Good News

[Meresa]

Bush overruled on "enemy combatant" case (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031218/ap_on_re_us/terror_suspect)

[Billie Q.]

Originally posted by Meresa
Bush overruled on "enemy combatant" case (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031218/ap_on_re_us/terror_suspect)

Hey, Mersesa. Your Yahoo! link had expired, but I vaguely remember the story. I see that you are from Texas.

Without restating the obvious (we all know he's no rock star like Slick Willie) what do most Texans really think of Dubya?

I ask this, because as you can probably guess, he will be reelected.

Love or hate the clod, he's in for four more...

[Meresa]

what do most Texans really think of Dubya?

Actually I live right in the heart of Bush country in the Bryan/College Station area. George Bush 41 is all but worshipped here in my opinion. Only Ronald Reagan is held in higher esteem. There is a major thoroughfare here named "George Bush Blvd", and there is multibillion dollar Bush Library and School of Government here. (his monument to himself). I never liked Bush 41 I think he is a very bad man.

As for 'W', I personally have no real opinion on him. I voted libertarian because I wasn't comfortable voting for him and there was no way in hell I was going to vote for that idiot Al Gore.

I agree, like it or not he will probably be re-elected. On the brighter side I have faith that there are enough checks and balances to prevent him from doing any real damage. He was overruled on his Jose Padilla "enemy combatant" declaration and rightly so. And the Dems have managed to fillibuster every Supreme Court Justice appointee he has selected so far. Hopefully that will continue for the next 4 years.

I think Cheney is the real "bad seed" in the administration. Hopefully if his legal woes do not force him to resign, his health will. I personally would like to see Condoleezza Rice Step in as the VP candidate this year and be a presidential hopeful in '08. She'd have my vote for sure.

[Dana Gold]

Doesn't W have a ranch somewhere in Texas? Is it close to your area? I guess, like you say, it really is Bush Country.

"I have faith that there are enough checks and balances to prevent him from doing any real damage."

I hope you are right, Meresa. We don't know what goes on behind White House closed doors, though.

Dana

[Billie Q.]

Originally posted by Meresa
As for 'W', I personally have no real opinion on him. I voted libertarian because I wasn't comfortable voting for him and there was no way in hell I was going to vote for that idiot Al Gore.

I think Cheney is the real "bad seed" in the administration. Hopefully if his legal woes do not force him to resign, his health will.

I personally would like to see Condoleezza Rice Step in as the VP candidate this year and be a presidential hopeful in '08. She'd have my vote for sure.

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your voting choice -- I did the same thing. I disagree with Cheney as the bad seed, though. I believe Ashcroft is. Please remind of what Cheney is facing, legally?

I love Condo Rice -- thinks she's brilliant and personable, but in no way presidential. She's in a great position now to do much good, and hopefully that will continue the next go-round.

PS I thought the "Iraq War" was supposed to lower gas prices -- what happened? :confused:

[Billie Q.]

Originally posted by Dana Gold
We don't know what goes on behind White House closed doors, though.



Well now, DG, we know a little don't we? We know in the Oval Office for instance that both government business and personal business are conducted, routinely. At least in some administrations...

We also know that behind closed WH doors, some can't chew pretzels and watch TV at the same time...

[Ann]

Does anyone else here agree that it is far too early to consider a Bush re-election inevitable? The Democrats have some strong candidates and Bush has a terrible record. As IS individuals, we better get behind someone more tolerant of individual differences than W is.

[Billie Q.]

Originally posted by Ann
Does anyone else here agree that it is far too early to consider a Bush re-election inevitable? The Democrats have some strong candidates and Bush has a terrible record. As IS individuals, we better get behind someone more tolerant of individual differences than W is.

You're right Ann, it is too early to say it will happen for sure.

But, Saddam was a slam-dunk. The same way Reagan was credited with tearing down the Berlin Wall (he didn't), and the same way Slick Willie was credited with following in Kennedy's footsteps (he didn't), George W. will be seen as the man who nabbed Saddam (he didn't).

Who looks strong for the Democrats, and why?

Thanks.

[Ann]

Thanks for posting, BillieQ. True, Sadam has been captured, but hopefully more and more people will realize that we've lost 500 young people and spent untold billions based on a series of this administration's exaggerations, half truths and outright lies. Paul O'Neil verified that they started planning the invasion - and even which companies would get which oil fields - almost as soon as Bush got into office (and I won't go into the election here).
As far as the strong democrats, I believe Wesley Clark is one. Here we have a West Point valedictorian, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, opponent of the Iraq war, commander of a successful campaign in Kosovo where none of our soldiers were lost, a southerner when democrats have a diffficult time winning in the south, an advocate of progressive ideals, and someone with innovative ideas (such as his income tax plan).
I look forward to e-chatting with you - and anyone else - again soon.

[Billie Q.]

Originally posted by Ann
Thanks for posting, BillieQ.

As far as the strong democrats, I believe Wesley Clark is one.

I look forward to e-chatting with you - and anyone else - again soon.

Hi Ann,
I appreciate a good debate/discussion on any topic, including IS, and I think this board has some great particpants, with good opinions and ideas.

You are not the first person who has recommended General Clark to me. I agree, he looks promising.

I grew quite disgusted with the way both of the big parties behaved last time around -- so I went with Harry Brown, the Libertian candidate. Although, truthfully, I didn't know a whole lot about his platform. I just knew I didn't want Dubya or Gore the bore, a Clinton legacy.

