Bush

[SmallTown]

So far, Bush has done pretty well with keeping his nose clean and staying out of trouble (of course, since he would be compared to clinton, it is pretty easy for him to look clean), but you just gotta love (and wonder) about all of these "Bushisms".. We all know he is not a very good public speaker, so he needs to do something to keep the embrassing moments to a minimum.. But, since it is America, we can laugh and enjoy his comments without a threat of being killed..

The one I love the most: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

And I know politicians have come up with some pretty interesting one-liners all through history..

"I cook occasionally just to see how easy a woman's work is." --Tip O'Neill, rep from Massachusetts

"The only way we'll ever get a volunteer army is to draft 'em." --F. Edward Hebert, rep from Louisiana

"The first Black president will be a politician who is Black." --Doug Wilder, gov of Virginia

"There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush, gov of Texas, upon unsuccessfully filing a lawsuit to shut down a parody website.

"Wait a minute. I'm not interested in agriculture. I want the military stuff." --William Scott, senator from Virginia, during a DoD lesson on missile silos


and of course the ultimate pot-kettle statement:
"Part of growing up is learning how to control one's impulses." --Hillary Clinton, introducing Bill at a gun-control fundraiser

That one still has me cracking up.

 

[vraiblonde]

Cute quotes but I get annoyed when Democrats harp on the "Bushisms". I'm like, if that's the worst thing they can come up with for the guy, that he speaks in hieroglypics, then...damn.

Anyway, I know that I wouldn't like to have every word I said recorded for posterity so people could make fun of it. I've been known to mangle a synatx or two myself.

 

[Kain99]

It's a good thing that my public speaking is kept to a minimum... I can barely hold my own in normal situations.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Cute quotes but I get annoyed when Democrats harp on the "Bushisms". I'm like, if that's the worst thing they can come up with for the guy, that he speaks in hieroglypics, then...damn.

Anyway, I know that I wouldn't like to have every word I said recorded for posterity so people could make fun of it. I've been known to mangle a synatx or two myself.

well, as for the bushisms, it wouldn't be such a public thing if they didn't happen so darn often.. Like it or not, our president is the leader of the most powerful country on earth. If you have already been accused of being president only because you're a rich man's son, seems he would take extra are to show he is deserving of the position. We don't get to see him behind closed doors when all the tough decisions are being made.. All we see is when he openly speaks in front of the media.. And so far, it hasn't been pretty.. I think part of the problem is, he thinks to much when he talks.. He has the speech in front of him, and he does very well as long as he sticks to it.. But when he deviates one little bit, all bets are off and who knows what is going to come out.. Thank god he doesn't drink, can you imagine what he would say?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Kain99
It's a good thing that my public speaking is kept to a minimum... I can barely hold my own in normal situations.

Which is why I chose not to get into politics

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by SmallTown
... And so far, it hasn't been pretty.. I think part of the problem is, he thinks to much when he talks.. He has the speech in front of him, and he does very well as long as he sticks to it.. But when he deviates one little bit, all bets are off and who knows what is going to come out.. Thank god he doesn't drink, can you imagine what he would say?

Actually I've listened to quite a bit of GW from the campaign... (I was a John McCain supporter at first)

When he spoke before a live audience and was reading from the script he did mangle a few things... It was after the speech when he answered questions and spoke off the cuff that he did well.

Besides we've had years of Democrats screaming "what dullards Republicans are" and "geniuses their people are" and look over the results...

Nixon, Reagan, Bush and GW were supposed to be stupid... Carter and Clinton were supposed to be bloody geniuses... So think back to the last thirty-four years of history... Who made the most stupid mistakes? Nixon’s been outclassed by Bubba! Relegated to rank-amateur.

 

[vraiblonde]

Wake me up when he starts selling military technology to the Chinese.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Wake me up when he starts selling military technology to the Chinese.

How about selling weapons to one of the now-known "Axis of evil" Ah yes.. Those good ol days. And people talk about Clinton's pardons before leaving office..

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/icsummary.html

In the course of Independent Counsel's investigation, 14 persons were charged with criminal violations. There were two broad classes of crimes charged: Operational crimes, which largely concerned the illegal use of funds generated in the course of the operations, and "cover-up" crimes, which largely concerned false statements and obstructions after the revelation of the operations. Independent Counsel did not charge violations of the Arms Export Control Act or Boland Amendment. Although apparent violations of these statutes provided the impetus for the cover-up, they are not criminal statutes and do not contain any enforcement provisions.

