Mike Cummings wrote:
There is enough out there for a Leftie to hate Bush about, you don't need to hunt up non issues.

I could see why some people might be irked by his statement at the GOP-sponsored benefit for Richard Talent:

President GW Bush wrote:
There's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done. They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off.

President GW Bush wrote:
It is important to have members of the United States Congress who will not raise the white flag of surrender in the war on terror

This matches his earlier statements last week.

Associated Press, on 6/19/2006 wrote:
He criticized proposals, such as are being advocated by some leading Democrats in Congress, for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. "An early withdrawal would be a defeat for the United States," Bush told an audience of about 5,000 attendees at the Washington Convention Center.

When a follow-up was made about this, it was evaded:

Matt Lauer wrote:
The white flag of surrender — that’s a very dramatic and harsh expression to use against the Democrats. Have you heard any Democrats calling for the white flag of surrender?

Dan Bartlett, Counselor to the President wrote:
Well, I have heard a lot of Democrats call this President a liar, saying we’ve gone into Iraq for the wrong reasons, saying that he’s incomptent. So there is a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington. But what we see in the heart wrenching developments, when we see our 2 soldiers lose their lives in such a horrific way, is that we’re up against a very determined enemy. This is an epic struggle in which we have to be committed to winning.

Obviously, making a false implication ine one speech, and repeating it as a direct statement in another about an entire political party that deliberately polarizes an already divided country isn't an impeachable offense: it's merely "politics as usual".

Does that make it acceptable behavior? I don't care what other politicians or earlier Presidents do or may have done. Is that disingenuous behavior acceptable?

"hate Bush"? Probably few actually hate him. A sizeable fraction of the American populace isn't thrilled with him and/or his policies, however.

Kevin Connery wrote:
"hate Bush"? Probably few actually hate him. A sizeable fraction of the American populace isn't thrilled with him and/or his policies, however.

And the fraction keeps growing week by week...

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01685.html

stavrophotography wrote:
No matter who takes the oath of office January 20th 2009 ..  I hope they mean it when they say.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

preserve,protect,defend...Those three words have been over looked the past six years.

sorry but ignoring those terms started long before Bush....try maybe kennedy digging us a pit in Vietnam.....and starting a huge screw-up...or carter in the middle east....was he the beginning of the end...

ebarb wrote:
sorry but ignoring those terms started long before Bush....try maybe kennedy digging us a pit in Vietnam.....and starting a huge screw-up...or carter in the middle east....was he the beginning of the end...

I think you might check back in your history.....Kennedy was in the process of bringing our advisors home when he was assassinated......and to this day many believe it was the military/industrial (corporate) complex that was responsible....because it was more profitable to continue with the war....

The other school of thought was the now discredited "dominoe theory"...that if South Vietnam fell...all of southeast asia would go communist......that train of thought was a prime reason Lyndon Johnson never ran for a second term....

Jimmy Carter....well...he was inept....not devious...just in over his head....he should have stayed in Georgia on his peanut farm......his downfall was the "rose garden theory"....where he refused to campaign while Iran held our hostages.....

Whether you agreed or disagreed with any of these past administrations....really isn't the point.....because none of them was as secretive or power hungry as the current pack of political whores who run the country today...

Kevin Connery wrote:

Mike Cummings wrote:
You are not attacked because you have no importance in the world. It would be like attacking the Republic of Suriname.

If this is the case, your earlier statement ("Spend some money on your military so we don't have to defend your sorry ass, then you can speak") is even more senseless. If you knew they weren't a military target, why do you feel justified in telling another country to spend their money?

Geography has always had an impact on the military.

Nevertheless, you're being inconsistent. (Unnecessarily tacky as well, but that's just an opinion.)

LOL "tacky"... Thanks, you just brought a smile to my face. My favorite aunt says "tacky, tacky, tacky" all the time.

Yes geography has an impact on defense. In this case we can't count on Canada's defense. If you were going to stage an attack (military not terrorist) on the US you would run through Canada first.

