaming crap.

This is the same stupidity used by people who get angry at Wal-Mart for refusing to sell explicit CDs. Wrong.

Actually, the likeness is between Wal-Mart (exercising their right to sell what they want to sell) and the 'protesters' (who were just exercising their right to wear what they wanted to wear, subject of course to the decency laws). And the likeness is between the people who get angry at Wal-Mart (who want WallyWorld to sell what they want it to sell) and the President (who wants the public at his public speeches as President to appear to consist only of his supporters).

Protest zones are commonly used because there are some protesters who don't even make an attempt at being non-violent or assembling peacefully. Sounds like we should put Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. in one; they don't even make an attempt at being nonviolent, either.

Snarkiness aside, that's not how America works. You can't just go excluding people from attending public events because they [i]might do something objectionable, based on nothing more than public officials' dislike of their politics. What it's called when you can do that is a "police state".
Many of these "activists" have no life and no job except to stir up trouble. They are just bored anarchists who show up to protest, not with signs and bullhorns, but with masks to protect them from tear gas when their protests inevitably get out of control and turn into a riot when they start destroying property, blocking traffic, etc. Blah blah blah blah blah.

Even the DNC, that bastion of progressive thinking who would never even THINK of trampling on protesters' precious rights, use protest zones (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm). Hey, they shouldn't be doing it either. Do two wrongs make a right? Sounds like it makes two wrongs. From your link: ...a similar dispute at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles. Relegated to a parking lot blocks from the convention arena, protesters sued, and less than a month before that convention began, a federal judge ruled that the designated area was unconstitutional. Organizers were forced to move the area to a parking lot directly across the street from an arena entrance, in keeping with earlier federal court rulings that any legal demonstration be allowed within "sight and sound" of its intended audience. I agree wholeheartedly with that judge.
If you want to blame the practice of "protest zones" being started, start with the Reno “Justice” Department and Democrat Congress, who were behind the ridiculously stupid “Access to Clinics” act criminalizing peaceful anti-abortion protests, laying the groundwork for arresting anyone in the vicinity of left-wing demonstrations with the same physical violence that characterized arrest of peaceful pro-life demonstrators.Yeah, and that law gave the private citizens trying toaccess a legal business a right to, what - fifteen feet of clearance between them and the protesters? That law asked for just enough room to take the physical-intimidation factor out of the picture.

As for those 'peaceful' pro-life demonstrators, they quite often didn't act all that peaceful - yelling in private citizens' faces at point-blank range, waving signs at them as if trying to hit them with their signs, and so forth.

And the difference between a private person, one who has not sought out the public spotlight, trying to access an abortion clinic, and the President of the United States, who is the highest public official in the land, should be obvious even to a person of your intellect, or lack thereof. So you should expect that different standards of protester access might apply to one and the other - with greater access of protesters to the public official than the private citizen.

rjung

07-09-2004, 05:56 PM

If they were so proud about boldly protesting Bush, why did they hide that fact from the authorities and keep their idiotic anti-Bush t-shirts away from view? Because they are cowardly morons, and would rather "make a big splash" than protest legally? Those in the crowd came to see and hear the President...not some moronic protesters who are just there to raise a stink.
"Freedom of speech" doesn't come with a clause that reads "...unless your speech will offend others who may hear it."

The only thing the coule did wrong was that they didn't subscribe to the Bush-lovin' masturbatory groupthink around them -- an act that, last I checked, was not a crime of any sort, despite how much Bush wishes it was.

you with the face

07-09-2004, 07:36 PM

OK so he has this habit nowadays which is quite unpresidential, and I know it's probably nothing in the grand scheme of things, but it bugs me every goddam time I see him do it, and there's no question in my mind that it's a metaphor for something larger.

Here it is: when he's at the podium speaking, he tends to slouch over it; his entire frame cocked to one side, and with one elbow on the podium. Like he was leaning on a bar.

Oh man, this is so true. I think if he would stand up straighter, it would at least make him look honest and straightforward. As it is, his posture is so crooked. It's almost as if his body is trying to tell us something!

I wonder what that could be.

ZebraShaSha

07-09-2004, 07:59 PM

Equipoise

07-10-2004, 08:04 AM

99% of Farenheit 911 was odiferous, bullshit spackled hogwash

:confused:

You thought the sights and sounds of September 11 were stinky hogwash?

You thought the pictures of the wounded, dying and dead American soldiers and Iraqi citizens was stinky hogwash?

You thought the scene of a father carrying his injured (or dead) son with wet pants was stinky hogwash?

You thought the scene of a child having his scalp sewn back on was stinky hogwash?

You thought the hospital interviews with the maimed soldiers, some missing limbs, were stinky hogwash?

You thought the scenes of a mother talking about her dead son were stinky hogwash?

You thought the scene of that same mother breaking down in front of the White House was stinky hogwash?

but when G.W. sat for 7 or 9 minutes or however long it was in the elementary classroom after being told the nation was under attack and didn't issue an order, didn't do anything other than sit there and fume... well, that more than anything else he's done pisses me off to no end. If find it indefensable and, given the opportunity, I'd really like to be able to question him on it.

At least your priorities are straight. That was much more important than the injured, dying and dead people.

YWalker

07-10-2004, 09:15 AM

Although this pales in importance to what he has done with our country, I still think that one incident speaks very clearly as to what type of man he is.

When his 19 year old daughter had to have emergency surgery to remove her appendix shortly before Mr. Bush took office, instead of staying in Texas with her, he chose to go ON VACATION (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/12/26/politics0926EST0472.DTL) in Florida.

Yep, that's Mr. Family Values for you.

rjung

07-11-2004, 02:24 AM

99% of Farenheit 911 was odiferous, bullshit spackled hogwash
Maybe, but it's apparently extensively-cited (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16) odiferous, bullshit spackled hogwash.

pepperlandgirl

07-11-2004, 02:39 AM

I'm kinda annoyed that he snubbed the NAACP (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/bush.naacp.ap/)

He could at least pretend to care. It is election year, after all.

iampunha

07-11-2004, 03:05 AM

When his 19 year old daughter had to have emergency surgery to remove her appendix shortly before Mr. Bush took office, instead of staying in Texas with her, he chose to go ON VACATION (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/12/26/politics0926EST0472.DTL) in Florida.

Maybe Jeb needed help clearing brush.

ruadh

07-11-2004, 05:14 AM

On the Carole Coleman issue, they might have complained to the Irish embassy because RTÉ is the state broadcasting agency. Not that it made any difference in any case.

On the interview itself, she submitted the questions in advance and Bush's writers came up with non-answers to them. When she tried to get him to clarify them, he got snippy. He also yelled at her for 'interrupting' even though he had paused long enough that any reasonable person would assume he was finished answering.

The whole thing has done wonders for her reputation here, and made him look even more the pathetic puppet we already knew he was.

Waenara

07-11-2004, 07:17 PM

Alright, I have one. That god damn commercial! The one about Kerry being "pessimistic." Please, by all means, badger the hell out of me if I am being ignorant but what in the world is that commercial even about? Bush puts a slant on some things so they make him look good, he then quotes Kerry as saying "That was the great depression", and then says "We do not need pessimism for presidency" or whatever. That makes about as much sense as a lark in Goodwill! What in the world?!

Please explain this to me. I really want to believe that it was something that I clearly did not understand rather than me thinking it was Bush being Bush.
I believe I remember someone else explaining this in another thread (sorry, no link). Apparently this whole "Kerry is a pessimist" marketing started the week after Reagan's death. Reagan was often described as an "optimist", so during the week of the funeral and all the tributes Bush tried to capitalize on this, and portray himself as an "optimist." Presumably he did this so that people who fondly remembered Reagan as an optimist might begin to like him (Bush) more. Obviously, if Bush is claiming to be an "optimist", then he'll try to say that Kerry is a "pessimist." Never mind that the way they word the ads doesn't make sense.

RTFirefly

07-12-2004, 09:19 AM

This isn't Bush specifically, but it's on gop.com (http://www.gop.org/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=4375), so close enough:

Something to Yak About – Obscenity Laced Celebrity Hate Fest Reflects Kerry-Edwards Values The amusing thing is, this was posted there just a few days after Cheney patted himself on the back for having made himself feel better by telling Leahy to "Go fuck yourself."

