.
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Lost Bush Interview from Irish TV Not Seen Before in the US
from 7/26/04
He makes Obama look like a mealy-mouthed surrender monkey. It is not surprising that our MSM would not show this interview. It makes all of their mocking coverage of Bush look like a consciously plotted pack of lies.
He makes Obama look like a mealy-mouthed surrender monkey. It is not surprising that our MSM would not show this interview. It makes all of their mocking coverage of Bush look like a consciously plotted pack of lies.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
S. E. Cupp Interviewed by Brian Lamb on Booknotes
********************************************************
from October 8, 2009. This young woman is a very clear thinker. It's fun to hear an atheist defending the proposition that George Bush is a better president because he is a seriously committed Christian. She seems ignorant of the fact that every life is based in faith in something; every totally logical and consistent world view is based on a few assumptions that are not subjected to proof or logical deduction. Most people think that if they embrace science that they have escaped a life of faith. But acceptance of science just necessitates the acceptance of the unproven assumptions that make science possible, e.g., science is impossible without accepting on faith that there is a consistency throughout space and time in the operation of the processes and laws of nature. She expresses envy for people who have religious faith. This reminds me that any amount of faith is a valuable gift and cause for gratitude. I would encourage other Christians to pray for her salvation.
from October 8, 2009. This young woman is a very clear thinker. It's fun to hear an atheist defending the proposition that George Bush is a better president because he is a seriously committed Christian. She seems ignorant of the fact that every life is based in faith in something; every totally logical and consistent world view is based on a few assumptions that are not subjected to proof or logical deduction. Most people think that if they embrace science that they have escaped a life of faith. But acceptance of science just necessitates the acceptance of the unproven assumptions that make science possible, e.g., science is impossible without accepting on faith that there is a consistency throughout space and time in the operation of the processes and laws of nature. She expresses envy for people who have religious faith. This reminds me that any amount of faith is a valuable gift and cause for gratitude. I would encourage other Christians to pray for her salvation.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Listening To the DNC and MSM on the Subject of Grass Roots Politics Is Like Taking Advice from a Rapist about True Love.
The DNC’s motto is “Democracy is only for Democrats.” The place is a fount of oxymoronisms. They tend to call anyone who disagrees with them part of a well-funded and organized effort to derail health care reform that is supported with millions of dollars a day from the demonic health insurance lobby. George Bush would have said, “These are people who see things differently than me. The great thing about America is that they have as much right to express themselves as I do.” Barack Obama says, “The great thing about America is that I can hire people to smear my opponents and lie about them. And since the media are dumb enough to be impressed by me, they’ll kneecap my scummy critics too. Great pickings here.”
Monday, April 6, 2009
Senate Investigation of Bush Finds No Evidence of Lies
I'm putting up this copy of a Hot Air post from last year because it blatantly contradicts what continues to be treated as established truth by the MSM. This originally appeared on Hot Air on 6-9-08.
Fred Hiatt perused the report issued by Jay Rockefeller and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee accusing George Bush and Dick Cheney of deception and misdirection leading up to the war on Iraq, and finds something missing: evidence. Not only does Rockefeller fail to substantiate his accusations, the report itself contradicts his public conclusions. It also sets a bar so high for action on intelligence that its absorption could paralyze the US in confronting threats until far too late.
So what did the SIC find about Bush’s statements on contemporaneous intel?
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
After the war, as we noted on several occasions, captured Iraqi documents confirmed two explicit connections between AQ and Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s IIS provided funds to two AQ terrorist groups. The Army of Mohammed, based in Bahrain, told the IIS that they wanted to attack American assets throughout the region, and the IIS supplied them with funds while attempting to cover their tracks, knowing what exposure would mean after 9/11. The IIS also supplied funds for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s organization which provided AQ with most of its leadership.
The New York Sun reminds everyone that in January 2003, the State department also had intelligence of ties between AQ and Saddam Hussein, and it came from the same group that dissented on the status of the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program:
His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi “has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials.” He added that intelligence on Qaeda “revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad.”
Hiatt also takes a look at the dissenting report from the Republicans, who — surprise! — didn’t get a chance to participate in the main report’s writing. Kit Bond (R-MO) reminded Rockefeller that he called Iraq an “imminent threat” in October 2002, not Bush, and that Rockefeller himself said, “To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” And Rockefeller saw the same intelligence that Bush did.
