Bush v. Protestors - Maybe he should have been shown.

[kluge]

<p>

"Maybe you all can take a moment from ego-stroking to realize that George W. Bush & Co. has kept you safe for the last 6 years.

I’m always curious how people who repeat this bit of nonsense manage to mentally bury the months leading up to 9/11, during which Bush & Co. did absolutely nothing in the face of Presidential briefings warning that “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.”, including the statement “FBI information … indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”</p>

<p>9/11 came eight years after the previous terrorist attack on the WTC. Apparently even Bush & Co. aren’t inept enough to speed up the timetable.</p>

[conyat]

<p>A recent poll shed some light on the fascinating question of why people still support Bush’s whims in Iraq despite all empirical evidence:</p>

<p>

Likely GOP voters were asked how familiar they were the healthcare plans of all their candidates, “even including non-candidate Fred Thompson.”
“The results? In Nevada 29% said they were familiar with Thompson’s healthcare plan. In New Hampshire it was 15%, in Iowa 18%, in Florida it was 22% and in South Carolina had 24% with some idea about his plan.”</p>

<p>The problem? Thompson hasn’t even discussed a healthcare plan yet.

</p>

[menorca1]

<p>kluge “I’m always curious how people who repeat this bit of nonsense manage to mentally bury the months leading up to 9/11, during which Bush & Co. did absolutely nothing in the face of Presidential briefings”</p>

<p>How many terrorist leads do you think the United States gets in a single day? a single hour? There is no possible way to prepare for everything because at one time or another, every single national monument/ government building/ suburban mall has been threatened. Should they be on max security 24/7/365? George Bush was elected in 2000, so trying to blame 9/11 on him is ludacris. This is the same train of thought that blames George Bush for the tech recession of 2000 as if that was his fault as well. Why don’t we take a look over the last couple of years- no U.S. terrorist attacks and a strong economy. You can thank your [insert expletive here] President. </p>

<p>Hindoo “No, GWB is not mentally ■■■■■■■■, but I seriously doubt he would have been anything close to Ivy material without heavy-duty family connections”</p>

<p>Remember this isn’t the ivy league of 2007 which is 10 x as competitive as back then. Secondly, George Bush is far from the only elected public official with heavy-duty famiy connections. Despite what the media portrays him, anybody who has ever had any contact with him (I’ve had the priveledge of meeting a few) describe him as sharp and curious. Take that as you will, but he definitely comes off much better when he has a one-on-one interview than a press conference or formal debate. The reality is: he is the everday American. And that is fine with me. As I have said, I am proud that he is my president, because I truly believe that if I was stuck on the side of the road, he would stop and give me a hand. That’s all I want out of a President. I voted for George Bush twice and I will vote for Dr. Ron Paul for that same reason.</p>

[mafool]

<p>menorcal-If you were stuck by the side of the road, many of us (myself included) would stop to help. I, however, am not qualified to lead this country.</p>

<p>Seems like an irrelevant test.</p>

[conyat]

<p>

I truly believe that if I was stuck on the side of the road, he would stop and give me a hand.

</p>

<p>He flew his plane right over New Orleans as people were trapped on rooftops and in attics. FEMA even blocked rescue offers by other federal agencies, as children and elderly people were dying.</p>

<p>

a strong economy

</p>

<p>An economy fueled by vast sums of money borrowed from China. Money our kids will have to pay back. The meteoric rise in the national debt can’t be sustained indefinitely. Already the dollar is dropping. Goldman Sachs predicts the dollar will be at an all time low within 6 months. The poverty rate has risen, and what’s more, most Americans have less real earnings than they did before Bush took office. Simply put, for most people, the economy has not been good, and it’s about to get much worse for everyone.</p>

<p>

How many terrorist leads do you think the United States gets in a single day? a single hour? There is no possible way to prepare for everything because at one time or another, every single national monument/ government building/ suburban mall has been threatened. Should they be on max security 24/7/365?