Guess it's bad when Whoopi uses bad words on stage, but perfectly fine when Cheney uses them on the Senate floor. IOKIYAR - it's OK if you're a Republican.

RTFirefly

07-12-2004, 03:54 PM

link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040712-5.html)

America is leading a broad coalition of nations to disrupt proliferation.

<snip>

Three years ago, Pakistan was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime. Al Qaeda was active and recruiting in Pakistan, and was not seriously opposed. Pakistan served as a transit point for al Qaeda terrorists leaving Afghanistan on missions of murder. Yet the United States was not on good terms with Pakistan's military and civilian leaders -- the very people we would need to help shut down al Qaeda operations in that part of the world.

Today, the governments of the United States and Pakistan are working closely in the fight against terror. President Musharraf is a friend of our country, who helped us capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the operational planner behind the September the 11th attacks. And Pakistani forces are rounding up terrorists along their nation's western border. Today, because we're working with the Pakistani leaders, Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, and the American people are safer. (Applause.)

<snip>

Three years ago, a private weapons proliferation network was doing business around the world. This network, operated by the Pakistani nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan, was selling nuclear plans and equipment to the highest bidder, and found willing buyers in places like Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Today, the A. Q. Khan network is out of business. We have ended one of the most dangerous sources of proliferation in the world, and the American people are safer. (Applause.) Yeah, and A.Q. Kahn got, what, a reprimand on his Permanent Record? By gosh, evildoers worldwide are trembling.

And if anyone thinks Kahn - the father of Pakistan's nuclear program - played Johnny Nukeseed without Pakistan's intelligence people noticing what was up, they've gotta be nuts. For all we know, the game continues, just without Kahn's involvement.

The reason "the United States was not on good terms with Pakistan's military and civilian leaders" was because they're a generally nasty group of people, and their nuclear program gave the previous Administration the willies. So now they've (somewhat) helped us in our fight with al-Qaeda, but in return, they've spread nukes to two other really dangerous and untrustworthy regimes.

"[T]he American people are safer," huh? If a nuclear weapon ever goes off in the middle of one of our major cities, it will be worse than fifty September 11ths. And if that happens in the foreseeable future, the trail will probably lead back to Pakistan. Yet George W. Bush considers us 'safer'.

Well, Mr. Bush, this is some new definition of 'safe' that I hadn't previously been familiar with.

Maybe we could have prevented Pakistan's spread-the-nukes program if we'd paid half as much attention to proliferation, over the past three and a half years, as we did to Iraq. But we'll never know.

A President can't always control the outcomes. But he can control the government's choices. And the choice to be obsessed with Iraq was wrong, from beginning to end. Both proliferation and terrorism were more substantial and more urgent concerns. Hell, even global warming and global hunger were more threatening, over the long haul, than Saddam Hussein.

There is no excusing Iraq: it was a Bush Administration obsession that had nothing to do with anything - not the war on terror, not weapons of mass destruction, not anything. It was an enormous diversion of resources and attention during a time of genuine crisis. And not only have the crises of terrorism and proliferation become worse, but now Iraq itself is a crisis of its own, one we can't escape responsibility for.

We'll kick his ass out of office on November 2, if they don't postpone the election (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html), but cleaning up after the elephants is going to take some doing. And in some cases - nuclear proliferation being the most obvious - the damage may not be reparable.

Liberal

07-12-2004, 04:06 PM

Maybe, but it's apparently extensively-cited (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16) odiferous, bullshit spackled hogwash.So is stuff like this (http://www.webedelic.com/church/faith2move.htm).

RTFirefly

07-12-2004, 04:23 PM

So is stuff like this (http://www.webedelic.com/church/faith2move.htm).OK, it's not the medications. It's just you.

malkavia

07-12-2004, 04:35 PM

Your freedom of speech isn't being taken away. You have the right to say whatever you want (except "Fire" in a crowded theater), but you do not have the right to a captive audience. This is the same stupidity used by people who get angry at Wal-Mart for refusing to sell explicit CDs. These musicians have the right to be heard. But Wal-Mart has the right to sell (or not sell) whatever products they want.

This is a bullshit comparison. Don't like Walmart? Don't fucking shop at Walmart. We didn't elect (or uhh.. not elect, as the case may be) Walmart to be our public officials, did we?

DID WE??

No, we didn't.

It's okay for Walmart to sell or not sell whatever they want. We can choose not to spend our money with them.

We cannot, however, refuse to pay taxes because Dubya isn't living up to his end of the paycheck.

If they were jumping up and down and assaulting the audience, then we have a problem. Simply wearing a t-shirt that hurts Dubya's feelings is NOT a sufficient reason to be removed.

Baldwin

07-13-2004, 08:21 AM

Again, from that speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040712-5.html) by Bush:

Three years ago, Pakistan was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime. Al Qaeda was active and recruiting in Pakistan, and was not seriously opposed. Pakistan served as a transit point for al Qaeda terrorists leaving Afghanistan on missions of murder. Yet the United States was not on good terms with Pakistan's military and civilian leaders -- the very people we would need to help shut down al Qaeda operations in that part of the world.

I don't know who wrote this speech, but he's blowing my mind. I'm seriously trying to follow the logic here. Let me see if I understand it: There was a Middle-Eastern country run by a dictatorship, that definitely served as a recruiting and staging area for Al Qaeda, and definitely had a nuclear weapons program and several nukes, which they had talked about using against the world's largest democracy. Okay. And, if I understand what Bush is telling me, our brilliant solution to this problem was to get friendly with that country's government, based on the idea that if they just get to know us, they'll become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. That seems like an amazing level of optimism.

Here's my dilemma -- contrasting this scenario with the hundreds of statements from the WH about Iraq over the last few years, I'm finding a bit of a contradiction. I really don't know why we didn't either A) invade Pakistan instead of Iraq, or B) send Colin Powell to Baghdad with hugs and kisses for Saddam, and try to make him our buddy. Just not clear on what our principles are here.

Okay, here's another bit from the same speech:

Today, Afghanistan is a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. That country has a good and just President. Boys and girls are being educated. Many refugees have returned home to rebuild their country, and a presidential election is scheduled for this fall. The terror camps are closed and the Afghan government is helping us to hunt the Taliban and terrorists in remote regions. Today, because we acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed, and the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Okay, is this the same Afghanistan where the Taliban just murdered a bunch of people for registering to vote, and where the president of the country isn't safe outside his capital? Still sounds just a wee bit nightmarish to me.

But I'm violating the request of the OP here, since this stuff is worth a separate thread. So, more in keeping with the idea of miscellaneous complaints:

This is just my impression, and I may be misjudging the guy. But Bush really seems to me like the kind of guy who'll be your best buddy -- as long as you don't oppose something he wants. There's an air of self-centered, childish petulance about him. I guess you have to be arrogant to even think you should be president, but a good president should at least recognize that other people may have legitimate arguments. Bush has shown a strong tendancy toward black-and-white thinking, which in combination with his rather childish attitude is, to quote the movie The Best Man, "tragic in a man and disastrous in a president."

Also, when he was trying to shut down a satirical website for making fun of him (when he was a candidate), he said, "I think there ought to be limits to freedom." So fuck 'im.

Baldwin

07-13-2004, 08:31 AM

I should have made it clear that I think we did the right thing in invading Afghanistan -- but we did it without a good overall plan. I'm just a layman civilian, but my impression is that, while we drove the Taliban out of the cities, they're doing fine in the villages and mountains because A) we're using the bulk of the Army to deal with Iraq, and B) we weren't willing to sustain the kind of casualties we'd likely have had if we really committed to scouring the country and getting rid of the Taliban and terrorist elements. I'm afraid the country is going to break down into civil war again, and I don't think we'll be willing or able to deal with it, especially since we've already got a tiger by the tail with Iraq.

Not to be snarky, but maybe if Bush had gone to Viet Nam, he would have learned that winning battles isn't the same as winning the war.

