sha nah nah nah sha nah nah nah hey hey hey GOOD BYE!!!!! (employment, generations)

[sanrene]

No, lying equals lying. He was told that the intel "Was not to be trusted" (ie "Curveball") but ran with it anyway. As we know now, it turned out to be a big fat lie.

I do believe Tenet said it was a "slam dunk". It is not a lie when the world believes the same thing, based on their own intelligence they came to the same conclusion.

[mrbob]

Originally Posted by BacktoNE

I do not like George Bush, and I've never pretended to. However, I would also never intentionally hurt someones feelings. He and Laura are human beings with the same feelings the rest of us have.

I was not impressed.

I used to feel that way towards Bush too - but it wore off somewhere around 2004 when it became obvious that we were sold a rotten bill of good in going to war in Iraq... Since then, I haven't cared about his feelings...

He's hurt so many people in this country and abroad for no good reason, other than his ideological zeal, that it's impossible to have concern for 'his feelings'.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by mrbob

I used to feel that way towards Bush too - but it wore off somewhere around 2004 when it became obvious that we were sold a rotten bill of good in going to war in Iraq... Since then, I haven't cared about his feelings...

He's hurt so many people in this country and abroad for no good reason, other than his ideological zeal, that it's impossible to have concern for 'his feelings'.

What's really interesting and tragic is that that ideological zeal wasn't even really his own to start with - that the PNAC guys played him like the rich kid with the bag of candy.

[Foreverking]

Originally Posted by delusianne

what's really interesting and tragic is that that ideological zeal wasn't even really his own to start with - that the pnac guys played him like the rich kid with the bag of candy.

pnac?

[JimMe]

Originally Posted by minibrings

As per Obama we need to move forward now. Let George live out the rest of his life peacefully. He is part of history now and let history be his judge. Now we need to move together, both sides, and channel our energy to fix what's broken.

When I heard about this incident I was saddened but not surprised. Over the past generation the political discourse in this country has degenerated to the level of what one would find at a sporting event attended by yahoos. Those on this post who have voiced such animus toward Bush reflect the pathology in our body politic. The call for an era of post-partisanship and a coming together as one is drowned by the taunting, chanting mob.

In my business (I'm an attorney) I've learned that there are two sides to every story. Bush's detractors are either unaware or don't care that for eight years they have heard only one side of the story of the Bush presidency. Contrast the seamless Obama transition that was made possible by a gracious George Bush with the vandalizing of the West Wing of the White House by the departing Clintonites. And it was downhill from there.

People will argue, as some have on this post, that Bush was fair game because, having stolen the election in 2000, his presidency was illegitimate from the start. In fact that was the start of the Bush myth that has dominated the storyline for eight years. Two points about the "stolen" election of 2000: 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices found that the way Gore (and the Florida supreme court) wanted to recount the votes was unconstitutional. It treated votes differently and thus violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. So it wasn't only the conservative justices that said the recount was unfair. Secondly, there were several recounts, statewide, that were actually performed. Bush won each of them, including that done by a consortium of newspapers lead by the New York Times. So much for a stolen election. But never let it be said that liberals let facts get in the way of their agenda.

So from day one Bush was a president under siege. The "stolen election" mantra justified the Dems delaying the staffing of Bush's administration until the middle of the summer. One wonders how much that contributed to our unpreparedness on 9-11. Indeed the FBI replacement for Louis Freeh, Robert Mueller, was not approved by Congress until Sept. 4, 2001. Freeh had left his post in early June.

In April 2001 Bush attended a Summit of the Americas in Canada and was met by protestors. He hadn't done anything yet. But still the Left was angry at him. The argument (slogans, really) that "Bush lied and people died" or that "Bush shredded the Constitution" and those are the reasons that people hate him so much is so much malarkey. Bush was hated before he even ascended to the office and any excuse was used by his enemies to rationalize their hatred. Bush lied? That charge was investigated ad nauseum and was thoroughtly debunked. Bush operated on the intelligence that was available, as did Congress in authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Of course, when the war took a turn for the worse, the sunshine patriots were ready to raise the white flag and resorted to calling Bush a liar to justify their perfidy. Bush shredded the Constitution? Name one American citizen who has had his rights violated under the Patriot Act--again an Act is something authorized by Congress and then signed into law by the president. I said American. I don't particularly care about the "rights" of terrorists captured on the battlefield.

Admittedly the handling of the war in Iraq was bungled, largely because of Rumsfeld. In wartime that happens. How many commanding generals did Lincoln go through before he settled on Grant and how many Union soldiers died because of the incompetence of his predecessors? Shouldn't those deaths be laid at Lincoln's doorstep or does that standard apply only to George Bush.

The economy? Bush inherited a recession that was exacerbated by the devastation of 9/11. But his policies lifted us out of that recession and we had 4 plus years of prosperity and job creation. It all went bust in his last year largely because of policies put in place by Congress that ensured that low income people would be provided home loans even if they did not have the means to re-pay them. Remember Barney Frank's infamous quip when the administration raised the alarm about the unsustainable exposure of Fannie and Freddie to bad mortgages: "I'd prefer to roll the dice a little longer" before clamping down on these risky lending practices.

Is the economy bad? Yes. Is it as bad as we have seen in three generations, as some pol said yesterday? No. Seven per cent unemployment is a far cry from the 24% unemployment of the Great Depression. But it serves an expansionist government agenda to exaggerate the problem so that scared people will go along with any measure characterized as "rescue." So much for replacing fear with hope.