All of the individuals charged were convicted, except for one CIA official whose case was dismissed on national security grounds and two officials who received unprecedented pre-trial pardons by President Bush following his electoral defeat in 1992. Two of the convictions were reversed on appeal on constitutional grounds that in no way cast doubt on the factual guilt of the men convicted. The individuals charged and the disposition of their cases are:

(1) Robert C. McFarlane: pleaded guilty to four counts of withholding information from Congress;

(2) Oliver L. North: convicted of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress; conviction reversed on appeal;

(3) John M. Poindexter: convicted of conspiracy, false statements, destruction and removal of records, and obstruction of Congress; conviction reversed on appeal;

(4) Richard V. Secord: pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress;

(5) Albert Hakim: pleaded guilty to supplementing the salary of North;

(6) Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations;

(7) Carl R. Channell: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States;

(8) Richard R. Miller: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States;

(9) Clair E. George: convicted of false statements and perjury before Congress;

(10) Duane R. Clarridge: indicted on seven counts of perjury and false statements; pardoned before trial by President Bush;

(11) Alan D. Fiers, Jr.: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress;

(12) Joseph F. Fernandez: indicted on four counts of obstruction and false statements; case dismissed when Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh refused to declassify information needed for his defense;

(13) Elliott Abrams: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress;

(14) Caspar W. Weinberger: charged with four counts of false statements and perjury; pardoned before trial by President Bush.

At the time President Bush pardoned Weinberger and Clarridge, he also pardoned George, Fiers, Abrams, and McFarlane.

 

[vraiblonde]

*yawn* You're aware, of course, that the Bush they're talking about is George Herbert Walker Bush, former President and father of our current President, right? What does Iran-Contra have to do with Dubya?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
*yawn* You're aware, of course, that the Bush they're talking about is George Herbert Walker Bush, former President and father of our current President, right? What does Iran-Contra have to do with Dubya?

what does "Wake me up when he starts selling military technology to the Chinese." have to do with dubya??

You opened that can of worms.. I just love when the republicans start pointing fingers at clinton for his dealings and pardons, when the republicans went through the same thing. Perhaps they are just still bitter for the "liberal" media showing what happened back then?

There are NO angels in politics. Once the republicans and democrats realize that, maybe they can focus more on doing their job and not pointing fingers all the time.

 

[vraiblonde]

You were trying to make the case that Dubya is a poor President because he says goofy things. I said ho-hum, let me know when he does something really exciting. You proceeded to tell me about some of the more exciting things his father did which, frankly, weren't very exciting at all - just politics as usual.

There are NO angels in politics. Once the republicans and democrats realize that, maybe they can focus more on doing their job and not pointing fingers all the time.

On that, we can definitely agree. See Maynard's thread "Politics vs. Religion".

 

[SmallTown]

I never said Bush was a poor president. We laugh with him, not at him when it comes to Bushisms

 

[MGKrebs]

Although it is interesting that

Gore is a loser because he acts "wooden", but Bush gets a free pass for not being able to articulate a thought.

Also, Bush II has hired Poindexter, a convicted felon (pardoned), as well as John Negroponte and Otto Reich, Iran/Contra players.

 

[vraiblonde]

Gore isn't a loser because he's "wooden" - he's a loser because he lies like a dog. I cast a primary vote for Steve Forbes many moons ago and if you know of any politician who's more boring than him I'd sure like you to name him.

As far as Bush hiring pardoned felons, I do have a problem with that. It's not quite the same thing as, say, having convicted drug lords sleep in the White House but it's still questionable and I won't defend it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Y'a know, there's an old analogy about robbing a pharmacy in broad daylight for personal gain (to get high, right now) and the flip side of robbing it in the middle of the night because a loved one MUST have medicine right now or die and the place is closed.

Readers digest version: Reagan broke the law.

The rest of the story? He had been helping the Contras fight communism (Danny Ortega and his boys) for some time. People rose to arms to fight for their county because there was hope, a chance to win through US weapons and training and fight for democracy in their country.

Congress was miffed that a "war" was being fought without their approval which begat the lovely Boland amendment. In effect, congress said to Reagan "You can't help them any more. The people down there will choose their leaders". They left out the part that finishes..."...which is whatever our boy, Ortega, says it will be."

Concurrently, Reagan saw the international events folder, every morning, concerning the 20 some odd people, US citizens, being held by some Middle Eastern tough guys who happened to have respect for Iranian wishes.

So, instead of obeying Congresses edict in pulling the rug out from under the Contras, to let them die in the field, to break his promise to them and also in conjunction with getting heartbroken about seeing the hostages pictures every day and thinking about their families, a scheme was concocted.

The Iranians wanted ground to air missiles to help even the playing field in their war with Iraq, which had a better air force, in exchange for telling the thugs to let the hostages go.

The Iranians did pay for the hardware though. The money got funneled to the Contras to buy weapons on the world market to replace what they were getting from us.

All this was done to circumvent the US Congress. Hostages go home to their families. Contras stand a chance against the Soviet backed Ortega.

