George W. Bush's Resume

[Tiger Al 0]

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

[Donutboy 0]

And who says he's a do nothing president!!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

SIGH. I really don't have time for this, but when you are WRONG, AL, you are REALLY wrong, and I have to set the record straight... Links and other information available at The Truth You should have vetted your source a little better - 99% of the items of this resume are just flat WRONG. ALL of the information that I added below HAS been vetted, but in the interest of space (this is long enough as it is) - you will have to go to the link I added above to get the websites. I don't take credit for any of the stuff below, other than a few comments that are easily distinguishable as coming from me.

Ran for congress and lost.

Every president in modern history has lost an election at some point:

Clinton: Lost bid for re-election to gov of Arkansas in 1980; Bush Sr: Lost to Clinton in re-election bid in 1992; Reagan: Lost race for GOP nomination in 1976 Carter: Lost to Reagan in relection bid in 1980; Ford: Lost to Carter in re-election bid in 1976; Nixon: Lost race for presidency in 1960

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

No clue about the movie, but so what? Bush was not a tremendous success in the oil business, but not everyone is! But the allegation here appears to be that Bush sole his stock to "cash out" before the company went bankrupt. Bush sold his stock for $4.00 per share. A year later, the stock was valued at $8.00 per share. The company, Harken Energy Corporation, is still functioning.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

Bush only owned 5% of the team. Sosa pnly played for the Rangers for 25 games. His record as a Ranger? 84 at bats and only 1 home run. His batting average was .238. The Rangers aren't the only team to have a taxpayer funded stadium either - since the 1950's, only one baseball stadium was built without taxpayer money, while 19 baseball stadiums were 100% taxpayer funded.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

\No evidence is provided of any illegal, imoral or unethical influence exerted by George Bush in his son's election. It is true that GW Bush has a famous last name that may have helped him get elected. The same might be said of Ted Kennedy, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

Here are the facts: Texas leads the nation in the REDUCTION of toxic releases. Texas has led the nation in the reduction of toxic releases by 43 million pounds from 1995 to 1998 (during GWB's tenure as governor) It is NOT the most polluted state in the nation. According to the EPA's 1998 Toxic Release Inventory (the most recent data available fromt he EPA, released May 2000), Texas dropped from first to fifth in 1998 while GWB was governor for total emissions to the air, water and soil.

Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America.

Houston does not lead the nation in air pollution. LA surpassed Houston in 2000 (while GWB was still governor) in ozone exceedances. Thought July 17, 2000, LA exceed the federal ozone standard on 17 days, compared to Houston's 13 days.

Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

A Wall Street Journal article finds different results. Finally there is the question of the fiscal record of GWB while he was Texas governor. Mr. Bush racked up a decent, but not a dazzling, pro-taxpayer record. he came into office promising tax cuts, tory reform, a lighter regulatory burden for business and stringent education standards. Mr. Bush delivered on each of those promises, more or less. He signed tow of the largest tax cuts in Texas history. But Mr. Bush could leave conservatives frustrated. This is a politician who seems to always want to please everyone. As the Auston Stateman wrote of Mr. Bush's final budget, "He took a $6 billion surplus, cut taxes by $1.5 billion, and spent most of the rest." Still, the latest comptroller report indicates that Texas still ahs a $1B-plus budget surplus." (WSJ, 2-12-2001)

Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

The death penalty is the LAW in Texas and - believe it or not - the governor does NOT have the power to execute people. In fact, the Governor only has the power to stay an execution for 30 days. The governor is powerless in Texas to grant pardons or clemency. That's the LAW.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

The popular vote does not elect the President, the Electoral College does. And of the 9 justices currently serving on the SC, TWO were Bush appointees, This number is important to showing how you are wrong, because the ruling that ended the Florida recount was SEVEN TO TWO - which means that even if Bush appointees had voted in favor of the FL Supreme Court, the count still would have been 5-4 and STILL A MAJORITY.

Attacked and took over two countries.

