Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laugh O. Grams said:
Pentagon lawyers who also happen to be military officers. And yes, it pisses me off that a culture of secrecy existed between the Department of Defense, the FBI, the CIA, and state/local law enforcement for decades. Piss poor and unfortunate. I think that both conservatives and liberals can agree that we were all astonished by the one upsmanship and old boys club behavior of all of these so-called institutions that we assumed were keeping us safe!

It was more than a "culture of secrecy" - there was a statutory "wall" in place that didn't allow information sharing. And thanks to the Clinton DOJ and Jamie Goerlick, that statute was then interpreted to make the wall even higher than intended.

And at the risk of taking after Kyle and leaping off into fanciful speculation....I wonder if this has anything to do with the documents from the National Archives that Sandy Berger stuffed in his pockets and then destroyed.
 
What the Heck said:
What is sad is your attempt to link one thing with another. This is an extremely serious charge against the Clinton Administration, yet you tie it to the Bush Administration. Funny, but Bush was only a Governor of a state when these allegations happened. This article you quote from another post has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush.

In fact, I dropped the article to word so I could search. I found "Bush" wasn't in the article, nor was the word "Iraq". Clinton isn't mentioned, but the allegation happened on his watch when he "was so concerned" about Al Queda. Yea, right. His concern was so deep, he didn't want the FBI looking into an Al Queda cell on US soil. Wow, what a great president. :rolleyes1
The article does not mention Iraq because Iraq has nothing to do with September 11. Read the rest of this thread. Other than comments concerning the length of Bush's latest vacation, the bulk of this thread is about the war in Iraq and Bush being a coward in refusing to meet with Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq due to Bush's unnecessary war. Lyag is the one who posted the article on this thread and implied that the Iraq war would be unnecessary if Atta had been caught. That is again an attempt by Neo Cons and conservatives to imply that Saddam was some how involved in the September 11 attacks (a claim that is false).
 
Again, the only thing that has become totally clear from the Cindy Sheehan protest is that Bush is a coward. C'mon Dubya, Talk to the Lady
Can there still be any question that President Bush is a coward? Is there any remaining doubt that Bush is not only a coward, but that he doesn't give two shakes about the thousands of men and women he has sent off to die, be mutilated, or be psychologically traumatized? Any such questions should be put firmly to rest by the story of Cindy Sheehan.

On April 4, 2004, Cindy's son Casey died while ridding the world of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - or liberating the oppressed Iraqis, or bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, or whatever lie the Bush administration happened to be telling at the time to justify their arrogant and short-sighted decision to thrust the U.S. into a wholly unnecessary and irresponsible war. In short, Casey died because his Commander in Chief, our dear President, sent him off to war.

Now, a little more than a year after her son's death, Cindy wants answers. She wants to know why her son had to die. She wants to know why we invaded a country that posed no legitimate threat to our national interests. She wants to know the meaning of the Downing Street Memo's statement that within the Bush administration, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." She wants to know what Bush means when he refers to the "noble cause" for which her son was killed. She wants to know why, if the cause is so damn noble, Bush's own kids aren't fighting for it?

To that end, Cindy and the family members of many more casualties of Bush's war have set up camp outside Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch, demanding to speak with the man in charge.

Only Bush isn't talking. Instead, he cowers behind the protection of one of his infamous "free speech zones," safe from the impertinent questioning of those naive enough to still think the U.S. is a democracy. He struts around in his boots and hat, pretending to be a cowboy from Texas instead of a rich-boy from Connecticut who summered in Maine. He hides, hoping the unsavory characters at his door will simply go away.

Bush's refusal to speak to Cindy should come as no surprise. As made clear by his innumerable made-for-television "town hall meetings," Bush is either too dumb or too cowardly to face unscripted questions, much less be challenged by citizens who hadn't first passed their screen tests and sworn loyalty oaths. In keeping with his fear of anything resembling real leadership, Bush won't let even Cindy and her comrades within four miles of his desolate ranch. They were only allowed to come that close after being forced to park their vehicles eight miles away and then walk four miles in a ditch. When they dared walk on the road, they weren't permitted to go any further. Talk about gratitude: thanks for your unimaginable sacrifice, now walk four miles in this ditch.