</p>

<p>I’m confused. If we don’t get attacked, it must be to Bush’s credit. But if we do get attacked, it’s not his fault, even if he dismisses very clear warnings, because one can’t really expect the president to be able to control what happens. You seriously don’t see the contradiction there?</p>

[mini]

<p>“Remember this isn’t the ivy league of 2007 which is 10 x as competitive as back then.”</p>

<p>I can’t speak for the “ivy league”. I can tell you that the admit rate at my alma mater - LAC #1 - is about the same as it was in 1967. What IS different is that it (and virtually the entire Ivy League) is less economically diverse than they were in 1980. </p>

<p>“The problem? Thompson hasn’t even discussed a healthcare plan yet.”</p>

<p>I help construct our state’s “healthy youth survey” (for substance abuse, tobacco, etc.). We always have some wonderful ringers, so as to be able to disqualify surveys. We have one question that says, "In the past 12 months, have you used “durazinol”? Turns out that more kids have used “durazinol” than methamphetamine.</p>

[conyat]

<p>I suppose that’s good news. :)</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>“The reality is: He is the everday American.”</p>

<p>No, he’s not. The everyday American isn’t a multi-millionaire out of Yale, backed by a powerful, unscrupulous political machine capable of manipulating the Supreme Court and “winning” him or her the highest office in the land. … GW’s PR folks have since displayed their sneering contempt for the American people by polishing his Mr. Good Ol’ Boy public persona to a high gloss. GW and his handlers apparently see Americans as simple-minded souls who would prefer a president they could hoist a beer with rather than one who thought/spoke with any intellectual depth or conviction. … Personally, I rather think John Kerry, John McCain, or any of the other distinguished political figures who have been dragged through the mud at one time or another by the Bush slime machine, would be far more likely to lend a hand to someone in need.</p>

[cheers]

<p>He knew. He knows. He’s as stupid as a fox and he’s sure he’s right about the global political game at hand–particularily the oil game.</p>

<p>That’s why he’s authorized (along with our so-called empathetic congress) the building of the largest US embassy in history–the new embassy in Bagdahd which will house 3000 US citizens in a campus of 21 new skyscapers set in a 120 acre campus in Bagdahd.</p>

[menorca1]

<p>mafool “menorcal-If you were stuck by the side of the road, many of us (myself included) would stop to help. I, however, am not qualified to lead this country.Seems like an irrelevant test”</p>

<p>That is not his only qualification. It is simply a character trait that I don’t think any other presidential candidate had. Thus I think it to be an important point. </p>

<p>conyat “He flew his plane right over New Orleans as people were trapped on rooftops and in attics”</p>

<p>What was he suppose to do? Make a water landing with Air Force One and jump on a rooftop? The New Orleans failures were largely due to FEMA Beauracracy. </p>

<p>conyat “An economy fueled by vast sums of money borrowed from China”</p>

<p>Treasury bills. hmm… China has given us spendable cash in exchange for an IOU. Who has the leverage in this relationship? </p>

<p>conyat “most Americans have less real earnings than they did before Bush took office.”</p>

<p>Evidence?</p>

<p>conyat “I’m confused. If we don’t get attacked, it must be to Bush’s credit. But if we do get attacked, it’s not his fault, even if he dismisses very clear warnings, because one can’t really expect the president to be able to control what happens. You seriously don’t see the contradiction there?”</p>

<p>Maybe I wasn’t clear. September 11th didn’t happen 7 years into his Presidency. Think of him like a new CEO entering a declining company. The 1st quarter, if the company posts a lost, you can’t fault the CEO. 7 years later, if the company is still losing money, then it just might be the CEO’s fault. THE USA HAS BEEN POSTING GAINS (as in no terrorist attacks and a solid economy)</p>

<p>“Dismisses Very clear warnings” Are you kidding me? The CIA director didn’t show up one morning and tell George Bush “American Airlines flight xyz will be hijacked on September 11th, you think I should do anything about it?” (the CIA director did say WMD’s in Iraq was a “slam dunk” btw)</p>

[mini]

<p>No. He DIDN’T say WMDs in Iraq was a “slam dunk”. Neither Bush nor Tenet says he made that claim. What Tenet said was that selling the idea that there were WMDs was a “slam dunk”. Tenet knew that because he had already sold the Big Lie to the “experienced” Democrats (Gore, Levin, Biden, Lieberman) in January 1998 without any evidence whatsoever, and they bought it and all called for military intervention. When the U.N. inspectors insisted there was absolutely no evidence of WMDs (and the U.S. ones were removed because there were in fact CIA spies - also confirmed by the U.N. inspectors), Clinton kicked them out of Iraq, and bombed the heck of the country - in December 1998.</p>

<p>Having already bought the Big Lie under Clinton, no Democrat was likely to charge the former President with having fabricated the “truth”. Hence, Tenet knew it was a “slam dunk”, and that’s what he told Bush. Accurately, too.</p>

[conyat]

<p>

What was he suppose to do? Make a water landing with Air Force One and jump on a rooftop?