Okay, one more picayune complaint: It bugs me how Bush likes to pour God on everything, like ketchup. (Another steal from The Best Man, which I hope TCM will be showing before the election. Terrific movie, although obviously dated.)

RTFirefly

08-17-2004, 11:46 AM

WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63843-2004Aug13.html), Saturday: A cartoon in Friday's Oregonian newspaper depicted Kerry speaking next to a sign that read "Kerry campaign rally open to the public." The next frame had a stately-looking gate with a cursive W on the front and a sign above it that said "Bush Campaign Rally, A Gated Community."
AP: "Bush Camp Controlling Admission to Events " (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040816/ap_on_el_pr/bush_preaching_to_the_choir)
BEAVERTON, Ore. - President Bush (news - web sites)'s team exerts close control over admission to his campaign events. Dissenters and would-be hecklers are turned away, campaign officials say. On several occasions in recent weeks, Democrats who have gotten in have been ejected because they wore pro-Kerry T-shirts.

The Bush campaign billed his visit to Beaverton as a chance for ordinary citizens to pose questions to the president.

[But]

This was no town hall appearance before a cross-section of citizens. Bush-Cheney re-election headquarters had instructed Oregon campaign officials to distribute tickets, so the school gymnasium was filled last Friday with 2,000 passionate Bush backers.

<snip>

Bush's admission policy can leave the impression that the president has strong support wherever he goes.
They can do whatever they want, of course. But it is starting to be an open secret.

RTFirefly

08-17-2004, 11:50 AM

WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3650-2004Aug15_2.html):
In one telling of his riff about the majesty of the Oval Office, he notes that it leaves any visitor speechless -- except for "my mother, who walked in and continued to tell me what to do."

That line was in Las Vegas. In Florida, however, he made the same point but said that the Oval Office is so powerful "it's the kind of place where my mother walks in and feels so overwhelmed, she won't tell me what to do." No biggie, just amused.

But they tore Gore to shreds in 2000 over stuff not that different from this.

RTFirefly

08-18-2004, 11:27 AM

From the AP link two post up:
Bush's admission policy can leave the impression that the president has strong support wherever he goes.

Labor unions traditionally align with Democrats and have not been particularly friendly to Bush. So when Bush spoke at a Las Vegas union hall Thursday, the campaign used its usual ticket distribution policy to pack the hall with backers.

The crowd roared its approval throughout the speech. Some tickets were also given to union members. A few of them sat silently in the back rows.
What did the headline at Whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040812-9.html) say?
President Speaks to Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
International Training Facility
Las Vegas, Nevada
Yes, this bunch will lie about everything, great and small. I've given up thinking there's even a rhyme or reason to it. I think it's simply reflexive with them.

World Eater

08-18-2004, 12:54 PM

Something that pissed me off this morning, as usual, in the NY fucking Post.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27059.htm

August 18, 2004 -- RIDLEY PARK, Pa. — President Bush promoted his administration's plans to build an anti-missile system yesterday, suggesting that the program's opponents are jeopardizing the country's safety.

I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system don't understand the threats of the 21st century," the president told applauding workers at defense contractor Boeing in Pennsylvania, a crucial state in Bush's bid for re-election.

"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down,' " Bush said.

What a fucking moron with this stupid plan. Someone mentioned awhile back that this is the singlemost expensive plan to the least likely attack used against us, and they couldn't have nailed it better. What if 2 missles are launched? 3, etc etc.

I swear we need to fight these assholes in their arena. John Kerry ought to draft up some hokey plan, and say Bush doesn't want to protect the country because he's against it. :rolleyes:

I love how the fact that people are against the shield because they want a better plan, gets totally tossed out the window.

Emilio Lizardo

08-18-2004, 01:10 PM

Here's another one. According to a short piece in todays Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10047-2004Aug18.html) an Ohio math professor attended both a Bush rally while wearing a Kerry t-shirt, and a Kerry rally while wearing a Bush shirt. At the Bush rally, he was asked to turn the shirt inside out, then later asked to remove it, and finally ejected from the event. At the Kerry rally, he was ignored completely.

Merijeek

08-18-2004, 02:33 PM

Something that pissed me off this morning, as usual, in the NY fucking Post.

What a fucking moron with this stupid plan. Someone mentioned awhile back that this is the singlemost expensive plan to the least likely attack used against us, and they couldn't have nailed it better. What if 2 missles are launched? 3, etc etc.

You just don't understand the threats of the 21st century. Terrorism is...

oh, wait

Wrong speech.

Let's just assume that Dubya accidentally grabbed an old speech from the bullshit pile and, as usual, refuses to admit to mistakes.

Quite fun, spending billions because the guy in charge just can't admit to a mistake, eh?

-Joe

World Eater

08-18-2004, 02:48 PM

Quite fun, spending billions because the guy in charge just can't admit to a mistake, eh?

-Joe

So much fun :rolleyes: (at Bush not you)

Apos

08-18-2004, 08:47 PM

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/8/18/211631/756

Please, try to deny it. The Bush camp is much much much more negative than the Kerry camp, to an overwhelming degree. Listen to any radio station in a swing state, watch any Tv station: it's purely negative ads, approved by George W Bush, most of which don't even talk about George Bush or why you should vote for him.

In fact, Bush's only real hope is voter suppression. Ads like the ones being targeted at African Americans by Republican interest groups aren't even trying to appeal to African Americans: they are trying to encourage them not to vote at all. That's what negative campaigning is all about as a chosen strategy: trying to get people to get frustrated with the political process and just tune out.

Apos

08-18-2004, 08:54 PM

At the Bush rally, he was asked to turn the shirt inside out, then later asked to remove it, and finally ejected from the event. At the Kerry rally, he was ignored completely.

And the Kerry campaign strategy with Bush people is generally just that: ok, we aren't going to get them, let's leave them alone and not waste too much time and bad feelings arguing with them. Focus on what we're doing, do it well, and who cares what they do? When the campaign IDs Bush supporters, and the reason to celebrate is not because they are then targets for voter suppression or even persuasion, but simply because the campaign can save money by not wasting its time and mailings trying to convince them. More for the swing voters and getting out the vote.
But in the Republican playbook, finding Kerry supporters is just the start of all the ways to fuck with them. At least Bush canvassers are often pretty dumb and self-defeating about it. It's one thing to go negative on ads. But they often go negative at the DOOR. You walk up to someone's house looking to deride John Kerry, and no matter how you try, your face twists and you look nasty and uninviting. It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths even if they are on your side.

Squink

08-18-2004, 09:35 PM

Hyping the threat of Iranian nukes (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003292) Bolton said that the Iranians told their German, French and British counterparts that they could produce enough uranium for a bomb within a year, and that they'd do so if the Europeans didn't back down in their demands that the Iranians dismantle their nuclear program. and minimizing the Bush precipitated Korean crisis (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/101772/1/.html): (Condoleezza) "Yes, the numbers will come down but that is more than made up for with the capability that we have in air capability, in land, in sea capability, and in the fact that our ground forces are now more capable technologically than they were 50 years ago," she added.

"As a matter of fact, I think we strengthen those capabilities once we achieve these changes," Rice told CNN in a separate interview.

Stoid

08-19-2004, 05:58 PM

His snuffling giggle that sounds exactly like Beavis. Or is it Butthead? Either way, it is incredibly creepy and grating, particularly coming from the person occupying the Whitehouse.

Merijeek

08-19-2004, 07:28 PM

Wait a second...

We need less troops in Korea because our capability per troopita has gotten better?

Shit...why don't I feel safer?

-Joe

Squink

08-19-2004, 08:03 PM

Shit...why don't I feel safer?Maybe because North Korea's troops have gotten better too? Heck, I hear that we've deployed (pdf) (http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/04fyi0012.pdf) a multibillion dollar antiballistic missile system that doesn't work yet, just to fend off PRNK's nuclear missiles. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2104430/) It's amazing what can happen when you bypass the normal defense development cycle in order to get a program up and running. Another four years of Bush, and we'll probably have imaginary starships exploring the Magellenic clouds too.