Undeterred by the offensive treatment she received on Bush's orders, Cindy has vowed to remain camped (far) outside the ranch until Bush decides to suck it up and talk to her. If he can't muster the courage in Texas, Cindy's vowed to follow Bush to Washington. She's got nothing to lose. Her son's already dead. ...

The question is, why won't Bush hear out Cindy and her colleagues? If he is so ****-sure that his war in Iraq is "a noble and selfless cause," why would he feel threatened by those who question that assessment? If his administration did not fix the intelligence around its Iraq policy, why not answer the questions of those concerned by the Downing Street Memo and put their doubts to rest? If Bush does truly mourn every loss of American life lost in Iraq, why not come down from his lofty perch and give those whose loved ones have died in Iraq the respect they deserve, instead of forcing them to walk in a ditch?

No need to answer. The questions are rhetorical.
Bush is hding and refuses to talk to Cindy Crawford and other mothers of victims of his war because he is a coward. Remember Bush hid from the Vietnam war by having his family pull strings to get him into the champaign unit of the Texas Air National Guard over a waiting list of 150 qualified pilots. Someone on that waiting list had to go to Vietnam in Bush's place.
 
Professor Mouse said:
Brenda, you may have slept through Bush's June 28, 2005 speech (the soliders who were forced to listen to this dumb speech clearly fell asleep as evidenced by the lack of applause).

Still working the "applause conspiracy," I see. :rolleyes:

Leaving no stone unturned to wrongly insult our President. :sad2:
 

Professor Mouse said:
Brenda, you may have slept through Bush's June 28, 2005 speech (the soldiers who were forced to listen to this dumb speech clearly fell asleep as evidenced by the lack of applause). However, this speech did contain one of the more recent attempts by the Bushies to imply that Saddam was behind September 11. Bush Says War Is Worth Sacrifice As for a poster making the claim, look at Lyag's post. The only THIS being discussed on this thread was the war in Iraq. Again, conservatives and Bushies can not defend the war in Iraq except by trying to claim that Saddam was somehow link to the September 11 attacks which is simply a false claim.


:confused3

Sorry Kyle, but I don't see anything in your quoted message where Bush is implying anything that links Iraq and 9-11 and they were behind it in some way or another. He never has. Care to try again?

All he is doing is comparing the ideology of the people who committed the attacks on 9-11 and those we are fighting in Iraq because a lot of them are from the same group. How anyone with half a mind (just using *your* words) can leap to make that connection based on that recent speech is beyond me.
 
bsnyder said:
It was more than a "culture of secrecy" - there was a statutory "wall" in place that didn't allow information sharing. And thanks to the Clinton DOJ and Jamie Goerlick, that statute was then interpreted to make the wall even higher than intended.

And at the risk of taking after Kyle and leaping off into fanciful speculation....I wonder if this has anything to do with the documents from the National Archives that Sandy Berger stuffed in his pockets and then destroyed.
OK...there was a "culture of secrecy" from the beginning, where the CIA wanted to break a case before the FBI and the FBI would stand in the way of local law enforcement in order to look good on a certain bust. For arguments sake, if there was a statuatory "wall" up decades before President Clinton and Clinton put another brick on top of the wall that other Administrations allowed to stand...who cares?!?! The entire process should have been transparent from the get go. To blame Clinton is meaningless. I blame every Administration from the Truman forward for the shortsighted nonsense. Again...what this has to do with Iraq...I don't know?!?!
 
Charade said:
His plan was/is to liberate the Iraqi people from under the iron fist of SH.

Which didn't require the committment of hundreds of thousands of American troops and hundreds of billions of American tax dollars. If the plan (anybody know what that is?) was to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, that could've been accomplished with a "black bag job".

Charade said:
But that doesn't give us the right to install our form of democracy. Joe had it right, and it's already be called that, we'd be accused of installing a puppet government. Do you really want that?