</p>

<p>Were you under the impression that the military airfield on the West Bank where Air Force One normally lands was under water? Sorry, but it wasn’t. The only thing stopping Bush from landing his plane there was Bush.</p>

<p>

Who has the leverage in this relationship?

</p>

<p>What do you think will happen when they stop loaning us money? Already 1 in 5 tax dollars goes to pay the debt. Our creditors aren’t going to let us take on much more of a burden without pulling the plug. Why do you think the dollar is falling?</p>

<p>

conyat “most Americans have less real earnings than they did before Bush took office.”</p>

<p>Evidence?

</p>

<p>This is well documented and should be common knowledge by now, especially by someone who thinks s/he is qualified to male pronouncements about the economy but I’ll find you a link.</p>

<p>

The 1st quarter, if the company posts a lost, you can’t fault the CEO

</p>

<p>It was his third quarter, not his first. And if the CEO gets advice saying “sales will fall if you don’t take action” and he refuses to take action, then yes, he’s accountable to any objective person.</p>

[conyat]

<p>

The Census Bureau reported that median incomes for working-age families were down again, for the fifth straight year. Real median income for households under age 65 is down by 5.4 percent since 2000, even though the economy has grown every year.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/another_year_another_wage_loss/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/another_year_another_wage_loss/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Real wages are falling at the fastest rate in 14 years.</p>

<p><a href=“US real wages fall at fastest rate in 14 years”>US real wages fall at fastest rate in 14 years;

<p>and there are fewer jobs than at the start of the Bush presidency too:</p>

<p>

Even after last month’s bumper gain in employment, there are 22,000 fewer private sector jobs than when the recession began in March 2001, a 0.02 per cent fall. At the same point in the recovery from the recession of the early 1990s, private sector employment was up 4.7 per cent.

</p>

<p>(same source)</p>

[conyat]

<p><a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

For real household incomes, the median point - the level at which half of households earn more and half less - has actually fallen over the past five years. That marks a notable contrast with the 1990s, when the economic boom boosted both jobs and incomes.

</p>

<p>For the economy to grow and real wages to fall the way they have since 2000 is unprecedented, according to Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute.</p>

[conyat]

<p>More from the same source:</p>

<p>

During the five years from 2000 to 2005, the US economy grew in size from $9.8 trillion to $11.2 trillion, an increase in real terms of 14%. </p>

<p>Productivity - the measure of the output of the economy per worker employed - grew even more strongly, by 16.6%. </p>

<p>But over the same period, the median family’s income slid by 2.9%, in contrast to the 11.3% gain registered in the second half of the 1990s.

</p>

[conyat]

<p>

To your dismay I’m sure, THE USA HAS BEEN POSTING GAINS (as in no terrorist attacks and a solid economy)

</p>

<p>Oh, I didn’t catch this very nasty ad hominem attack.</p>

<p>The fact that you are “sure” of things like this says rather a lot about how you see the world, doesn’t it?</p>

<p>It has now been reported to the mods. I thought you were just uninformed. I didn’t realise you were a ■■■■■.</p>

<p>Accusing others of wishing for Americans to die here simply because they don’t support the repeated necon failures in Iraq is disgusting and unacceptable.</p>

[menorca1]

<p>conyat, thank you for the censorship. </p>

<p>“Accusing others of wishing for Americans to die here simply because they don’t support the repeated necon failures in Iraq is disgusting and unacceptable.”</p>

<p>I just call it like I see it. It’s not just you, I’m sure Nancy Pelosi and half of congress hope America loses in Iraq as well. Works both ways of course. When Bill Clinton was in power, Republicans delighted at his affair even though it hurt the repuation of the USA. Just the reality of the world. </p>

<p>“Were you under the impression that the military airfield on the West Bank where Air Force One normally lands was under water? Sorry, but it wasn’t. The only thing stopping Bush from landing his plane there was Bush.”</p>