Mike Cummings wrote:

LOL "tacky"... Thanks, you just brought a smile to my face. My favorite aunt says "tacky, tacky, tacky" all the time.

Yes geography has an impact on defense. In this case we can't count on Canada's defense. If you were going to stage an attack (military not terrorist) on the US you would run through Canada first.

Or just grow our own in Flordia. /t

Tim Baker wrote:

Or just grow our own in Flordia. /t

Mike Cummings wrote:

LOL "tacky"... Thanks, you just brought a smile to my face. My favorite aunt says "tacky, tacky, tacky" all the time.

Yes geography has an impact on defense. In this case we can't count on Canada's defense. If you were going to stage an attack (military not terrorist) on the US you would run through Canada first.

And who has the ability, the gear, the men, or the necessary supplies to even BEGIN to launch a ladn based attack on the U.S. ???

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:

And who has the ability, the gear, the men, or the necessary supplies to even BEGIN to launch a ladn based attack on the U.S. ???

First who said land based? It could be air based, but either way China is a name that springs to mind.

Mike Cummings wrote:
First who said land based? It could be air based, but either way China is a name that springs to mind.

Umm. Why would China attack its largest trading partner? If we didn't buy their crap, they wouldn't have the revenue to even continue to build up their army.  Also, as Rich points out, they don't spend near enough to have the resources necessary to mount a land based assalt on the U.S.


Source: http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2003/1/baker.asp

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
If it was airbased, they would not have to come through Canada OR they would have to hold land in Canada. Either way...China at present would not have a chance. Nobody would have a chance. We've spent so much damned money on our military that the only threat we could face is if half the world ganged up on us (at which point we'd probably go non-conventional anyways). That brings up another issue...China knows if it were to launch a full scale invasion that they would be nuked back to the Han dynasty.

The irony of this is that we don't need a large military if we use the nuclear option. Yet, we spend. Good for the military industrial complex not good on the old federal budget.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
If it was airbased, they would not have to come through Canada OR they would have to hold land in Canada. Either way...China at present would not have a chance. Nobody would have a chance. We've spent so much damned money on our military that the only threat we could face is if half the world ganged up on us (at which point we'd probably go non-conventional anyways). That brings up another issue...China knows if it were to launch a full scale invasion that they would be nuked back to the Han dynasty.

Right we have spent so much on our defense that Canada does not have to. (nor any of the rest of the countries in the Americas)

Mike Cummings wrote:

Right we have spent so much on our defense that Canada does not have to. (nor any of the rest of the countries in the Americas)

And that makes us...a little less than bright for doing all the work, no? Especially when there is no threat great enough to justify all our conventional weapons?

Mike Cummings wrote:

Right we have spent so much on our defense that Canada does not have to. (nor any of the rest of the countries in the Americas)

How much have we spent actually protecting outselves from an attack (not Iraq) - we're not under any serious danger of an attack.  Ever ask yourself what we're spending all that military money for?  /t

Tim Baker wrote:

Umm. Why would China attack its largest trading partner? If we didn't buy their crap, they wouldn't have the revenue to even continue to build up their army.  Also, as Rich points out, they don't spend near enough to have the resources necessary to mount a land based assalt on the U.S.


Source: http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2003/1/baker.asp

You never know they may go into a Wal~Mart, see all the crap we buy and decide to cut out the middleman.

Tim Baker wrote:

How much have we spent actually protecting outselves from an attack (not Iraq) - we're not under any serious danger of an attack.  Ever ask yourself what we're spending all that military money for?  /t

Preventative measures. A strong military allows us to mass warships and tell other countries "you can't have the bomb" or like the latest "don't even think of testing that missle".

Mike Cummings wrote:

You never know they may go into a Wal~Mart, see all the crap we buy and decide to cut out the middleman.

LOL. I can just see the headlines: "China declares ware on Wal-Mart: Neighborhoods all over America Cheer."  - Old Samael Walton must be turning over in the grave about now.