I could go on. But I think I've made my point. There are two sides to this story and, hopefully, history will recount both sides and render a fair assessment of Bush's presidency. Although I'm not optimistic. The history books tend to be written by liberals.

[ottomobeale]

Dont forget it was 70K Naderite moonbats in FL that swung the election.

The left shot itself in the foot and blamed the right.

I didnt like Bush. Yesterday's little song was sick.

[mjb62676]

Originally Posted by JimMe

When I heard about this incident I was saddened but not surprised. Over the past generation the political discourse in this country has degenerated to the level of what one would find at a sporting event attended by yahoos. Those on this post who have voiced such animus toward Bush reflect the pathology in our body politic. The call for an era of post-partisanship and a coming together as one is drowned by the taunting, chanting mob.

In my business (I'm an attorney) I've learned that there are two sides to every story. Bush's detractors are either unaware or don't care that for eight years they have heard only one side of the story of the Bush presidency. Contrast the seamless Obama transition that was made possible by a gracious George Bush with the vandalizing of the West Wing of the White House by the departing Clintonites. And it was downhill from there.

People will argue, as some have on this post, that Bush was fair game because, having stolen the election in 2000, his presidency was illegitimate from the start. In fact that was the start of the Bush myth that has dominated the storyline for eight years. Two points about the "stolen" election of 2000: 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices found that the way Gore (and the Florida supreme court) wanted to recount the votes was unconstitutional. It treated votes differently and thus violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. So it wasn't only the conservative justices that said the recount was unfair. Secondly, there were several recounts, statewide, that were actually performed. Bush won each of them, including that done by a consortium of newspapers lead by the New York Times. So much for a stolen election. But never let it be said that liberals let facts get in the way of their agenda.

So from day one Bush was a president under siege. The "stolen election" mantra justified the Dems delaying the staffing of Bush's administration until the middle of the summer. One wonders how much that contributed to our unpreparedness on 9-11. Indeed the FBI replacement for Louis Freeh, Robert Mueller, was not approved by Congress until Sept. 4, 2001. Freeh had left his post in early June.

In April 2001 Bush attended a Summit of the Americas in Canada and was met by protestors. He hadn't done anything yet. But still the Left was angry at him. The argument (slogans, really) that "Bush lied and people died" or that "Bush shredded the Constitution" and those are the reasons that people hate him so much is so much malarkey. Bush was hated before he even ascended to the office and any excuse was used by his enemies to rationalize their hatred. Bush lied? That charge was investigated ad nauseum and was thoroughtly debunked. Bush operated on the intelligence that was available, as did Congress in authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Of course, when the war took a turn for the worse, the sunshine patriots were ready to raise the white flag and resorted to calling Bush a liar to justify their perfidy. Bush shredded the Constitution? Name one American citizen who has had his rights violated under the Patriot Act--again an Act is something authorized by Congress and then signed into law by the president. I said American. I don't particularly care about the "rights" of terrorists captured on the battlefield.

Admittedly the handling of the war in Iraq was bungled, largely because of Rumsfeld. In wartime that happens. How many commanding generals did Lincoln go through before he settled on Grant and how many Union soldiers died because of the incompetence of his predecessors? Shouldn't those deaths be laid at Lincoln's doorstep or does that standard apply only to George Bush.

The economy? Bush inherited a recession that was exacerbated by the devastation of 9/11. But his policies lifted us out of that recession and we had 4 plus years of prosperity and job creation. It all went bust in his last year largely because of policies put in place by Congress that ensured that low income people would be provided home loans even if they did not have the means to re-pay them. Remember Barney Frank's infamous quip when the administration raised the alarm about the unsustainable exposure of Fannie and Freddie to bad mortgages: "I'd prefer to roll the dice a little longer" before clamping down on these risky lending practices.

Is the economy bad? Yes. Is it as bad as we have seen in three generations, as some pol said yesterday? No. Seven per cent unemployment is a far cry from the 24% unemployment of the Great Depression. But it serves an expansionist government agenda to exaggerate the problem so that scared people will go along with any measure characterized as "rescue." So much for replacing fear with hope.

I could go on. But I think I've made my point. There are two sides to this story and, hopefully, history will recount both sides and render a fair assessment of Bush's presidency. Although I'm not optimistic. The history books tend to be written by liberals.

Careful using logic. It's lost on those that don't see how singing like this and showing an utter disrespect for a former President is sickening and rude.

Obama called on everyone to "stop being children" in so many words. I'm hopeful that those on both sides who find themselves at the extreme ends of each spectrum will hear and follow his words.

As for any President being solely responsible for anything great or horrible, I think folks give them way too much credit. For instance, those that call Bush a bumbling idiot while at the same time giving him credit for screwing up so many things alone baffle me.

[Synopsis]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Myself and millions of other Obama supporters didn't like it. We didn't work this hard with dignity and grace to have his swearing in disgraced by a few malcontents. Truly disgraceful and I am sure Obama if he ever graced their hole would tell them so.

Thumbs up.

[cousinsal]

Originally Posted by BacktoNE

I do not like George Bush, and I've never pretended to. However, I would also never intentionally hurt someones feelings. He and Laura are human beings with the same feelings the rest of us have.

I was not impressed.

I felt the same way - it was silly and insulting, and I don't like the Bushes, either. And, there was one sign that said, "Get the hell out, George Bush", which I thought was inappropriate for the occasion. Also, when he came out onto the stand, there was booing, and the band had to cover it up. It was childish of those people.

[delusianne]

The Mall was left covered with trash, too. But realistically, what can you expect from a crowd of 2 million? Every kind of person was there, some more compelled to dignify the day's purpose than others.