I long for a fresh breath of Democratic air. Maybe Clark is that breath...

[Meresa]

Originally posted by Ann
Thanks for posting, BillieQ. True, Sadam has been captured, but hopefully more and more people will realize that we've lost 500 young people and spent untold billions based on a series of this administration's exaggerations, half truths and outright lies. Paul O'Neil verified that they started planning the invasion - and even which companies would get which oil fields - almost as soon as Bush got into office

Actually it was Bill Clinton who had made those plans long before the Bush administration did.

Isnt it funny how prior to 2000, the President, Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, Congress, and the UN security council all stated unequvocally that Saddam was a "continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region(Daschle,1998)", and did nothing. All the available data at the time supported this. Then, a President finally followed through and enforced the UN resolution that Saddam himself agreed to as a condition of his staying in power, but defied for over 12 years. He does what everyone had been saying should be done for over a decade. But no. They all then turn their backs and say "Bush Lied".

I don't need psychic ability to see who the real liars are here, (and the liars are the Clintons, not Bush)


(and I won't go into the election here).


Good idea. Election's over. Bush won. Gore lost. End of story. Deal with it.

As for '04, it's too bad the only Dems with any integrity (Lieberman and Gephart) left the race already. Oh well.

[Ann]

Meresa , it sounds like you are a Rush Limbaugh fan. :-) I will bite my tongue here and only recommend these mainstream books for you to read: "The Lies of George W. Bush" by David Corn; "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq" by Christopher Scheer; "Bushwacked" by Molly Ivins; "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix; "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President" by J. H. Hatfield and "The Book On Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America" by Eric Alterman.
I would sincerely like to hear what you think after reading several or all of these books.

Ann

[Dana Gold]

quote:

"I never liked Bush 41 I think he is a very bad man".

Yes, AND if the below are true, I can testify to that: (sorta scary, and there seems to be some credibility to the fantastic allegations)

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/awaken/skullandbones.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."
-Henry Kissinger

[Meresa]

Originally posted by Ann
Meresa , it sounds like you are a Rush Limbaugh fan. :-)



Not particularly. I agree with very little of what he says. Don't listen to him very much either. That being said, he is very entertaining, doesn't take himself too seriously and would probably be a fun person to hang out with.

Laura Ingraham and Neal Boortz are more to my liking ;)


I will bite my tongue here and only recommend these mainstream books for you to read: "The Lies of George W. Bush" by David Corn; "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq" by Christopher Scheer; "Bushwacked" by Molly Ivins; "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix; "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President" by J. H. Hatfield and "The Book On Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America" by Eric Alterman.
I would sincerely like to hear what you think after reading several or all of these books.




Mainstream? Hardly. I am not interested in someone's opinions. Besides if we were looking for opinions there are just as many such books about the Clintons as there are the Bushes.

I prefer to gather facts and decide for myself. What I have cited in prior posts are documented facts (whole lot more where that came from) and not from pen of someone who is selling books and/or promoting an agenda.

As for reading the books, I have already read enough essays and columns by the above authors and pretty much know their stand. I haven't seen enough evidence to support many if any of their claims. I will read their books when I get the chance, but I doubt that I will see anything new.

FWIW I am not a conservative. Neither am I a liberal. I am a Libertarian (http://libertarian.org) (If I had to align myself with any political party that is). I am just as disgusted with the left wing's gunning for Bush as I was with the right wing's gunning for Bill Clinton.

I do get sick of people who think If I am am liberal in some issues I should be liberal in all of them. Sorry dude/dudette, I think for myself. Yes I support gay rights, do support conservation, do support church/state separation, and I oppose intolerance; but no I don't oppose nuclear power, do support our war against islamic terrorists, and am completely against this totally asinine "war on drugs".

Do I like Bush 43. Not particularly. No I dont agree with everything he does. But he is our duly elected president and I support him in his job. And I am not willing to lend credence to wild accusations such as him "stealing the election" or of "going to war for oil". Those allegations are simply nonsense for which I have yet toi see any hard evidence.

As for AlGore. I thank God every day that that man is not the president. We would be missing a lot more than 2 skyscrapers in this country if he were.

Wanna talk about oil? Talk about the French who had multibillion dollar contracts with Saddam, who just happened to be the biggest opponents of our removing him from power. Go to war for oil? why bother with Iraq? We already have armies in Saudi Arabia (largest oil reserves in the world) All we would need do would be to simply "declare victory"and all that oil would be ours, without the shedding of a single drop of American blood.

Before accepting some liberal or conservative opinion as truth, get the facts and decide for yourself

[Billie Q.]

Meresa, "dudette," loved that last post. Very well put.

Oh, and by the way, there's talk of Clinton running with Kerry as the Democratic VP. Clinton has spoken openly in the past that he wished there were no constitutional limits on presidential terms; and he jokes now that serving as VP could circumvent any/all constitutional restrictions. I voted for Clinton both times, because I considered myself a Democrat, but the man, his wife, and his entire administration proved to be corrupt to the core.

I hoped to vote for a Democrat this year, but I cannot vote for anyone who carries any of that Clinton garbage into a new administration. Oh well.

And before the flames begin, just let me say that I'm well aware that there's problems in all presidential administrations; Clinton was flagrant, and nauseated me with his disregard for the office. He is a liar, and a criminal (perjured himself repeatedly). He should be disbarred from practicing law.

"A Proud John Edwards Voter Here"