Mike Cummings wrote:
Preventative measures. A strong military allows us to mass warships and tell other countries "you can't have the bomb" or like the latest "don't even think of testing that missle".

We could just use CNN and make it all up.

I had to laugh this week when the Pentagon announced we had 'turned on' our missle defense shield (or maybe they said 'system') to get N. Korea's attention. I read that and said wft - what defense shield? Thought that died along with Ronnie. But, as O'Reilly would say, "Some Say" we have space pigs to protect us ... bring it on." /t


Pentagon illustration shows that U.S.
space-pigs (as described in Mark 5:12-13)
are used to absorb incoming demons in an
illustration of the U.S. missel defense system.
The system was first fed and then switched
on Saturday.

Tim Baker wrote:

LOL. I can just see the headlines: "China declares ware on Wal-Mart: Neighborhoods all over America Cheer."  - Old Samael Walton must be turning over in the grave about now.

Sam is spinning so fast they have to pump a lubricant into the grave to keep it from bursting into flames.

Tim Baker wrote:

We could just use CNN and make it all up.

I had to laugh this week when the Pentagon announced we had 'turned on' our missle defense shield (or maybe they said 'system') to get N. Korea's attention. I read that and said wft - what defense shield? Thought that died along with Ronnie.

Well.....

Tim Baker wrote:

We could just use CNN and make it all up.

I had to laugh this week when the Pentagon announced we had 'turned on' our missle defense shield (or maybe they said 'system') to get N. Korea's attention. I read that and said wft - what defense shield? Thought that died along with Ronnie. But, as O'Reilly would say, "Some Say" we have space pigs ... bring it on." /t


Pentagon illustration shows that U.S.
space-pigs (as described in Mark 5:12-13)
are used to absorb incoming demons in an
illustration of the U.S. missel defense system.

I feel safer already.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
This reminds me of the old argument that citizens should be able to own rocket launchers and machine guns...so they can defend their homes against foreign attack. Anyone with the rescources to pull it off would not be stopped by the local militia...fer sure.

Like the Soviets said in Afghanistan, that's what we said in Vietnam and Bosnia, and Somalia, and Lebanon, and...........

Adolph Hitler was scared to go into Switzerland, because every male there was armed..... The Nazis knew what a armed populace could do.


Cant agree with you there Rich

ebarb wrote:
preserve,protect,defend...Those three words have been over looked the past six years.

sorry but ignoring those terms started long before Bush....try maybe kennedy digging us a pit in Vietnam.....and starting a huge screw-up...or carter in the middle east....was he the beginning of the end...

True, they were abused and ignored before.

Nevertheless, even though earlier Presidents violated their oaths does not make it any more acceptable for the current President to do so. (Or shouldn't make it more acceptable, at least.)

Mike Cummings wrote:

Now see that one makes you sound like an hysterical queen. Butch it up. See you guys avoid conflict so well you don't even know how to fight right. I guess that comes from the French side of your family.

LOL, hey, that ain't fair LOL, my paternal grandfather was a Frenchman  who fled to the USA and fought for the Americans during the Spanish-American war in the Philippines LOL....  but I guess my grandfather could be the Exception LOL

Daniel Schmidtka wrote:
I would vote Bush in for a third term! Few of you have a real opinion or have lived under any kind of foul government and wouldn't know a good thing if it hit you up side the head.

You’re like the dumb shits on TV that burn the US flag, beat their wives, stave their kids and scream jihad because it's fashionable!

I think I'll start a thread! Viva Bush!

That is exactly how I feel about the Bush-haters. To me, it's all just negative propaganda from the defeated party. Of course they are trying to just make as much noise as they can to sway the voters into not voting Republican again. I think the American people are much smarter than they think so they can just go on right ahead with all this bullshit. They haven't presented anything objective to support their claims and lies. Whatever it is they're selling, I ain't buying.