Apos

08-20-2004, 05:39 PM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004549.php

Instead of, like, defending our nation, the CIA is now busy preparing reports for the Bush re-election campaign.

rjung

08-20-2004, 06:05 PM

Bush is so pathetic, he'll even lie about his choice of cheese:
President Bush Nailed by Cheese Cops (http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000841.asp)

It all started yesterday, when CNN, Fox and The New York Times were content to transcribe and transmit President Bush's comment about preferring his Philadelphia cheesesteaks "Whiz with," (i.e., with cheez whiz and onions) thereby handing the Bush camp what it was after -- a revisitation in the national press of a year-old John Kerry "faux pas" (ordering his Philly cheesesteak with Swiss).

In contrast to the bigfoots of the national press, Kathleen E. Carey of The [Delaware County, Pa.] Daily Times went beyond mere stenography and did a little leg work on the issue, as well she should. For, while it's certainly not in the top 100 critical campaign issues this election year, it's safe to say that the proper construction of a Philadelphia cheesesteak matters more to Daily Times readers than it does to a national audience.

And the intrepid Carey came up with her own expose. She reported that Bush actually "prefers his steak absent of the usual Cheez Whiz and provolone, accompanied only by cheese of the American variety," information that she obtained from her own Deep Throat, one Caeser Barnabei, the owner of the well-known cheesesteak shop, Jim's Place. Barnabei, who has fed the Bush camp on previous swings through Pennsylvania and provided "70 to 80 hoagies" for the Bush campaign yesterday, confided to Carey that "the Jim's Special is altered to whet the 'W' appetite."
While I can understand the Bush camp's desire to paint their guy as just a regular working-class Joe, faking one's taste in cheese is getting downright desperate, if you ask me...

Squink

08-20-2004, 07:24 PM

Bush is so pathetic, he'll even lie about his choice of cheeseTechnically, neither Cheez Whiz, nor American cheese are cheeses. They are Cheese Food Products.

rjung

08-21-2004, 03:04 AM

Sorry, but I opted out of "Distinguishing and Analyzing Physical Characteristics of North American Dairy and Dairy-Like Food Products 101" while in college.

RTFirefly

08-21-2004, 06:15 AM

The funny part is that the Bush campaign started it (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_atrios_archive.html#109297302470794850), by trying to deride Kerry over his choice of cheese on a Philly cheese steak.

Normally, the Kerry folks would have better things to do with their time, but when you're up against a crew with the attention to (trivial) detail that the Bushies have, and a press crew that's more into those trivial details than anything actually policy-related, you do what you have to do.

RTFirefly

08-26-2004, 04:49 PM

The letter that Bush's guy tried to give Max Cleland (http://humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4890)
August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that's why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities - and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too - and proud to support President Bush. He's been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He's made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 - in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he's praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran's right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)
How do they lie? Let me count the ways:

1) That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

Kerry voted for a version of the funding bill that would have reduced Bush's tax cuts slightly in order to pay for it, as opposed to the version that simply borrowed more money. It happens all the time that Congresspersons vote for or against different versions of the same bill, while supporting the underlying measure, depending on which strings are attached. Bush opposed certain versions of the funding bill, too - most notably the one Kerry supported.

2) We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

I assume they're referring to when Kerry reported on what vets had said at the"Winter Soldier" meeting. Are they impugning the credibility of the vets who told Kerry what they had done and seen? If so, they should have the guts to say so. They don't, of course.

3) You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

The Constitution that gives us all the right to free speech doesn't give us the moral right to shamelessly lie. (It also doesn't legally protect libel and slander.)

4) You said in 1992 "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

There's a difference between criticizing who served and how, and criticizing their failure to be honest about the nature of that service. Big difference.

5) We are veterans too - and proud to support President Bush. He's been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He's made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

Which is why families of our troops were having bake sales to raise money for body armor.

6) And he's praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

While refusing to condemn his surrogates when they publicly air the vilest lies about that service.

Well, that's plenty for now. What slimeballs. And of course the real slimeball is Bush, who unquestionably put them up to this. He's good at getting others to do his dirty work, oh yeah.

Merijeek

08-26-2004, 04:58 PM

So you're saying that it wasn't the words "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?" in the Crayola style?

I guess I owe someone a beer.

-Joe

ZombiesAteMyBrain

08-27-2004, 09:12 PM

:smack: Okay, I knew it was of those songs... But still, how exactly can freedom reign? Reign means to exercise sovereign power. The sovereignty of freedom? Unless in the Bush lexicon America = freedom. Now that would make a lot more sense! :p

Makes just about the same ammount of sense as having a war against terror! How can you have a war against a noun?

RTFirefly

09-01-2004, 12:06 PM

I don't know how many of you have seen the video of the Bush twins at the GOP convention last night (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/083104-26v.htm), but believe it or not, I'm going to give Jenna and Barbara a pass; you can watch them yourselves, and decide what you think.

But they're introducing their dad, the President, who popped in by video feed. When he appears on the screen, there's what looks like a softball game going on behind him. (For all I know, the players could be real; however, I doubt the game was.) Bush is standing somewhere on the first-base side of the field. When he first appears, the batter in the box is a lefty, and we can clearly read the number on his back: 43. While Bush speaks, he hits the ball, runs towards first (and off camera). Next batter is also a lefty. The number on his back: 43. Same deal. Third batter's a righty, but he briefly turns on his way into the batter's box so we can see the number on his back: 43.

I don't think there's anything particularly evil about this; I just think it's kinda ridiculous to go to that much trouble for something that trivial. But it's their campaign, their money.

World Eater

09-01-2004, 12:14 PM

I don't know how many of you have seen the video of the Bush twins at the GOP convention last night (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/083104-26v.htm), but believe it or not, I'm going to give Jenna and Barbara a pass; you can watch them yourselves, and decide what you think.

I turned it off after the sex in the city "joke" <ahem>

But they're introducing their dad, the President, who popped in by video feed. When he appears on the screen, there's what looks like a softball game going on behind him. (For all I know, the players could be real; however, I doubt the game was.) Bush is standing somewhere on the first-base side of the field. When he first appears, the batter in the box is a lefty, and we can clearly read the number on his back: 43. While Bush speaks, he hits the ball, runs towards first (and off camera). Next batter is also a lefty. The number on his back: 43. Same deal. Third batter's a righty, but he briefly turns on his way into the batter's box so we can see the number on his back: 43.

I don't think there's anything particularly evil about this; I just think it's kinda ridiculous to go to that much trouble for something that trivial. But it's their campaign, their money.

I don't get it, are they trying ot go subliminal on us with the 43rd pres thing? Let me get this straight, they actually wasted time filming a bunch of people with 43 jerseys on? WTF?

RTFirefly

09-01-2004, 12:15 PM

Just a coupla twins quotes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51005-2004Aug31.html):

From their parents, they've learned:
what matters in life, about unconditional love, about focus and discipline.

They taught us the importance of a good sense of humor, of being open-minded and treating everyone with respect.

And we learned the true value of honesty and integrity. Sorry. Just couldn't resist.

Nor could I resist this one:
Besides, since we've graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years.

(LAUGHTER)

Kind of like dad. May God make it so.

RTFirefly

09-01-2004, 12:21 PM

I don't get it, are they trying ot go subliminal on us with the 43rd pres thing? Let me get this straight, they actually wasted time filming a bunch of people with 43 jerseys on? WTF?One shorthand for distinguishing between the former and current Presidents Bush has been to refer to them as '41' and '43' since they're the 41st and 43rd Presidents of the United States. From there, '43' took on a life of its own as a shorthand for Dubya.

Squink

09-01-2004, 12:57 PM

One shorthand for distinguishing between the former and current Presidents Bush has been to refer to them as '41' and '43' since they're the 41st and 43rd Presidents of the United States. From there, '43' took on a life of its own as a shorthand for Dubya.That's too complicated. Bush was probably just trying to commemorate the 43 million dollars he gave to the Taliban back in 2001. (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm)

Equipoise

09-02-2004, 11:56 AM

And then there's this:

George W. Bush's missing year
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/index.html)

Sept. 2, 2004 | NEW YORK -- Before there was Karl Rove, Lee Atwater or even James Baker, the Bush family's political guru was a gregarious newspaper owner and campaign consultant from Midland, Texas, named Jimmy Allison. In the spring of 1972, George H.W. Bush phoned his friend and asked a favor: Could Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old George W. Bush?