Afghanistan's Taliban regime was displaced by US intervention in 2002. A government led by Afghans is currently in power. As for the rest, not worth arguing with you about.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury. Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

As a quick reading of the Constitution will attest, the President has no power to spend. That power lies with Congress. But for the record, his deficit does not "shatter records" when measured against the GDP.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Bankruptcies have been on the rise since 1940, with the exception of a few years. The Cato Institute statistics only show data through 1997, but the trend is clear. The claim that GWB set a record for the most private bankruptcies in one year can be made about every president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Look at the reasons most often cited for filing personal bankruptcies:

Credit card bills 63%

Job loss/cut in pay 50%

Mismanagement of personal finances 37%

Medical bills 28%

Difficulty with business 15%

Divorce/marital breakup 13%

Lawsuit/legal bills 12%

Taxes 10%

College expenses 8%

Death in family 7%

Gambling 2%

I don't think anyone would argue that the increase in private bankruptcies is a good thing, but the blame cannot be laid at the feet of any president. At the same time bankruptcies have increased, so has consumer debt. Interestingly, between 1990 and 1997, credit card solicitations tripled from 1 to 3 billion per year.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

WRONG. "The largest stock-market drop in Wall Street history occurred on "Black Monday" -- October 19, 1987 -- when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 508.32 points, losing 22.6% of its total value." If you'd like to suggest that the phrase "biggest drop" refers to a period of time and not a single day, then Bush isn't to blame then either. The link has the breakdown and NONE were on Bush's watch.:

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

And you can defend this as a BAD thing????? The first federal prisoner "in decades" to be executed was Timothy McVeigh, who was responsible for 168 deaths at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, including children in the building's day care center. The federal death penalty is law. Regardless of your opinion on the death penalty, it is hard to have any sympathy for Timothy McVeigh. FYI, Bush did not actually execute the prisoner, as "the resume" implies.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

I will not dispute that President Bush was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence. He has admitted it. I will leave it up to the reader to determine what other presidents have had such indiscretions, yet were never caught.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

And your proof is.........? The source I am using for my response could not find one. But the link has a detailed list of the President's schedule for August 2001 and he was not sitting on his ass in Crawford. I will omit it here to save space, but you can find complete information at the links shown in the attachment I added to the top of my post. The President was in Texas from August 7-13 and 21-25. The rest of the month was spent traveling to New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri and then back to Washington at the end of the month. A review of the White House news archive for August 2001 shows this month to be anything but a "vacation". It is naive to think that the President spent an entire month doing nothing, as "the resume" implies.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

Again, proof? My source found nothing to substatiate this claim.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

President Bush took office in January 2001. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has data for 2001 and 2002 on their web site. If you assume that GWB is responsible for what happened in 2001, which I believe is a faulty assumption, then 2.5 million Americans were added to the unemployment rolls during his first two years in office. I suggest that the 2001 statistics probably should be attributed to Clinton policies, though that is a subject for some debate. So laying this solely at GWB's feet is crap, just like blaming him for 9/11 is.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

The souce I used writes that he searched CNN's database for the past three years and can find no evidence that President Bush ever cut unemployment benefits. The closest I came was this: CNN. "800.000 jobless workers to lose benefits" In December 2002, unemployment benefits for 800,000 Americans expired. Congress did not pass legislation that would have extended those benefits. However, two weeks earlier, the President had encouraged Congress to extend benefits: CNN. "Bush wants unemplovment benefits extended" Benefits were lost to these 800,000 workers on December 28 and Congress passed legislation on January 8 to renew benefits to these workers. President Bush signed the bill immediately.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

This implies that GWB was running around in a black cape with a long black moustache like in the cartoons, forclosing on widows and orphans. Unfortunately, foreclosures have been on the rise since at least 1980. There does not appear to be a direct correlation between economic prosperity and foreclosures, nor between presidential policies and foreclosures. I would never diminish the effect of foreclosures on individuals, but to pin this one on Mr. Bush ignores the evidence. Look at the details in the link I offer above.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

There's no evidence provided here for this claim and my source could find none. However, he did find statistics on Mr. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton. I know that this does not refute the araument that "the resume" makes. But they offer no proof. What is clear is that the Bush administration has quite a way to go in order to surpass the Clinton record.

Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton Administration who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47

Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33

Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61

Number of imprisonments: 14

Number of congressional witnesses who have plead the 5th, fled the country to avoid testifying (or in the case of foreign witnesses, refuse to be interviewed) :122

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

The point that GWB has held fewer press conferences than other presidents is valid. So? He had 9 in the period covered below. Not too far off the mark of some of the others. Here are the numbers, researched by Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University political science professor who specializes in presidential communication: "At the same point in their presidencies, President Bill Clinton had held 30 solo news conferences (that is, without a foreign leader at a twin lectern) and Bush's father had held 58, according to research by Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University political science professor who specializes in presidential communication. After two years and 45 days in office, President Ronald Reagan had held 16 solo news conferences, President Jimmy Carter had held 45, President Gerald Ford had held 37, President Richard M. Nixon had held 16 and President Lyndon B. Johnson had held 52." As of March 7, 2003, GWB had held 8 formal press conferences. So while it is true that he has held fewer than any other modern president, the numbers are not so vastly different.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

President Bush has not signed any laws amending the US Constitution. Only Congress or two-thirds of the states can pass a law amending the Constitution and they have not done so since 1978.

As to Executive Orders, Bush isn't even close to signing "more...than any president in US history. In his first two years, he signed 99 orders, average of 50 per year in office. Not even close. That honor goes to Ford, with 84 orders per year served (2), follwed by Carter (80, 4), then Kennedy (71, 3), then Johnson (65, 5) and Nixon (58, 6)

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

I'd suggest that the energy crises of the early 1970's were worse. Go to the link at the top for a discussion of this one - too complex to add here.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Using California as an example, the first part of this claim is blatantly false - see link. As to the second part of the claim, GWB has long favored using our oil reserves in Alaska (ANWR), but has been vehemently opposed by wildlife and environmental groups. Finally, the use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by "past presidents" is somewhat fallacious. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York, urged President Clinton to use oil from the SPR to stem a crisis in 2000. "Schumer said presidents have exercised the power at least three times in the past -- twice simply to boost federal revenue to help balance the budget." So the claim that past presidents have used the SPR to relieve high gasoline prices, as the "resume" clearly implies, is fallacious as well.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Without a date or more specific information, my source was unsure what they're referring to. Spending has increased every year since 1998, and the document detailed in the link provides details on the individual spending increases in categories such as VA Hospitals, compensation, benefits, and education.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. Link)

Hey, finally they cite some evidence! Unfortunately, the web site they point to is simply pictures from protests held on March 14 and 15, 2003. The protesters seem to be against a potential war in Iraq, which is interesting because that would not indicate that they were protesting President Bush alone, rather they were protesting the concept of a war in Iraq. Considering that the war was supported by more than 30 countries, the "resume" has presented another false claim. I would opine that if you're convinced that your beliefs are right, it doesn't matter how many people protest against them.

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

They offer no proof here either, but the only one research could find was the ABM treaty with the former SU in 2001. Hardly a record.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Please. :roll:

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Yes, this one's true. Bush has 13 millionaires in his Cabinet (out of 16 secretaries), while Clinton had 7 and Bush Sr. had 6. And the "oil tanker" story? True. Now, the question is this: why is being rich a crime? Why is it wrong to have rich people in your Cabinet? Generally speaking, people who are qualified to serve in positions such as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State are people who have done well in their field. People who are successful generally make more money.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

"Presiding" is what a "President" does. In that sense, he was in office while fraud occurred, but no serious claim has been made that he had any hand in it. It's kind of like saying "President Carter presided over the Olympic Hockey team's gold medal in 1980." No one seriously thinks he had anything to do with it. Plus, most of the stock market fraud that has been alleged - World com, Global Crossing, Enron - was actually committed in the period before GWB took office. So does that make them Clinton's fault??????