What Rockefeller does in this report is to walk back the threshold, saying now that we should have waited for more evidence. That may or may not be true; after 9/11, which was the specific frame of reference Rockefeller himself used in his “imminent threat” speech, waiting for more evidence could mean waiting until an attack occurs, especially in an era of asymmetric warfare. That would at least be an honest debate, but Rockefeller eschews that for unsupported accusations of dishonesty in what turns out to be a dishonest report. He certainly felt in 2002 that Bush used the right threshold after seeing the same intel that Bush had. If we have to wait for Perry Mason-like evidence, it ensures that the US will never take action on its intelligence until it is far, far too late. (via the Anchoress)
Fred Hiatt perused the report issued by Jay Rockefeller and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee accusing George Bush and Dick Cheney of deception and misdirection leading up to the war on Iraq, and finds something missing: evidence. Not only does Rockefeller fail to substantiate his accusations, the report itself contradicts his public conclusions. It also sets a bar so high for action on intelligence that its absorption could paralyze the US in confronting threats until far too late.
So what did the SIC find about Bush’s statements on contemporaneous intel?
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
After the war, as we noted on several occasions, captured Iraqi documents confirmed two explicit connections between AQ and Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s IIS provided funds to two AQ terrorist groups. The Army of Mohammed, based in Bahrain, told the IIS that they wanted to attack American assets throughout the region, and the IIS supplied them with funds while attempting to cover their tracks, knowing what exposure would mean after 9/11. The IIS also supplied funds for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s organization which provided AQ with most of its leadership.
The New York Sun reminds everyone that in January 2003, the State department also had intelligence of ties between AQ and Saddam Hussein, and it came from the same group that dissented on the status of the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program:
His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi “has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials.” He added that intelligence on Qaeda “revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad.”
Hiatt also takes a look at the dissenting report from the Republicans, who — surprise! — didn’t get a chance to participate in the main report’s writing. Kit Bond (R-MO) reminded Rockefeller that he called Iraq an “imminent threat” in October 2002, not Bush, and that Rockefeller himself said, “To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” And Rockefeller saw the same intelligence that Bush did.
What Rockefeller does in this report is to walk back the threshold, saying now that we should have waited for more evidence. That may or may not be true; after 9/11, which was the specific frame of reference Rockefeller himself used in his “imminent threat” speech, waiting for more evidence could mean waiting until an attack occurs, especially in an era of asymmetric warfare. That would at least be an honest debate, but Rockefeller eschews that for unsupported accusations of dishonesty in what turns out to be a dishonest report. He certainly felt in 2002 that Bush used the right threshold after seeing the same intel that Bush had. If we have to wait for Perry Mason-like evidence, it ensures that the US will never take action on its intelligence until it is far, far too late. (via the Anchoress)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Matthews Interviews Ari Fleischer
To start off Matthews asks,"What brings you back? Is this the return from Elba? Is this the 100 days of Napoleon`s return from Crawford? What is going on with this network of former Bushies -- current Bushies, I should say -- singing the old song?"
AF simply answers, "Well, Chris, I`m here because you invited me to be here."
ht/NewsBusted
AF simply answers, "Well, Chris, I`m here because you invited me to be here."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
ht/NewsBusted
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Monday, November 17, 2008
The First Female President - - - or - - Can You Do That?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Doesn't it suck to have class?
Because having class means you can't do things like this:"Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of Bush administration" ... Drudge Report
To prevent this from happening, I offer the following scenario......
On January 15, 2009, George Bush resigns. Dick Cheney becomes president and appoints Sarah Palin as VP. On January 16, Cheney resigns and Palin becomes America's first female president and immediately pardons all former,current, and future, Bush administration personnel. On January 17, Palin appoints Michael Steele, the first black Lt. Governor of Maryland, as VP. On January 18, Palin resigns and Steele becomes America's first black president. On January 19, Steele issues a pardon to Palin. On January 20, Barack Obama, becomes America's second black president.
The End
The above is reproduced verbatim from http://existingthing.blogspot.com/2008/11/doesnt-it-suck-to-have-class.html
Monday, August 11, 2008
Liberals Always Right on Terrorism . . . until Mugged by Reality
Below are two paragraphs from Bernard Goldberg's Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right. From page 109.
If there is another 9/11--or worse--liberals will insist, "We were just trying to protect everyone's constitutional rights." Expect no mea culpas from the Left. Liberals, after all, are virtuous by definition. Which is why they never bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions. As far as they're concerned, nothing else needs to be said.
But let's say it anyway: If there is another terrorist attack on Americans, lots more reasonable Democrats will move to the right and enthusiastically support George Bush and his war on terror. A conservative, don't forget is a liberal who's been mugged by reality, as the saying goes. But rest assured that the true believers will never budge. In their world, George Bush is worse than the terrorists. That's their story and they're sticking to it.
If there is another 9/11--or worse--liberals will insist, "We were just trying to protect everyone's constitutional rights." Expect no mea culpas from the Left. Liberals, after all, are virtuous by definition. Which is why they never bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions. As far as they're concerned, nothing else needs to be said.