"The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Allison's widow, Linda, told me. "And Jimmy said, 'Sure.' He was so loyal."

Linda Allison's story, never before published, contradicts the Bush campaign's assertion that George W. Bush transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama National Guard in 1972 because he received an irresistible offer to gain high-level experience on the campaign of Bush family friend Winton "Red" Blount. In fact, according to what Allison says her late husband told her, the younger Bush had become a political liability for his father, who was then the United States ambassador to the United Nations, and the family wanted him out of Texas. "I think they wanted someone they trusted to keep an eye on him," Linda Allison said.

...

Allison's account corroborates a Washington Post investigation in February that found no credible witnesses to the service in the Alabama National Guard that Bush maintains he performed, despite a lack of documentary evidence. Asked if she'd ever seen Bush in a uniform, Allison said: "Good lord, no. I had no idea that the National Guard was involved in his life in any way." Allison also confirmed previously published accounts that Bush often showed up in the Blount campaign offices around noon, boasting about how much alcohol he had consumed the night before.

...

Bush, who had a paid slot as Allison's deputy in a campaign staffed largely by volunteers, sat in a little office next to Allison's, said Archibald, a workers compensation lawyer in Charlotte, N.C. Indeed, when Bush was actually there, he did make phone calls to county chairmen. But he neglected his other duty: the mundane but important task of mailing out campaign materials to the county campaign chairs. Archibald took up the slack, at Allison's request. "Jimmy didn't say anything about George. He just said, 'These materials are not getting out. It's causing the candidate problems. Will you take it over?'"

...

While Kerry earned a Silver Star and a Bronze Star after saving a crewmate's life under fire on the Mekong River in Vietnam, by contrast, the Georgie that Allison knew was a young man whose parents did not allow him to live with the consequences of his own mistakes. His powerful father -- whom the son seemed to both idolize and resent -- was a lifeline for Bush out of predicaments. After Bush graduated from Yale in 1968, his slot in the Texas Air National Guard allowed him to avoid active duty service in Vietnam. The former speaker of the Texas state House, Democrat Ben Barnes, now admits he pulled strings to get Bush his coveted guard slot, and says he's "ashamed" of the deed. "60 Minutes" will air an interview with Barnes next Wednesday, but George H.W. Bush denounced Barnes' claims in an interview aired on CBS. "They keep saying that and it's a lie, a total lie. Nobody's come up with any evidence, and yet it's repeated all the time," the former president said, in what could just as well describe the playbook for the Swift Boat Veterans ads.

Yet, after receiving unusual permission to transfer to the Alabama Guard from Texas, Bush has produced no evidence he showed up for service for anything other than a dental exam.

...

The Blount Senate campaign he ran against the Democrat, Sparkman, in 1972 was notable for a dirty racial trick: The Blount side edited a transcript of a radio interview Sparkman had given to make it appear he supported busing, a poison position at that time in the South. When Sparkman found an unedited script and exposed the trick, the Blount campaign was finished. But it was an early introduction for Bush to the kinds of tricks that later Republican strategists associated with the Bush political machine, from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, would use against Democrats, often to victorious effect.

...

The break happened not long after a boozy election-night wake for Blount, who lost his Senate bid to the incumbent Democrat, John Sparkman. Leaving the election-night "celebration," Allison remembers encountering George W. Bush in the parking lot, urinating on a car, and hearing later about how he'd yelled obscenities at police officers that night. Bush left a house he'd rented in Montgomery trashed -- the furniture broken, walls damaged and a chandelier destroyed, the Birmingham News reported in February. "He was just a rich kid who had no respect for other people's possessions," Mary Smith, a member of the family who rented the house, told the newspaper, adding that a bill sent to Bush for repairs was never paid. And a month later, in December, during a visit to his parents' home in Washington, Bush drunkenly challenged his father to go "mano a mano," as has often been reported.

Around the same time, for the 1972 Christmas holiday, the Allisons met up with the Bushes on vacation in Hobe Sound, Fla. Tension was still evident between Bush and his parents. Linda was a passenger in a car driven by Barbara Bush as they headed to lunch at the local beach club. Bush, who was 26 years old, got on a bicycle and rode in front of the car in a slow, serpentine manner, forcing his mother to crawl along. "He rode so slowly that he kept having to put his foot down to get his balance, and he kept in a weaving pattern so we couldn't get past," Allison recalled. "He was obviously furious with his mother about something, and she was furious at him, too."

...

How did this arrogant squirt get to be our president??

Rilchiam

09-03-2004, 06:55 AM

In one telling of his riff about the majesty of the Oval Office, he notes that it leaves any visitor speechless -- except for "my mother, who walked in and continued to tell me what to do."

That line was in Las Vegas. In Florida, however, he made the same point but said that the Oval Office is so powerful "it's the kind of place where my mother walks in and feels so overwhelmed, she won't tell me what to do."

Well, genius, your mother is a former First Lady. She wouldn't be intimidated by the Oval Office. If she seems subdued by it, it's because she has respect for the office in both the literal and figurative sense. Which you do not.

Squink

09-04-2004, 03:55 PM

Does the president really feel their pain, or is he just slapping throwaway remarks into his speeches to yank America's chains?last night on our TV screens, we saw the horror of terror in Russia. And I can just imagine the heartfelt anguish of the moms and dads of those Russian kids. Our prayers are with those families. And yesterday is a grim reminder of the nature of the terrorists we face. That is why this country must be strong and diligent, never yielding. We must bring them to justice before they harm us. (Applause.)
So when I asked Laura to marry me, she said, fine, just so long as I never have to give a speech. (Laughter.)Ask President Bush (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2004/0002244242&EDATE=)

monstro

09-04-2004, 04:13 PM

He should have mentioned the Russian hostage situation at the end of the speech, not sandwiched between more light-hearted, trivial remarks. But I think it reads stranger than it probably was listening to it.

a35362

09-04-2004, 06:15 PM

Equipose, thank you for subscribing to Salon so we don't have to! :p That's the kind of stuff about Bush that makes my blood pressure rise. He seems like an eleven-year-old boy, and every single day is his birthday! He's having way too much fun being president, and doesn't appear (to me) to know, understand, or care about one-tenth of the information and issues an American president must. You can be as conservative as you want to be, but this guy is a child!

Has anyone seen the Retro vs. Metro (http://www.retrovsmetro.org/) website and book? It's nice to hear some confirmation and explanation of the "red vs. blue" cultural faultlines idea in our national politics.

I am so depressed about Bush's convention bounce. What does it take, already?

ZombiesAteMyBrain

09-05-2004, 08:01 AM

Does the president really feel their pain, or is he just slapping throwaway remarks into his speeches to yank America's chains?

I doubt very much that Bush really feels anything, as the most lethal 'holy crusader' on the planet today is The American president - who,supposedly under instructions from his God, has wiped out thousands of innocents, many of them women and children. Bush has frequently claimed that his actions are sanctioned by God - and that he has a holy mandate for whatever he wants to do " ... I'm not trying to detract here from the horrific situation in Russia - but if Bush feels no regret for " Collateral damage" of his own holy war - I can't see him having any real empathy for the plight of the Russians.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." http://www.bushwatch.com/evangelist.htm

RTFirefly

09-21-2004, 12:05 PM

Bumping this thread because some Bush goodies (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040920-17.html) really don't rate their own thread:
I'm ready for the stretch run. I know where I want to lead the country. I look forward to telling the people what I believe.Me too! After four years, it would be really nice to find out what, if anything, you believe in, Mr. President.

He continues:
I believe that schools can do a better job of teaching our children. Listen, I went to Washington to challenge this practice of just shuffling kids through schools year after year, grade after grade. It's what I call challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations.I'm all for challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations. Starting at the top. :D

World Eater

09-21-2004, 12:13 PM

BUTCHER'S OUSTER NOT WORTH THE WAR: KERRY

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/30676.htm

Bush responded: "It's hard to believe that a candidate running for president prefers the stability of a dictatorship to an open and secure democracy."