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

I suspect we're talking here about the Department of Homeland Security, which was created in 2003 and combines the work of the Secret Service, Coast Guard, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Customs Service and the Transportation Security Administration. The Associated Press refers to the creation of the department as the "the largest government reorganization since the Defense Department was created in 1947." Since this agency combines the work of already existing agencies and consolidates efforts, I'm not sure how this could be a bad thing, but I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

Time to cite directly from the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) In a nutshell, the President is not required to submit a budget, but normally does. It is considered a starting point for the Congressional Budget, which is eventually passed and sent on to the President for his signature. To reiterate, the President does not spend the money - Congress does.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission. AND First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

On May 4, 2001, the United States was voted off of the UN Human Rights commission. Why? From GlobalPolicy.org's reporting on the vote: "Amnesty International USA called the removal of the United States from the commission "part of an effort by nations that routinely violate human rights to escape scrutiny." Amnesty accused members of commission of failing to do their job, succumbing instead to political and economic pressures. "The U.S. was among the few nations willing to actively push for condemnation at the U.N.H.R.C. of the brutal human rights violations committed by nations like China," it said. At Human Rights Watch, Joanna Weschler, the group's representative at the United Nations, said the commission was becoming "a rogues' gallery of human rights abusers." But she added: "It wasn't just enemies. It was friends as well who voted the U.S. out of the commission." Friends of the United States in Europe and elsewhere have grown increasingly impatient, disappointed and annoyed with actions by Washington." It should be noted that the current members include Cuba, Sudan, and China: nations that routinely kill political prisoners and suppress human rights. The United States is once again a member of the Commission.

As for the second statement: First, the United Nations doesn't have an "elections monitoring board"; however, they do have an "Electoral Assistance Division". Second, the UN doesn't appear to have a committee or board that is comprised by nations, such as the Security Councilor Human Rights Commission. Instead they have a "roster of experts" which assists in election monitoring worldwide. Finally, my source can't find any evidence that the UN removed the US from anything having to do with election monitoring over the last three years.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

He dissolved Congressional committees? Al, PLEASE elaborate!! :roll:

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Again, PLEASE. :roll:

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

There is no such thing as the "World Court of Law." There is a body popularly known as the "World Court", though its official name is the Permanent Court of International Justice. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, the United States was never a member of the World Court, because the Senate refused to ratify the protocol. The International Court of Justice is the body that currently exists and was formed from the old Permanent Court of International Justice in 1945. We were not members of the original court, but are members of the new court by virtue of our membership in the United Nations.) What the Bush Administration did do, however, is remove the United States from an agreement to establish an International Criminal Court. Incidentally, as of May 6, 2002, when the United States removed itself from the agreement, here are some of the other nations that refused entry into the new court: China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Israel and Russia.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

This is blatantly false. Red Cross officials reviewed the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, where the Afghan detainees are being held, as well as the conditions of the Iraqi pows. However, no one has seriously suggested mistreatment of those held by the United States, nor has anyone seriously accused the US of abandoning the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

Russia and Albania - not the UN - sent election inspectors to monitor the 2002 elections and it does not appear that they were denied access by GWB

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

Certainly GWB had more campaign money to spend in 2000 than did AI Gore. According to PoliticaIMoneyLine.com, GWB had approximately $200 million to spend, whereas Gore collected $140 million. Interestingly, if you look at the breakdown of the two candidates, the difference lies in "individual contributions", not in corporate/PAC/labor union money. This page at the Federal Election Commission following page provides a very interesting breakdown of money contributed by various industries to both political parties from 1991

forward. While the GOP leads in most industries, the Democratic Party collected nearly $50 million dollars from labor unions. So "the resume" is very cunning in specifying only "corporate campaign donations". If you add

in labor unions (and Buddhist monks), the numbers tell a very different story.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Not quite sure how to approach this one, since numbers would be very difficult to locate. We can establish this: Enron was an energy trading company; however, the largest corporate/PAC contributors to Bush's 2000 campaign were Finance/Insurance and single-issue groups. According to OpenSecrets.org, Kenneth Lay contributed only $75,000 to the Bush gubernatorial campaigns in 1994 and 1998. Just in case you think Lay contributed to Bush through Enron itself, please note: In Texas, corporations and labor unions are prohibited from making direct contributions to candidates, but may make unlimited contributions to political parties up to 60 days before the election.