What I wanted became irrelevant in March 2003. What I wanted was to never go to Iraq. You, however, were very much in favor of going to Iraq. So you tell me how you would be happy with a theocracy in Iraq.

Charade said:
So *your* plan to prevent Iraq from falling into a theocracy is to leave now? You stated before that we should have some say, how would you accomplish this since your insisting that we should have some say.

Oh stop it. You know that's not what I said. What I said was if it wasn't going to make any difference what the US does because the current thought is "the Iraqis will decide for themselves", I say get out now and let them start deciding.

Charade said:
BTW, we are *saying* things. If they choose not to listen, whatta ya gonna do? Torture them into submission?

I had heard there was a rumor torture had been authorized by the Bush administration. Heard those rumors? ;)

Charade said:
Sorry, can't help myself sometimes. :teeth:

You swine. :)
 
Professor Mouse said:
The article does not mention Iraq because Iraq has nothing to do with September 11.

Now that we've got that settled...

Actually, you should have used "had" instead of "has" if your referring to a direct link. Otherwise, there is a connection. Al Queda.
 
Cindy looked real cute in front of the "No Blood for Oil" banner in the Chicago Sun Times today. :rolleyes:

Apparently, she love conspiracies, too. Sorry for her grief, but she (and her supporters) are stomping on her son's grave with this nonsense.
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
Cindy looked real cute in front of the "No Blood for Oil" banner in the Chicago Sun Times today. :rolleyes: .

If it was for oil, where is it? I don't like paying $2.50 a gallon. We've been there for 2 years. We should have seen some of it by now.
 
Charade said:
Now that we've got that settled...

Actually, you should have used "had" instead of "has" if your referring to a direct link. Otherwise, there is a connection. Al Queda.
Yeah...now it does. Thanks to our shortsighted involvement there.
 
Professor Mouse said:
The article does not mention Iraq because Iraq has nothing to do with September 11. Read the rest of this thread. Other than comments concerning the length of Bush's latest vacation, the bulk of this thread is about the war in Iraq and Bush being a coward in refusing to meet with Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq due to Bush's unnecessary war. Lyag is the one who posted the article on this thread and implied that the Iraq war would be unnecessary if Atta had been caught. That is again an attempt by Neo Cons and conservatives to imply that Saddam was some how involved in the September 11 attacks (a claim that is false).


I wasn't implying anything. I meant what I posted. If we had caught those scum in the first place there wouldn't have been a 9/11, an invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan. We woudn't have been waging a war on terror because we wouldn't have been attacked. I didn't imply anything about Saddam or anything else. No Atta, no attack, no war.
 
lyeag said:
I wasn't implying anything. I meant what I posted. If we had caught those scum in the first place there wouldn't have been a 9/11, an invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan. We woudn't have been waging a war on terror because we wouldn't have been attacked. I didn't imply anything about Saddam or anything else. No Atta, no attack, no war.

I was going to post that earlier lyeag - I agree. If they were caught prior to 9/11 things probably would be very different right now.
 
lyeag said:
I wasn't implying anything. I meant what I posted. If we had caught those scum in the first place there wouldn't have been a 9/11, an invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan. We woudn't have been waging a war on terror because we wouldn't have been attacked. I didn't imply anything about Saddam or anything else. No Atta, no attack, no war.
So all conservatives here believe that the Bush Administration never said that 9/11 or Al Queda and Iraq had any connection. Great! What's sad is that liberals and conservatives together stood behind President Bush in our war against Al Queda and the Taliban in Afganistan. As a New Yorker, there are few sights that would make me happier than seeing Bin Laden dragged through the streets by our troops and made to pay for way he has done. However, it all changed, and the debate began, when our President decided to derail the hunt for Bin Laden before it was finished and sent our best troops over to Iraq. Stupid, stupid move!
 
Professor Mouse said:
As for a poster making the claim, look at Lyag's post. The only THIS being discussed on this thread was the war in Iraq. Again, conservatives and Bushies can not defend the war in Iraq except by trying to claim that Saddam was somehow link to the September 11 attacks which is simply a false claim.
If that was the claim why did you link her post? The link she gave has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or President Bush. It has everything to do with terror attacks on 9/11 and President Clinton.
 