<Hangs head in American shame>

The "open and secure" democracy that is currently Iraq? With thousands of foreign terrorists flooding in beheading people like it's going out of style, "open and secure" are the last words the place should be associated with.

RTFirefly

09-21-2004, 01:32 PM

The "open and secure" democracy that is currently Iraq? With thousands of foreign terrorists flooding in beheading people like it's going out of style, "open and secure" are the last words the place should be associated with.Oh, I dunno - the 'open' part applies, since seemingly anyone can just walk in there.

But you're right about 'secure', and I'll add 'democracy'.

World Eater

09-21-2004, 01:34 PM

Oh, I dunno - the 'open' part applies, since seemingly anyone can just walk in there.

But you're right about 'secure', and I'll add 'democracy'.

Heh, yeah, you're right. I was thinking "open society", not "open to stroll right in, grab the first person I see, and saw their head off"

rjung

09-21-2004, 03:47 PM

After four years, it would be really nice to find out what, if anything, you believe in, Mr. President.
I thought it was obvious -- record profits for his Texas oil buddies.

World Eater

09-24-2004, 08:32 AM

They've already started the switch of the bait and switch.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main/index.html

"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said, hours after the leaders of the United States and Iraq met in Washington.

"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.

Equipoise

09-24-2004, 01:33 PM

Bush said this yesterday (saw it on Olbermann last night) about the Iraqi people.

"My message is that we will stay the course and stand with these people so that they become free."

Um, wait, I thought they already free. Didn't we free them sometime last year?

If they're not free yet, when will they be free?

Maybe we should have named the Iraq thing "Operation Enduring Freedom"

en·dur·ing
adj.
Lasting; continuing; durable: a novel of enduring interest.
Long-suffering; patient.

ZombiesAteMyBrain

09-24-2004, 02:07 PM

Um, wait, I thought they already free. Didn't we free them sometime last year?

If they're not free yet, when will they be free?

Maybe we should have named the Iraq thing "Operation Enduring Freedom"

'Operation Enduring Bush' might be more appropriate. I have doubts about the 'freedom' part.

RTFirefly

09-24-2004, 08:12 PM

Lately, borrowing off Joe Haldeman (http://home.earthlink.net/~haldeman/), I've been starting to call it "The Forever War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060510862/qid=1096072710/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-7757481-3328124)". I've noticed I'm not the only one.

World Eater

09-24-2004, 08:15 PM

<sigh>

Leave it up to Musharraf to give us the little soundbite that Kerry should be using.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/09/24/musharraf/index.html

Iraq war brought 'more trouble to the world,' he says

jshore

09-24-2004, 10:54 PM

Just found this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-12.html) wonderful quote from Bush while researching for another thread:

And so, the world spoke, and again, he defied us. And not only did he defy us, he systematically deceived the inspectors. You remember the period of time, we said, well, let's give the inspectors the chance to work. We agreed, until we found out he was deceiving them. What he was trying to do was buy time. Why? Because he wanted to reconstitute a weapons program. He wanted to make sure he had the capacity to make weapons. And if he had any, like we thought he did, he didn't want anybody to find them.

Okay, so ignoring for a moment whether this factual recounting has much basis in reality, I'd like to focus on that last sentence: What he seems to be saying is that Saddam deceived the inspectors in order to try to hide weapons that we thought he had but we now pretty much know with 99% certainty he didn't have? That is one sneaky fellow we were up against...I mean, any run-of-the-mill dictator might try to hide his weapons that exist but only a really really sneaky one will try to hide his weapons that don't exist!

Merijeek

09-25-2004, 12:46 PM

They've already started the switch of the bait and switch.

Well, I don't have a quote, but Rummy had something interesting to say on Friday.

Basically, he said that Iraq isn't all that dangerous - after all, we have cities with hundreds of murders every year in the USA. It's just that each and every car bombing gets mentioned in the press. If they publicized every murder in the good old USA, we'd see that both places are equally dangerous.

And these are the people in charge folks...

-Joe, didn't know he had such a good chance of being decapitated here

jshore

09-25-2004, 12:47 PM

On the other hand, I guess we can credit Bush with continual improvement in that at least now he acknowledges that Saddam let inspectors in, unlike in response to a question on July 14, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html):

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

Of course, this was a few months after the events in question had occurred, so I could understand if his memory had gotten a bit shaky.

Merijeek

09-26-2004, 06:34 PM

Of course, this was a few months after the events in question had occurred, so I could understand if his memory had gotten a bit shaky.

"God I wish I had some nukes" written on a cockltail napkin DOES count as 'WMD Programs Related Activitiy', right?

See! He was guilty!

-Joe

RTFirefly

09-27-2004, 07:59 PM

You can't make stuff like this up. (http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/1029996.html)
About 800 members of the 98th Army Reserve Division from Rochester, New York will begin a year-long mission in Iraq next month.

The unit, which normally trains reserve and active-duty soldiers in the U.S., will find itself training Iraq’s new army.

The 98th is a non-combat unit that doesn't even have its own weapons or vehicles.

"This is a hard war and we, frankly, inside the Army Reserve have been not properly prepared for it,” said Lt. Gen. James Helmly, chief of the U.S. Army Reserve.

World Eater

09-28-2004, 07:22 AM

You can't make stuff like this up. (http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/1029996.html)

Why Kerry doesn't pounce on this, is the very reason he'll lose. Un-fucking-believable.

yojimbo

09-28-2004, 07:36 AM

*Sigh*

Cool thread. A good read and some funny fuckups in it.

Pity your boy can't fight worth shit.

Bush looks like he's gonna win. Buckle up people. I fear a 2nd term Bush.

Equipoise

09-28-2004, 03:52 PM

*Sigh*

Cool thread. A good read and some funny fuckups in it.

Pity your boy can't fight worth shit.

He fights well and hard, but you're not hearing about it. Unless you seek out what Kerry is saying, you'll hear precious little of it on the news. The media has no interest in letting you hear how Kerry is fighting.

How many of these speeches have you heard in their entierty? How many have you only heard one or two short soundbites from? Kerry doesn't do well in soundbites, and that's a problem.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/

Germain to this thread, it doesn't help when Kerry's words are twisted:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269
Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq

Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.

Here we present this highly misleading ad, along with what Kerry actually said, in full context
...

rjung

09-28-2004, 07:01 PM

Damn that liberal media!

Equipoise

09-28-2004, 07:50 PM

Damn that liberal media!

At least they kan spel, unlike me, but otherwise, yeah, "liberal media bias" is a myth.

If anyone, anywhere on the TV or in print says anything negative about Bush, that's automatically "liberal bias," which is bullshit. The war's not going well in Iraq? LIBERAL BIAS! People complain because a CIA agent is outed for no reason other than to intimidate her husband who pointed out a negative truth about Bush? LIBERAL BIAS! It's reported that Bush's daddy got him into the National Guard and he didn't complete his service? LIBERAL BIAS! The ecomony is tanking? LIBERAL BIAS! Any truth that's a negative is a "liberal bias" to them. It's sickening.

What the media would look like if all "liberal media bias" (the way RWers define it) were eliminated...

1. If a Republican is in office, there'd be absolutely no criticism of the President, his staff, the administration, or any Republican/Conservative cause. None. Anything that makes the President look diminished, wrong or "misunderstood" would be heavily edited and spun to look like a positive. (we're getting there on that last)

2. Every little thing that a Democrat/Liberal does would be subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, lies about them would always go unchallenged, and every "liberal" social cause, from the environment to Head Start, would be lambasted day in, day out, with none of the positives of such things given. (we're almost already there)

If a Democrat is in office, see #2.

I'd highly recommend the book "The Republican Noise Machine : Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400048753/qid=1088554942/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9839762-1708945?v=glance&s=books) by David Brock. He explains exactly how we got to this point. It's been 30 years in the making.

ZombiesAteMyBrain

09-28-2004, 08:10 PM

If a Republican is in office, there'd be absolutely no criticism of the President, his staff, the administration, or any Republican/Conservative cause. None. Anything that makes the President look diminished, wrong or "misunderstood" would be heavily edited and spun to look like a positive. (we're getting there on that last)

Sounds closer to a dictatorship than a democracy to me

capacitor

09-28-2004, 08:46 PM

They've already started the switch of the bait and switch.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main/index.html

I think he was talking about the US election that's to be held only in certain parts of the country.