But let's say it anyway: If there is another terrorist attack on Americans, lots more reasonable Democrats will move to the right and enthusiastically support George Bush and his war on terror. A conservative, don't forget is a liberal who's been mugged by reality, as the saying goes. But rest assured that the true believers will never budge. In their world, George Bush is worse than the terrorists. That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
How I Spend My Mornings
It has now been nearly two years since I last worked. I had worked a Saturday night shift and was scheduled to work the Sunday night shift. But, when I woke up in the afternoon, I couldn’t walk. I was on crutches for a couple of months because I had lost most of the sensation and muscle control in my legs. Then I slowly lost muscle control in my hands. It was made more frightening because I didn’t know what was causing my problem. My doctor didn’t have a clue and he sent me to a neurologist. The first two times the neurologist saw me he didn’t know the cause of the problem. But he did some test and finally did an MRI and we found out what was going on. A small part of the problem was peripheral neuropathy caused by my diabetes. But the major problem was a vertebra that was pressing on my spinal cord and also pressing on some of the nerves exiting the spinal cord in the area.
So I started physical therapy and in a few weeks I was walking with only a cane though I was more unbalanced on my feet than I have ever been. During this time I fell frequently. And I had to undergo occupational therapy because of the loss of function in my hands. The OT helped but it is only recently that the strength and coordination in my hands has increased enough for me to open a two litre soda bottle using only my hands alone without my vise grips. I still walk unsteadily but seldom fall down anymore.
And I really like not working. I enjoy spending time on the internet. I enjoy reading more. Unfortunately I am watching more television than I ever have. Rarely PBS will have a good show (some might find this hard to believe but I have even seen PBS go an hour without comparing Bush to Hitler - - - ever notice that funny little smile of Bill Moyers’ when someone goes on a mindless rant about Bush and Cheney - - it’s kind of like the look you see on well behaved men at a strip club.) There is probably more worth watching on the History Channel and A & E. But I waste too much time on Monk and House and Deadwood and Rome and such.
I recently read that retired people tend to fall into a strict routine and I have seen this in myself over these two years. I like to get up around four or five am, pray and then make some coffee (about two litres of sweetened café au lait). Then I read a Psalm and then meditate for about fifteen minutes. Then straight to the computer. First, I go over the front page of the BBC website. Then look over every headline on Drudge. Then I go to Hot Air.com I return to Hot Air ten to fifteen times throughout the day. And recently I check out Ezra Levant’s site daily (http://ezralevant.com/). All of this often takes till nine or ten am. Then I take a nap. Followed by reading and watching shows I’ve tivo’d.
So I started physical therapy and in a few weeks I was walking with only a cane though I was more unbalanced on my feet than I have ever been. During this time I fell frequently. And I had to undergo occupational therapy because of the loss of function in my hands. The OT helped but it is only recently that the strength and coordination in my hands has increased enough for me to open a two litre soda bottle using only my hands alone without my vise grips. I still walk unsteadily but seldom fall down anymore.
And I really like not working. I enjoy spending time on the internet. I enjoy reading more. Unfortunately I am watching more television than I ever have. Rarely PBS will have a good show (some might find this hard to believe but I have even seen PBS go an hour without comparing Bush to Hitler - - - ever notice that funny little smile of Bill Moyers’ when someone goes on a mindless rant about Bush and Cheney - - it’s kind of like the look you see on well behaved men at a strip club.) There is probably more worth watching on the History Channel and A & E. But I waste too much time on Monk and House and Deadwood and Rome and such.
I recently read that retired people tend to fall into a strict routine and I have seen this in myself over these two years. I like to get up around four or five am, pray and then make some coffee (about two litres of sweetened café au lait). Then I read a Psalm and then meditate for about fifteen minutes. Then straight to the computer. First, I go over the front page of the BBC website. Then look over every headline on Drudge. Then I go to Hot Air.com I return to Hot Air ten to fifteen times throughout the day. And recently I check out Ezra Levant’s site daily (http://ezralevant.com/). All of this often takes till nine or ten am. Then I take a nap. Followed by reading and watching shows I’ve tivo’d.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
At Least Code Pink Quit Screaming at Daddy
The Americans that I have heard talk about torture and the Iraq war have tended to focus on the 3 or 4 cases of waterboarding by the CIA. I have heard no moral outrage about the widespread and horrific torture visited on Iraqis by Iraqis. This leads me to reflect that: 1. They are just looking for a way to work out their own little internal dramas about George Bush. And/or 2. They might think that them there backwards foreigners just aint important enough for them to take notice of. Code Pink really doesn't care about humans being tortured they just want to keep up that unresolved argument with daddy that they have transfered to George W. Their opinion on moral issues is about as useful as the nuts who can only talk about UFOs, cutting taxes or building 7.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Evil, Stupid Bushitler Strikes Again
I did some disgusting, unkind things to the people next door. I was going to apologize to them. But, them, I remembered that it's really Bush's fault. Through the sheer evil of his monumental stupidity he deceived me into doing wrong. I am a good person, especially since I've never waterboarded anyone and I've never wiretaped. The massive evil of Bush almost overcame my super human ability to find fault with others. He must be stopped or the universe will be destroyed. Maybe if I join forces with other talented fault finders, we can turn the course of history. Should we attempt it? Why go to all of that trouble since mankind will never appreciate how morally superior we are.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Is the Social Contract Broken?