Laugh O. Grams said:
So all conservatives here believe that the Bush Administration never said that 9/11 or Al Queda and Iraq had any connection. Great! !

Can't speak for the others but I believe he never said Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on 9-11.
 
Laugh O. Grams said:
As a liberal, I believe President Clinton could have done more and I believe President Bush could have done more. If you think differently, then you are blinded by partisianship to realities of the world we live in. Now, what that has with current US policy and the war on Iraq I have no idea.
I absolutely agree with this. Perhaps this latest bit of news will put to rest (forever) that 9/11 happened just on this presidents watch - it happened on both. And, prior to 9/11, both of their hands were tied in many ways. They could have done more, but how much more? How much more would the American people have allowed prior to 9/11?
 
Media Matters does a great job of documenting Drudge's lies and distortions about Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Tracking a lie through the conservative media
Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, has drawn significant media attention for staging an anti-war protest outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where she is demanding to meet with the president. On August 8, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted an item on his website, the Drudge Report, in which he falsely claimed that Sheehan "dramatically changed her account" of a meeting she had with Bush in June 2004; Drudge attempted to back up his false assertion by reproducing Sheehan quotes from a 2004 newspaper article without providing their context. After the story appeared on the Drudge Report, it gained momentum among conservative weblogs and eventually reached Fox News, where it was presented as hard news and in commentaries. Media Matters for America will examine how one false story on an Internet gossip site ended up the focus of prime-time cable news coverage.

Drudge's August 8 item claiming that Sheehan had changed her story used quotes from a June 24, 2004, article in The Reporter of Vacaville, California, where Sheehan lives. The Reporter article described a meeting that Sheehan and 16 other families of soldiers killed in Iraq had with Bush in Fort Lewis, Washington, earlier that month. Sheehan's son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

Drudge quoted Sheehan seemingly speaking glowingly of Bush: "'I now know [Bush is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith,' " and, "For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said." Drudge contrasted these quotes to Sheehan's statements on the August 7 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, in which she said, of the 2004 meeting with Bush: "We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

Drudge, however, took Sheehan's quotes from The Reporter out of context in falsely claiming a shift in her position. The June 24, 2004, Reporter article also quoted Sheehan expressing her misgivings about Bush and the Iraq war:

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.​
Moreover, Sheehan was not referring to her meeting with Bush as "the gift the president gave us." She was actually referring to the trip to Seattle, as Reporter staff writer Tom Hall noted in an August 9 article responding to Drudge: "Sheehan also said the trip to Seattle helped connect her family to others that had lost a son or daughter in Iraq. Sheehan said sharing their story with those families was rewarding, as was the time she got to spend with her own family. 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' she said in the story. Drudge included that quote in his Monday morning report, but didn't explain that it referred to sharing time with her family, not the president."

Reporter editor Diane Barney also responded to Drudge in an August 9 column, in which she said that Sheehan's positions on Bush and the war have not changed since June 2004. "We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then," Barney wrote. "In ensuing months, she has grown more focused, more determined, more aggressive. ... We invite readers to revisit the story -- in context -- on our Web site and decide for themselves." An August 8 Editor & Publisher article quoted Barney further clarifying the paper's position: "It's important that readers see the full context of the story, instead of just selected portions. We stand by the story as an accurate reflection of the Sheehan's take on the meeting at the time it was published."
John may not believe that Drudge is a slime artist but then again, John does not believe that Bush tried to confuse the American public about the Saddam being linked to the September 11 attacks.
 
What the Heck said:
I absolutely agree with this. Perhaps this latest bit of news will put to rest (forever) that 9/11 happened just on this presidents watch - it happened on both. And, prior to 9/11, both of their hands were tied in many ways. They could have done more, but how much more? How much more would the American people have allowed prior to 9/11?

We tied our own hands, with three decades of liberal hostility to federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering.

And I agree, before 9/11, there wouldn't have been much public enthusiasm for change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top