OK, the next time that someone complains about President Bush politicizing something

[disney4us2002]

Originally posted by Hagred
I think what's truly bothering conservatives about this particular 'political' statement is that it happens to be true. Bill Clinton IS lucky to have insurance to cover this procedure. 43 million Americans do not.

I guess this falls under today's politically correct agenda:

It's not WHAT you say - it's when, where and how you said it.

If you can't take issue with the absolute truth of a statement, go after when, where, and how the statement was issued as well as attacking the character of who made the statement in the first place.

Really? Clinton is lucky to have insurance? First, as has been pointed out already, the surgery is necessary and therefore done regardless of insurance and second, Clinton could easily pay for this surgery probably just from the advance he got to write his biography. That he has coverage is not about luck.

There is no need for a free-for-all about Hillary's character. She has been around long enough for everyone to form an opinion one way or other. That some see her statement as tacky or ill-timed and others see it as a chance to promote a cause presently on her mind is not in the least surprising.

 

[Gupsmom]

Iraq had nothing to do directly with 9/11. That's a known fact. But there is a common link between the two. Terrorists and regimes that support/aid terrorists.

When you put it that way, there's quite a connection between OUR government and 9/11. We trained and gave financial aid to Bin Laden and Hussein and we did it with intentions of using them as a weapon against other people.

It sort of reminds you of the science fiction movies where we create robots as weapons. Only, the robots go bad and turn against us.

Also...you say "that's a known fact," but Bush spent a great deal of time saying just the opposite. At one point in time, 70% of the American people, when asked, thought that atleast one of the terrorists on 9/11 was from Iraq.

Jess...edit was for typo's

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by JetMom
we "went after" Iraq for primarily financial reasons. terrorism was just a way of making it an emotional issue.

Really? Who's would that be? Was it for oil? If so, where is it?

Sound to me like you might be one of the people that answered a poll recently an indicated that the war on terror wasn't all that big of a deal. Hey, that's my opinion and I'm sticking by it.

You are free to read into whatever the President said but he never said financial reasons.

But he specifically said because they failed to meet UN res 1441 and that (at the time) the intelligence indicated that he was still making/storing WMDs and that we were going to help Iraq get out from the iron grip of a ruthless dictator.

But if (for whatever reasons) you want to come up with your own reasons, knock yourself out.

That's the problem with opinions that aren't based on fact. You're entitiled to have any opinion on any thing you want. You can also be completely wrong.

 

[JetMom]

I think that the war on terror is a very big deal....and Iraq has nothing to do with it.

 

[totalia]

That doesn't sound like its what she was doing. At least not on purpose. Her husband was just in for bypass surgery for god's sakes. She's human too. And she's also right.

 

[AirForceRocks]

AirForceRocks- you can't can't see your insensitivity on this subject, then, to quote you, "I can't help that." But it certainly stems from your negatively pointed critique against a woman faced with a family crisis. And your exploitation of positions that are obviously coming from emotional places.

I certainly hope that you aren't planning on becoming a mind reader, because if so, I'm worried that's it's not really your forte.

Certainly your OP does not directly criticize anyone that has been through a major surgery or illness lately- but the tone speaks volumes above the carefully chosen words placed there.

My "tone" was directed squarely at one person and one person only - Senator Clinton. And it had nothing to do with her husband's illness or her feelings about it, but rather what I consider her poor taste in basically doing a political ad at the end of a statement about her husband's illness.

Of course, she and her huband both have excellent insurance--paid for by the taxpayers.

Only partially paid for by the taxpayers. Like most others covered under an employee health plan, the beneficiary pays a monthly premium. Members of Congress are covered under the same health plans as other federal employees, so they do pay premiums.

 

[ripleysmom]

"I respectfully disagree. I certainly have an opinion on how Senator Kerry would react to a 9/11-type event, and that's why I can't in good conscience vote for him."

And you are entitled to disagree. Neither do you have to vote for him.

My point was that using a National Tragedy to further a war agenda was worse than what Hillary did.


"As I've said many times, it's about time and place. Had President Bush called for an invasion of Iraq when he gave his address to the nation on 9/11, with no evidence that Iraq was involved, I would have thought that wrong, and I would say so. But of course, that isn't what he did, is it?"

Nope but what he did was still worse than what Hillary did.....at least IMHO.

I guess it all depends on your perspective......

 

[jjskribs]

Gee.......... I was listening to an interview with Governor Jeb Bush on CNN this afternoon. He was talking about Hurricane Frances and the state's preparedness. At the end of the interview he stated that he knew the "faith-based groups" would be stepping in to help.

So is he using the hurrricane to politicize his brother's Faith -Based Initiative programs.......

 

[kpgclark]

I find that outrageous as well. To me that says faith based will help while others will not. Why not say there will be an outpouring of help from the community.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks


My "tone" was directed squarely at one person and one person only - Senator Clinton. And it had nothing to do with her husband's illness or her feelings about it, but rather what I consider her poor taste in basically doing a political ad at the end of a statement about her husband's illness.

Really? I had no idea that Senator Clinton was a registered user of the DIS Boards. Welcome, Hillary.

I had assumed that your "tone" was directed at that next "someone" who complains about President Bush politicizing something, since that was the title of your post. Correct, I'm not a mind-reader. I'm a reader.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
Really? I had no idea that Senator Clinton was a registered user of the DIS Boards. Welcome, Hillary.

I had assumed that your "tone" was directed at that next "someone" who complains about President Bush politicizing something, since that was the title of your post. Correct, I'm not a mind-reader. I'm a reader.

I really wish you would make up your mind. First, my "tone" was an insensitive jab at people that have health issues, and now my "tone" was directed at the next people that will be complaining about President Bush, people that may or may not be facing a serious illness.

And you know what they say about assuming, correct?

 

[Dan Murphy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Oh Abs, good to see you back - I guess you posting an obscenity here on the DIS yesterday didn't result in your banning. Too bad.......

Though Abs/Steve did send me several venom filled, vulgar laden PM's, I do not think he will be posting anytime soon, at least with his Abs moniker. Trash like Steve though, do tend to float on the surface, repeatedly, so I am sure we'll be exposed to his obscenities again, another day, another moniker.

 

[kpgclark]

Did I miss something?