<p>The Air Force One water landing idea was sarcastic to emphasize a point. Again, once he landed what was he suppose to do? When govenors fly over a wildfire to survey the scope and damage, nobody expects them to land on the nearest military base, grab a hose, and start spraying. If Katrina hit Kennybunkport, I don’t think George Bush would have done anything different. </p>

<p>“Our creditors aren’t going to let us take on much more of a burden without pulling the plug.”</p>

<p>Really? Where else are they going to put their money? America still has the highest GDP in the world. That’s why somebody making more money can get a bigger loan from the bank- ability to repay. And if they are over-extended, they have to pay a higher interest rate. No such thing as “pulling the plug.” Just Econ 101. </p>

<p>“and he refuses to take action, then yes, he’s accountable to any objective person.”</p>

<p>You recently move into a new house. You bought a new TV for the living room and you are watching the nightly news report that an arson is suspected in the state park fire 50 miles away. Then a month later someone burns down your house at night. Are you responsable because you “refused to take action.” No! You could not have reasonably prepared for that to happen. Everyday you hear about another possible way to be victimized- robbery, hurricane, car accident. You can’t be superman. Back to the story- lets say after this arson, you have your house rebuilt. This time you add some security cameras and motion sensor lights. And then for the next six years you have no arsons and you live happily ever after…
The only difference is the USA had a much greater chance of another terrorist attack than you having another arson obviously.
I only have time to quickly glance at your economic evidence, but I’ll be sure to give you my full opinion of it shortly. conyat, on the other stuff, do you atleast see where I am coming from?</p>

[conyat]

<p>

just call it like I see it.

</p>

<p>menorca1, Funny thing is, it’s not Democrats wishing outloud for another large terrorist attack on the US–it’s right wingers, including a very prominent Republican!</p>

<p>The head of the Arkansas Republican Party and a popular right wing columnist have both said that what America “needs” is another high casualty attack like 9-11 to scare people into supporting Bush.</p>

<p>So, all you’ve done is prove what I always say: whenever a right-winger points a finger at someone else, it’s to hide the fact that he knows he’s the guilty party.</p>

<p>I can give you some excellent cases in point.</p>

<p>

Just Econ 101.

</p>

<p>If you think that increasing the national debt 50% in 6 years, and putting us in a position where the head of the GAO says that in as little as 20 years our whole tax revenue won’t even be enough to pay the interest–is Econ 101, you failed.</p>

<p>Try taking on as much credit card debt in proportion to your annual income as we have national debt in proportion to the GDP, then get back to me from the poorhouse.</p>

<p>

If Katrina hit Kennybunkport, I don’t think George Bush would have done anything different.

</p>

<p>Exactly my point. He wouldn’t stop his motorcade to help you if you were broken down, either. </p>

<p>And by the way, while you’re saying it’s FEMA’s fault and not Bush’s, please remember that FEMA was once a highly regarded, very effective agency. Who looted the senior management positions in order to reward political cronies? None other than Bush. Ignoring the mortal peril people were in while he vacationed/flew to California to give political speeches is one thing–deliberately creating a situation where an Arabian horse breeder would be in charge of the federal response to a major disaster is another.</p>

<p>

on the other stuff, do you atleast see where I am coming from?

</p>

<p>Since you asked for a personal observation about how I perceive your arguements, I will oblige. </p>

<p>What I see is the typical neocon schtik. You want to believe that you were right to support the right-wing, so you’ll convince yourself of anything (even accusing other posters of wanting Americans murdered, making up heroic daydreams about Bush, and imagining that insolvency is just the ticket for America) to rationalize it.</p>

<p>It’s no different from Wolfowitz insisting to the Republican Senate that it was “hard to imagine” that more troops would be needed to secure Iraq after Saddam was deposed than to topple him. Never mind that the history books said this was ALWAYS the case; never mind that the Army Chief of Staff confirmed it. Wolfowitz simply blotted out reality because it didn’t fall in line with what he WISHED was true. And the daydreams fueled by his wishes became more compelling to him than reality.</p>

[menorca1]

<p>“Exactly my point. He wouldn’t stop his motorcade to help you if you were broken down, either.”</p>

<p>touch</p>

[mogulero]

<p>*** does this have to do with parents of college bound kids? Isn’t there anyplace where we do not have to suffer this crap?</p>

<p>Isn’t it possible that Bush is just a decent person with whom you happen to disagree and that is more than you (plural) are able to handle?</p>