Bush's speechFollow

If you want to cop out of your argument that Bush was not really that much of a **** and that he was only the way he was because he thought following Rove would get results, well that's just fine. Playing the jaded card is old hat but I'll let it slide.

I can accept that you can't take that argument any further.

Saying I don't care about something doesn't mean I don't think it's the case.

I think clearly Bush isn't personally as radical as his public Rove driven persona. Since it's impossible for either of us to establish the reality of that either way at this point, I'm not sure what you'd prefer?

I can say "Yah huh" and you can say "Nuh uh" for 10000 posts if you like.

Not like I haven't been down that road before.

In the end you're right as long as you get what you want why do the particulars matter?

I mean Saddam after his sentence to death by hanging tried to be the good guy by speaking out against the insurgency and the clashing Shia/Sunnis. Sure the guy might have been a complete **** in the past but hey, seems like he is turning a new page. Gotta give him that at least.

My apologies for the little trip down Godwins lane, however sometimes using a hammer to bludgeon home the point is just necessary. Bush is a ****, the fact that he suffered a major political defeat and is now willing to go down on anyone or sacrifice any of his supporters in order to salvage what little time he has left in no way fools me into thinking that he actually is a moderate.

I dunno, perhaps I'm too f'ucking jaded to fall for that.

No, you shut up!

Despite my zeal for attacking the guy I don't want bush crucified. I don't want the Dems in the Senate and House to spend the next 2 years making his life a living hell.

That is counterproductive and more than likely end up with the pubbies back in power the next time around.

All I am saying is don't trust the **** farther than you can throw him and I don't mean down a flight of stairs.

Not to keep echoing Smash, but the reasons don't matter. I don't think it'll turn him liberal all of a sudden and he'll 'see the light' the same way I do, but I do think it has opened his eyes to the need to act differently--and don't kid yourself, he could choose not to. It wouldn't be the first time he would have plugged his fingers into those ears and sang loudly.

The next couple of months will tell the story, but the first part of your statement is entirely wrong.

If he wants to accomplish anything meaningful, he'll compromise with his new overlords.

If he doesn't give a Shit and just acts like an *** because he's an *** and can't do anything else, he'll have more latitude than ever because hey, he's a lame duck anyway.

Lol. Libs just love to fight, I'll give ya that.

Look. I've been saying this for years (oddly more or less exactly what Smash is saying now). People don't get to become president by being radical. Bush is not, nor ever has been a hard core right winger. Guess what? He probably only goes to church because it's what people expect him to do (just like about 80% of the people in Congress).

Some of you have been so juiced up with Bush being a far right religious zealot plotting Armageddon, that it's hard for you to realize that he's always been moderate. I believe that his core opinions are on foreign policy and fiscal policy. I've never seen him as a social hard liner.

We'll see how things shake up in the comming weeks and months though.

And this oks him acting like a hard core right winger? Doing it to appease a vocal minoirty in his party or doing it because hes a religious crackpot who agrees with the vocal minority still means he did it.



Thats wonderful and your opinion, 'cept we are so in debt over our heads we may as well be at the bottom of the ocean and he's turned the middle east against us (or waaaaay more against us if you see it that way) and moderate that does not make him.

On the same day President Bush promised a new bipartisan Washington, he began efforts to get two of his most controversial decisions approved before the Democrats take over Congress.

Bush on Thursday submitted the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and said he would like to move forward on legislation to authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/bolton.congress/index.html

A moderate worried about his legacy indeed.

Pandering how? By not calling them religious nutjobs?

Did Bush push for prayer in school? Did he push for teaching creationism in schools? Did he push for banning abortion? Did he push for *any* religious right agenda item?

All he did was not assume they're evil simply because they're religious. That's not pandering, that's giving them an equal voice in the democratic process. To hear many left wing arguments, being religious should automatically bar you from public office or from recieving any kind of public funds for any program you may work on whether it has anything to do with your religion or not. I just don't think it's pandering to argue that religious people's views be given the same weight as anyone else's.



I'm pretty sure you say that only because you percieve Baker as being someone who's shaking up the direction we're going in Iraq. If Baker had gone to Iraq and simply said that everything we were doing was correct, you'd have a very different view of the man, wouldn't you?

Which means it's not the man, and it's not his history of service, or even his politics that you agree with, but only this one issue which for the moment happens to coincide with your own views.

In fact, I'm quite certain that had the subject of Baker come up a year ago, you'd have had nothing but bad things to say about him, likely labeling him a neo-con or something similar. After all, he's been on the Board of the Carlyle group, associated heavily with Saudi Arabia and the subject of much speculation with regards to the super secret "real reasons" we went to war in Iraq. He also oversaw the recount in 2000, and was instrumental in getting the Supreme Court to rule on the subject and end Gore's attempts to get a reversal on the counts results.


But it's good to know that you're not a short term thinker there Smash...

Mother F'ucking Bizam!

Let's not forget his quashed attempt at interference in the Terri Schaivo case, the removal of funding from overseas clinics which so much as mention abortion, the "abstinence-only" sex-ed push, his appointing a Surgeon General known to REFUSE to prescribe birth control to women, and and and...

Honestly...do we need to go on?

*edit: Guess I do need to go on. There's also his appointment of John Ashcroft, whose chief objective (after running roughshod over the Constitution) was gunning for Oregon's (TWICE!) voter-approved Death With Dignity Act.


Edited, Nov 11th 2006 at 5:01pm PST by Ambrya