Contrast this with our pal Bill. Basically, Bill got money from the Chinese military (I know, I know, the 70 some odd Chinese nationals who took the 5th and left the country only left because they couldn't find authentic carry out), gave them Loral Corporations missile guidance technology and did all kinds of other nasty things to people at home, from Billy Dale to Kathleen Wiley and a host of others, not to mention Whitewater and campaign finance crimes, all, in essence, to get the odd nobber.

I say this because the easiest and most accurate way to sum up his eight years is in two letters: BJ. That seemed to be the goal. Always.

So, both committed crimes. I think it's pretty obvious what their respective motivations were and we allow for motive in this country.

You say:

I just love when the republicans start pointing fingers at clinton for his dealings and pardons, when the republicans went through the same thing. Perhaps they are just still bitter for the "liberal" media showing what happened back then?

The "same thing"?

What did Reagan gain? The wonderful feeling of doing the right thing for other human beings even at risks to ones self. He stood to gain no more than this in any way. You prove this.

Bill? Got his rocks off. Big man. What else can be said about the man that is any more telling?

I hate it when people get it wrong but I do love the opportunity to set the record straight.

Have a nice day!

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's not quite the same thing as, say, having convicted drug lords sleep in the White House but it's still questionable and I won't defend it.

darnit, I NEVER get invited to the GOOD parties!

 

[Larry Gude]

darnit, I NEVER get invited to the GOOD parties!

You might want to take it as a compliment. Either that or your check bounced.

 

[SmallTown]

Larry,

I have heard this argument many times from the conservatives, trying to justify the things the reagan/bush administration did. It is weak. The fact that the legal implications went WELL beyond the top shows there was a lot more to it than trying to save our boys.. I admit, it is a MUCH better excuse than clinton getting his rocks off, but just that, an excuse.. I mean, were paper shredders THAT popular in homes before everything happened? Nope. The entire iran-contra affair was nasty for the government and for the country, so I think we all have done what we could to get it out of our minds. But forgetting about does not mean it ever happened. Seems like one side always has blinders on when it comes to themselves, which is a reason why I don't really support or stand behind either party.. Both have done some rather bad things in history, and I don't feel the need to go around TRYING to justify their actions.. I don't think anyone would argue that Bill did some very questionable things while in office, but so have the republicans.. The biggest thing going against clinton right now is time.. 10 years from now, nobody will be discussing him anymore because there will be other more recent events to consider, be it republican or democrat

 

[Larry Gude]

small,

I think you're wrong but the difference is very fragile.

What Reagan did was illegal. No qualifiers. Now, punishment?

When someone B and E's to get grandma some insulin, well, we look at it and say, OK, this is not a major, horrid thing BUT it was WRONG. When someone honors an honorable commitment that only benefits others, well...

In point of fact what Reagan did opens the door for people like Clinton and some people who used to be on these forums..."They did something wrong, why can't I? Can I do this? How about this?..." The motivation gets lost in personal foible and self indulgence.

He, Reagan, had a very large number of government officials, as you so well pointed out, engaged in a conspiracy to thwart the rule of law.

This is scary especially to the likes of me EXCEPT I see Reagan as a man of honor, a spirit of the law person as opposed to a letter of the law person.

Clinton, as only he could so well illustrate, is a letter of the law person.

The duel edge is when we do the right thing, let Reagan and his people pretty much slide because their intentions were honorable, it opens the door for the Clintons of the world.

I argue I don't have blinders. I argue that a judgment must be made. There is no "moral equivalency", IE, "the law is the law".

There is morality, IE, "what is right?". We must make judgments.

I argue we will be talking about Clinton forever because he no longer has the power to hide behind the powers of office. The truth comes out. Why do you think Bush has sealed his, Bills, records and notes? They are a powder keg that would threaten the stability of the government, just like Iran/Contra. The magnitude of what he was allowed to get away with is only digestible because he is gone. He was allowed to obfuscate and outright defy. Hell, Hollywood made a movie (Primary Colors) to paint him as the “misunderstood but noble, charming rogue.”

And that is what galls. I knew when Iran/Contra exploded that something was wrong. We learned the truth because Reagan didn't hide, nor did the GOP, as when Nixon was forced by party elders to pack it in and, in the end, I can accept Reagan’s call. It was morally right.

The Democratic Party, in contrast, leaves us to understand that in the case of Loral, The PRC, Billy Dale, all the woman from Broderick on, Utah, Lippo, fund raising, the McDougals and all the rest, that...it, well, it's just sex.

I applaud that you see a difference because, at the end of each day, “why” we do is more important that “what” we do, no matter what the literal meaning of “is” is.

Thanks for engaging me! Everybody else is chicken!

 

[MGKrebs]

I would engage you Larry...

I am just sick and tired of talking about Bill Clinton's penis.