SteveG1

09-28-2004, 09:23 PM

I'm not repeating the whole thing, the above is just for reference. That's why it's blank. But, it looks like you've been paying attention, and it isn't when or if, it's already happening.

I think he was talking about the US election that's to be held only in certain parts of the country.
Keep in mind, that this past summer there WAS talk about "postponing" the election, under the "threat" of some unspecified attack or threat.

SteveG1

09-28-2004, 09:26 PM

Dammit, the first quote reference was supposed to point to Equipoise' words about those eeeeeevil liberals and their eeeeevil liberal media. :smack:

jshore

09-28-2004, 09:37 PM

If anyone, anywhere on the TV or in print says anything negative about Bush, that's automatically "liberal bias," which is bullshit. The war's not going well in Iraq? LIBERAL BIAS!

From this blog (http://www.ithadtobeyou.net/carpe/archives/000917.html). (Maybe someone can find a link to the full Daily Show piece?):

I watched "The Daily Show" last night and thought Rob Corddry hit it on the head when he said something like, "Face it, Jon, the facts are biased. The cost, the corruption, the increasing levels of resistance, the lack of security, the dead and the wounded: the facts in Iraq simply have an anti-Bush bias."

Equipoise

09-28-2004, 09:45 PM

Sounds closer to a dictatorship than a democracy to me

So says The Man:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on Capitol Hill
Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET

...
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

Oh, George made a funny! Ha Ha.

I'm not paranoid, much, but the "retard" (as Brutis fondly calls me) in me thinks it's looking like fascism-wannabeism. I like this fascinating article, with its great (and chilling) quotes from Henry Wallace:

When Fascism Comes to America (http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/09/far04031.html)

I. When Fascism Comes to America, It Will Be Embraced by FOX News

"The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public. . ."– Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the New York Times, April 9, 1944
...

II. When Fascism Comes to America, American Fascists Will Get Richer

"Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. . .[They] do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases." -- Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the New York Times, April 9, 1944
...

III When Fascism Comes to America, We Will Have Been Warned

"[American fascists] use every opportunity to impugn democracy. . . They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.." -- Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the New York Times, April 9, 1944
...

Squink

10-04-2004, 08:16 PM

Bush to Expand Abstinence-Only Sex Program to Our Men In Uniform
Visiting prostitutes would be court-martial offense as part of effort to halt sex trafficking.
...
Defense officials have drafted an amendment to the manual on courts-martial that would make it an offense for U.S. troops to use the services of prostitutes, said Charles Abell, a Pentagon undersecretary for personnel and readiness.
If approved, it would be a military offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to have contact with a prostitute.Hookers may be off-limits for GIs (http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/181734-5057-010.html)

Troops say proposed UCMJ change unfair in prostitution-legal Germany (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=23729&archive=true)

World Eater

10-05-2004, 06:46 AM

Latest Bush flip-flop, boldin mine.

From Thursday's debate.....

And finally, he says we ought to have a summit. Well, there are summits being held. Japan is going to have a summit for the donors; $14 billion pledged. And Prime Minister Koizumi is going to call countries to account, to get them to contribute.

And there's going to be an Arab summit, of the neighborhood countries. And Colin Powell helped set up that summit.

In today's NY Post

"He has no plan," Bush added, brushing aside Kerry's proposal to convene a summit to solicit international support in Iraq.

"I can imagine him walking in to the leaders of the world saying, 'We need your help. But Iraq's a mistake' . . . A summit won't solve the problem."

These people think we're fucking Leonard from Memento or something.

World Eater

10-05-2004, 09:11 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/05/iraq.main/index.html

Bremer: 'Not not enough troops' in Iraq after Saddam's ouster

<Nelson>
Ha Ha!
</Nelson>

A sinking ship.

gobear

10-05-2004, 09:40 AM

BTW, has anybody noticed how closely Dubya Berzelius Windrip (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451525825/qid=1096986793/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_2_1/103-0116134-7559012)?

Aside from his dramatic glory, Buzz Windrip was a Professional Common Man.

Oh, he was common enough. He had every prejudice and aspiration of every American Common Man. He believed in the desirability and therefore the sanctity of thick buckwheat cakes with adulterated maple syrup, in rubber trays for the ice cubes in his electric refrigerator, in the especial nobility of dogs, all dogs, in the oracles of S. Parkes Cadman, in being chummy with all waitresses at all junction lunch rooms, and in Henry Ford (when he became President, he exulted, maybe he could get Mr. Ford to come to supper at the White House), and the superiority of anyone who possessed a million dollars. He regarded spats, walking sticks, caviar, titles, tea-drinking, poetry not daily syndicated in newspapers and all foreigners, possibly excepting the British, as degenerate

Dewey Finn

10-05-2004, 10:55 AM

Another George Bush incident was when he made fun of the NBC reporter David Gregory for "speaking French to the French president in France," (as David Gregory described it).

This was in 2002 at a press conference with French President Chirac and after asking a question of President Bush, Gregory asked the French president to comment:

(Asked in French.) And, Mr. President, would you maybe comment on that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Very good. The guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental. (Laughter.)

Q I can go on.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm impressed. Que bueno. Now I'm literate in two languages. (Laughter.)

The incident is widely described at anti-Bush sites, but I wanted a more balanced description of it. So here is a link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020526-2.html) to the transcript from the White House website.

Merijeek

10-05-2004, 11:21 AM

Look, if them damned feriners won't speak American, how's that Bush's problem?

If American was good enough for G_d in the bible, it should be good enough for them!

-Joe

Squink

10-05-2004, 07:53 PM

U.S. flu vaccine supply cut in half (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsflu1006,0,49256.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)
The number of American vaccine makers has been waning for several years now. Bush attempted to address this problem last year:
DHHS 2004 budget description: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/hhs.html) Pandemic Influenza. The budget includes $100 million for a new effort to protect the American people against the possibility of pandemic influenza. To ensure the reliability of vaccine production and increase our ability to quickly produce greater quantities of vaccine in the case of a pandemic, some American vaccine production capacity must be converted from the current egg-based methods to cell-based technology. HHS will work with manufacturers to ensure that cell-based vaccine production capacity is established.
Program Details (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030319a.html) "If we wait until a pandemic begins, it may be too late to act to minimize the loss of life in our country and across the world," Secretary Thompson said. "While vaccines cannot be prepared in advance and stockpiled, we must plan and prepare for an outbreak now to ensure we have the ability to quickly produce fresh vaccine that is effective against a pandemic flu strain." I hope that this isn't the year a biological mushroom cloud sprouts over America's cities.

RTFirefly

10-05-2004, 10:24 PM

"I watched "The Daily Show" last night and thought Rob Corddry hit it on the head when he said something like, "Face it, Jon, the facts are biased. The cost, the corruption, the increasing levels of resistance, the lack of security, the dead and the wounded: the facts in Iraq simply have an anti-Bush bias." "

Or, as Shrillblog said, "Objective reality is shrill." I love it!

ZombiesAteMyBrain

10-06-2004, 10:26 AM

I'm sitting here listening to a Bush speech on TV in the next room - and I'm amazed that people are applauding after every sentence - regardless of the banality or inanity of what he's saying. He's speaking in a monotonous voice - and I wonder is the crowd seeded with party workers armed with pins to stick into the audience if they nod off and forget their sacred duty to applaud every golden word.

A few minutes ago he said something really inane about 'changing the conditions under which someone becomes a suicide bomber'* Gawd knows what he meant - I certainly don't know - but the crowd applauded on cue. I swear he could be up there reading the Mcdonalds menu and they'd applaud.

*sorry if these aren't the exact words - it took me by surprise - but that appeared to me to be the content.