During the Katrina disaster hundreds of very sick patients were stuck in the middle of downtown New Orleans with a few doctors and nurses who felt an obligation to stay and care for them. They had no electricity and had to break windows to get a little ventilation in the heat. Many days passed and only a few helicopters arrived to evacuate the very sickest patients. Those who remained were abandoned. I think that few Americans who looked closely at this situation would feel that these patients and caregivers were treated properly. I, personally am outraged and disappointed in my country. I am 59 years old and I know that America used to be better than this. We expected more of ourselves than this. And Congress has not looked deeply into FEMA's incompetence or done anything to prevent this from happening again.When I was eighteen I was inspired by Socrates' argument that the laws of Athens had made his civilized life possible and he felt that he had no right to turn his back on these laws just because he had lost the trial for his life. I think that he was motivated to cause young idealists such as I was to respect law and civil life. But, if the laws abandon you, if the president is unconcerned about rescuing the sickest and the poorest among us, and if Congress won't be bothered to do something to insure that this won't happen again, what does the average citizen owe a society so run amok? The president and Congress will tell us what we owe them but seem ready to hide behind legal niceties to avoid doing anything for anyone who hasn't done for them. Maybe they need to read the fine print in the contract.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The New Republic and Scott Thomas Beauchamp
I've read a lot about this big mess TNR has gotten itself into. There is one aspect that needs more discussion than I've seen. Scott Thomas Beauchamp described in detail how he verbally abused a woman who had been badly deformed in combat. Leave aside the fact that STB seems to be the only human who has ever seen this woman. Let's just assume that Beauchamp was telling the truth. Why would the New Republic want someone so lacking in moral character as a reporter? Does TNR not understand how disgusting his behavior was? If TNR can't identify scumbag behavior, why should any reader be at all interested in what TNR has to say about moral issues.
I suspect TNR thinks that Beauchamp is not responsible for his own behavior. TNR feels that having been in the army and been exposed to war somehow made the army and/or George Bush responsible for this man's behavior. I guess the argument goes something like this: I treat other people like dirt but it's not my fault because the evil Bush invaded Iraq so when I volunteered to join the military the evil of the evil Bush made me a zombie controlled by his evil evilness to abuse this woman and enjoy doing it. You have got to feel sorry for Beauchamp since he has lost control of his own life to Bush the evil zombie master. Apparently in the world view of TNR people such as Beauchamp lack responsibility and the power of choice, he is denied this basic human attribute. But George Bush is fully human. George can be responsible and make choices. Though I get the impression that Bush always makes the wrong choice. ALWAYS. But how do you prove that someone has freedom to choose if he always chooses the same. Or is it just enough to say that he's evil and he will always choose evil but still everything is his fault. So I'm left with this vision of a world of poor, helpless zombie slaves and an evil zombie master. I don't buy it but that's the world TNR offers us.
I suspect TNR thinks that Beauchamp is not responsible for his own behavior. TNR feels that having been in the army and been exposed to war somehow made the army and/or George Bush responsible for this man's behavior. I guess the argument goes something like this: I treat other people like dirt but it's not my fault because the evil Bush invaded Iraq so when I volunteered to join the military the evil of the evil Bush made me a zombie controlled by his evil evilness to abuse this woman and enjoy doing it. You have got to feel sorry for Beauchamp since he has lost control of his own life to Bush the evil zombie master. Apparently in the world view of TNR people such as Beauchamp lack responsibility and the power of choice, he is denied this basic human attribute. But George Bush is fully human. George can be responsible and make choices. Though I get the impression that Bush always makes the wrong choice. ALWAYS. But how do you prove that someone has freedom to choose if he always chooses the same. Or is it just enough to say that he's evil and he will always choose evil but still everything is his fault. So I'm left with this vision of a world of poor, helpless zombie slaves and an evil zombie master. I don't buy it but that's the world TNR offers us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
