Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
shows how fundamentally dishonest Bush is. During the campaign before his first term, a reporter asked Bush whether or not he had ever signed an execution warrant for someone who he (Bush) had doubts as to the convicted person's guilt. His answer was, "Never." If he ignored the flawed system of justice that we have in this country, he was lying to himself. If you can lie to yourself that easily, lying to others is a walk in the park.
"Time heals all wounds"
"Don't dwell on the past"
"I'm just a man, people make mistakes"
We tend to be very forgiving people and in many cases I'm sure it is the best and right thing to do. But not here. The american public has been taken advantage of by its leaders since we boarded whatever boat got us here from wherever we came from. It's the case everywhere because its generally how the world works. Without going into a diatribe on how international banking has been robbing us blind since the 1820's and legally since 1913, I will focus on recent events. Not holding Bush and his administration accountable for their actions will set a precedent that we will forever regret. Although I don't see any of them really paying a sufficient price for their actions, at the very least WHAT they did and WHY needs to be brought out into the public forum as much as possible. Let the history books (and I mean objective history not a version sanitized to keep the masses in their current ignorant state)state some truths. Give all of the americans and Iraqis who sacrificed their blood, their lives or at least their family's well-being some answers. If we let this lie fester on into our country's future it will grow like a cancer and eventually kill us. Peace out!
Both the President and the Vice President have a history of serious alcohol abuse, so serious that their respective wives threatened to leave them and that has been attested to in interviews. Neither one received professional help for this problem nor submitted themselves to the most rigorous rehab available, AA. They just stopped drinking. So they never had the "overhaul" required to jump start a conscience, a thought process, a way of life, from which to start over. Turning to religion is a good support, but, it is not tough enough to change the process. Consequently, we had "dry drunks" running our country, arrested in psychosocial development at the age and level of development at which they "cured themselves". Risk taking, lack of personal accountability, paranoia, stubborness, close mindedness, denial, secrecy, arrogance, compulsive lying, all behaviors and much more, that accompany the disease remain.
It can be argued that one does not need to be an alcoholic to posess those personality aspects. True. But, they remain exaggerated and the primary defense mechanisms of a substance abuser who has not received appropriate intervention and followed a rigorous and monitored recovery. Reading the Bible and becoming a religious ideologue does not cut it. It may make the individual "feel better", feel superior and feel forgiven, but it does not truly heal.
In Rumsfield, we had a Secretary of Defense who always seemed to me to be looking for the next cocktail session. An unfair perception, perhaps, but that was my perception, given his behaviors and his pleased self concept and his remarkable comments.
The last thing any of us should have wanted in a President, especially this one, was a guy we would like to have a beer with.
I agree with many posts that the American people ultimately bear the responsibility for having "elected" this guy and his cronies TWICE! And the MSM bears as much responsibility for its' shallow endorsements and gushing endorsements of him TWICE! Yet, look at the journalists who suffered for reporting truth: Dan Rather and the woman from the NYTs, to name a few.
We are all paying the price and what a price!
You know what you are right, I never thought of it, but they are classic alcoholics who never got real help! Wow. Nicely said.
Per Joan Walsh:
"...the Clinton administration's interventionist foreign policy whether in partly humanitarian missions like Bosnia, or defensive strikes against Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Osama bin Laden in Sudan."
In what way were the US embargo and bombing of Iraq (which led indirectly to the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqi children) and the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical company (no evidence of manufacture of chemical or biological weapons ever found), DEFENSIVE strikes?
Just because Clinton did it doesn't mean it was all good.
He wasn't prepared because he never had to be prepared. I was able to see what was lacking in Bush in 1999 and I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack. What amazes me, even more than Bush amazes me, are the majority of idiots we have in this country who voted for the man. He can't even pronounce the word nuclear right. Listen to him for five minutes and there should be red flags going up inside your brain like crazy. Look at his past. He had never been successful at anything, and with his father's money I might add.
What's even worse though is that we allowed him to carry on like this for eight years. He's a war criminal. He did not uphold the constitution. He may have ruined the global economy. Maybe he's evil. Maybe he's just really stupid, or maybe he's insane. It doesn't matter. We the people are supposed to protect this country from Presidents like him and we didn't. We let him do whatever he wanted as if he were a King. We are more responsible for this mess than he is.
And a failure of conscience, ethics, morality, judgment, and responsibility.
As for "I didn't campaign as a war president ..." (at least not in 2000). I hear him saying that because he didn't campaign as a war president, he shouldn't be judged on his war record. That is a mind-stopper, isn't it?!!!?
If he thinks he was not "prepared" to be a war president, then he should not have started any wars! The "locus of control" is with him and not anyone else or any other administration.
How cynical to sound like he regrets something but phrasing it in such a way that he takes no responsibility for his actions -- or sounds like he had no hand in the outcome.
The sign of a scoundrel is to take credit for successes and disassociate oneself from failures and mistakes.
Once again, Bush was elevated by family connections and the stupidity of some of the American electorate to the level of his incompetence.
The only job Bush is good at is clearing brush on his ranch.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