Squink

10-14-2004, 11:44 PM

There are rumors that some dopers are fiscal conservatives, so this may end up as its own thread, but I don't want to start it, and this tidbit belongs somewhere:
As U.S. Debt Ceiling Is Reached, Bush Administration Seeks to Raise It Once Again (w) Less than a day after President Bush implied that Senator John Kerry lacked "fiscal sanity," the Bush administration said on Thursday that the federal government had hit the debt ceiling set by Congress and would have to borrow from the civil service retirement system until after the elections.
...
Since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001, the federal debt has increased about 40 percent, or $2.1 trillion, to $7.4 trillion. Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in three years, raising it most recently by $984 billion in May 2003.

World Eater

10-25-2004, 06:44 AM

Jesus Christ that's scary Squink.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives.ap/index.html

Nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives that could be used to build large conventional bombs are missing from the former Al Qaqaa military installation, The New York Times reported Monday.

The explosives included HMX and RDX, which can be used to demolish buildings but also produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weaponry, the newspaper said. It said they disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/24/iraq.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi authorities have discovered the bodies of 44 Iraqi soldiers and four drivers after they were ambushed and killed overnight near the Iraq-Iran border, an Iraqi military commander said Sunday.

Iraq is so totally headed down the crapper. Good job Bush. :rolleyes:

Early Out

10-25-2004, 06:59 AM

And here's an example (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323593/) (this one, about renewed probes into the awarding of sole-source contracts to Halliburton, and about contracts being extended "for political reason") of the kind of story in which the shit isn't going to hit the fan for another year or two. There's a growing list of them.

In a weird way, I almost hope we get a second Bush adminstration, so that when these investigations start bearing fruit, some people start getting indicted, and we get some good perp walks. Even in an Ashcroft Justice Department (oxymoron?), U.S. Attorneys tend to be an independent, ornery lot. If the people pulling these stunts are no longer in office, however, there will be a tendency to "let bygones be bygones."

RTFirefly

10-25-2004, 11:39 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives.ap/index.html

[quote]Nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives that could be used to build large conventional bombs are missing from the former Al Qaqaa military installation, The New York Times reported Monday.

The explosives included HMX and RDX, which can be used to demolish buildings but also produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weaponry, the newspaper said. It said they disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year.

I think this one's worth its own thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282764) It's well underway, in fact; check it out.

Liberal

10-25-2004, 11:41 AM

I think he combs his hair funny. And his eyes are too close together.

Squink

10-25-2004, 01:11 PM

I think he combs his hair funny. And his eyes are too close together.You're onto something there Liberal, but such a serious charge really deserves its own thread. Maybe in MPSIMS?

RTFirefly

10-27-2004, 04:11 PM

Bush's rally ("") in the [Cuba City high] school gym featured his stump speech. The kids were told that if they wore a Kerry button or made any rude interventions, they would be in big trouble. No one did.When Bush has a private campaign rally, it's just stupid when he excludes anyone who doesn't wear regulation clothing with no hint of a thought of their own.

But when he uses the kids at a public high school as a campaign prop, he of course has no right to tell them what they can and can't wear.

Chicken George can't even stand up to the sight of a Kerry badge on a high school kid. How pathetic is that? And how's he gonna face down al-Qaeda?

Kimstu

10-27-2004, 04:28 PM

What I am mildly crisped about at present is the fact that, being currently resident overseas, I'm not even allowed to look at the Bush-Cheney campaign website (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=283253).

A recent post in that thread indicates that it was in response to a recent act of sabotage. However, given that the other guys (with a lot less money) are running the same risks (and it is clear that Bush opponents are by no means the only ones out there willing to use dirty tricks), I would think that the Bush campaign folks would be embarrassed to look (a) secretive or (b) chicken about this.

RTFirefly

10-28-2004, 11:43 AM

Here's the link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A446-2004Oct26.html) for my quote in post 126.

World Eater

10-28-2004, 07:32 PM

WTF?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/bush.ad.ap/index.html

INDIANOLA, Iowa (AP) -- President Bush's campaign acknowledged Thursday that it had doctored a photograph used in a television commercial and said the ad will be re-edited and reshipped to TV stations.

The photo of Bush addressing a group of soldiers was edited to take out a podium, aides said, and a group of soldiers in the crowd was electronically copied and used to fill where the podium had been.

C'mon now man.

MMI

10-29-2004, 10:34 AM

Okay, Curt Schilling is going to be in a campaign appearance with President Bush. That's cool. That's his perogative to support whoever he wants. I have absolutely no problem with that.

My question is: How, in this day and age, can Bush bring Curt Schilling (ace pitcher of 2004 World Series Champion Boston Red Sox) to a campaign stop without mentioning his current affiliation with either "Massachusetts", which we all know to be the dark heart and soul of all that is wrong with America, or "Boston", which most people (rightly or wrongly) associate with the aforementioned state.

I know that everyone loves a winner, but given that Schilling has said that it was the fans who were a big part of his wanting to go to Boston, and that many of those self-same fans are Massachusetts voters who consistently elect twisted, evil men to send to Washington to plot against America, he hardly seems an appropriate spokesman to bring to a rally of good, loyal Americans that the president represents. Can ya trust him, or has he been corrupted by playing 89 games in Massachusetts?

World Eater

12-15-2004, 06:26 AM

George Tenet gets a fucking presidential medal of honor? What the fuck are you smoking Dubya?

In other news

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/15/missile.defense.ap/index.html

World Eater

12-15-2004, 06:29 AM

Bah.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/15/missile.defense.ap/index.html

The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including various weather problems and a malfunction on a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested.

Weather related? Let's hope our "enemy" lobs a nuke at us on a clear sunny day. :rolleyes:

rjung

12-15-2004, 05:45 PM

A clear sunny day would be a step up from the previous tests, which required the "enemy" to tell us when they were launching ahead of time, what they were firing at, to give the missile a bright white paint job, to make sure they didn't send up any decoys, and to stick a freakin' transponder on the missile so we can "successfully" hit it.

Yeah, I can see Bush trying to negotiate an arms treaty with North Korea in 2007 with those terms...

Squink

12-15-2004, 09:42 PM

Red Cross neutrality jeopardised by US action in Iraq, British chief says (http://society.guardian.co.uk/aid/story/0,14178,1374051,00.html) The chief executive of the British Red Cross has warned that the international movement's neutrality is fast becoming a casualty of the global "war on terror".

Sir Nicholas Young told the Guardian that the US-led coalition's defiance of international law in Iraq threatened to obliterate the capacity of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement to operate in areas of conflict.
...
Last month the US forces breached international law when they publicly snubbed the Iraqi Red Crescent by denying it access to Falluja after weeks of heavy bombardment. It was a "hugely significant" gesture, Sir Nicholas says.

"It sets a dangerous precedent. The Red Cross had a mandate [under the Geneva convention] to meet the needs of the local population facing a huge crisis and, given their neutrality, they should have been allowed to meet those needs."

Says Bush: "Bring it on"
Says Condi: "No one could have predicted..."

RTFirefly

03-15-2005, 03:20 PM

Froomkin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33973-2005Mar14.html):

Bush called for "people from both political parties to set aside our partisanship and come to the table" on Friday -- while talking to audiences that had been prescreened to remove dissenters.

No wonder half the population thinks he's a uniter! :D

Hentor the Barbarian

04-19-2005, 06:37 AM

The man is apparently not capable of telling the truth. To nobody's surprise, his claim that his administration did not know about the Armstrong Williams thing was (wait for it) A LIE!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=710&e=2&u=/usatoday/20050418/pl_usatoday/reportnoethicsbreachineducationdept

Higgins also found that David Dunn, a special assistant to President Bush, participated in at least four conversations about the Williams contract with Education Department officials last summer.

The conversations, the report says, took place around the time the department renewed a deal that called for Williams to use his syndicated TV show and newspaper column to promote Bush's education policy, No Child Left Behind.

During at least two of those conversations, Education officials voiced "strong" concerns about "the inherent conflict of Mr. Williams' role as both a public relations executive and commentator," the report says. The Education officials, deputy director of public affairs D.J. Nordquist and chief of staff Anne Radice, told the inspector general that Dunn "agreed with their concerns," the report says. Even so, the contract was renewed.

The inspector general's findings run counter to a statement made by Bush on Jan. 26, about three weeks after USA TODAY first disclosed the deal with Williams. At a news conference, Bush said of the contract, "We didn't know about this in the White House."