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

Unfortunately for the "resume", this is another falsehood. President Bush, by even the largest estimates, spent about 1 million dollars in his first year in office on pollsters and focus groups. President Clinton spent 2 million. The source? None other than Bush-basher extraordinaire, Maureen Dowd: "In the new Washington Monthly, Joshua Green reveals the extent of Bush polling: Republican records show that "Bush's principal pollsters received $346,000 in direct payments in 2001. Add to that the multiple boutique polling firms the administration regularly employs for specialized and targeted polls and the figure is closer to $1 million." (That's about half as much as Mr. Clinton spent his first year, but about $1 million more than Mr. Bush led us to expect he'd spend.)" (Source: "Addiction to Addition", New York Times, April 3, 2002)

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

The reasons we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan are discussed earlier. Please refer to that section for more information. I would add this opinion: Just because the UN and "world community" is against your actions don't make those actions wrong.

Incidentally, we went into Iraq with the second-largest coalition of nations since WWII.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

Since there was only one president "when the US came under attack on September 11th", this is kind of an odd assertion. Secondly, it only makes sense when there are multiple attacks being carried out on the United States simultaneously that the president would not present himself as an open target. Third, I suspect that it was the military and secret service that suggested the president "run and hide", rather than the President himself. President Bush's first step on 9/11 was to travel to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Since the United States was on nuclear alert, transporting the President to an Air Force base is not an unusual step. President Bush's second trip on 9/11 was to Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, at that time the home of the Strategic Air Command-again a quite logical step considering that we didn't know what other attacks would take place on that day. By 7:00PM that night, the President was back in Washington.

Interestingly, only evidence of the "lie" that "the enemy had the code to Air Force 1 [sic]" is from William Safire's column on September 13, 2001 entitled "Inside the Bunker". Mr. Safire quoted a "high White House official" who told him "A threatening message received by the Secret Service was relayed to the agents with the president that 'Air Force One is next.'" Safire continued: "According to the high official, American code words were used showing a knowledge of procedures that made the threat credible." It is a far stretch indeed to then claim that Mr. Bush himself made the claim.

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

I can't say whether or not GWB was the first to establish a secret shadow government (after all, it is secret), but here the Washington Post article outlining the reasons. The Post article documents the plan for "continuity of government", which was first outlined under President Reagan. It's important to note that the need for a continuity plan is real: should a rogue nation or terrorist group attempt to decapitate the American government, a contingency plan must be in place.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

I'm not sure how you'd even measure the "most resented country in the world". (Is it a Gallup Poll or something?) Furthermore, I can think of a few "diplomatic failures" in world history that are a little more egregious than what's happened in Iraq. (If you can even call that a diplomatic failure.) Off the top of my head, I'd say that WWI and WWII were probably a little worse.

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Again, history bears out that relations at times have been worse between the Israelis and Palestinians than they are right now.

First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

Again, I'd suggest that when you're sure that what you're doing is right, it doesn't matter who protests.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

If I read this correct, this means that the United States is more of a threat to South Korea than is North Korea. My source makes comment to this, but my only comment is HUH???

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

My source was unable to find any evidence of this. The source searched CNN's database, but didn't come up with anything close. Since pleading guilty to a speeding ticket would make one a "convicted criminal", I'm kind of skeptical that there was such a policy in the first place.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

"The resume" provided no evidence for this. My source searched CNN and couldn't find any evidence. You'd think if they set an "all-time record", there'd be more proof of it, but he couldn't find any.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

We still have troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Osama certainly does appear to be a sneaky SOB, but we have hardly "failed". We haven't given up

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

The Department of Justice/FBI investigation continues. How "the resume" knows that there are no suspects is a mystery. Attorney General Ashcroft has named one person a "person of interest", though no action has been taken. What's curious about this claim and the previous one is this: Criminals, such as the anthrax killer and Osama Bin Laden, don't want to get caught. Therefore, they do their evil deeds out of plain sight. It took the FBI nearly twenty years to catch the Unabomber. Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, was on the lam for over 5 years.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

On the contrary, as early as June 2002 there were congressional hearings on the September 11 disaster: (The sessions were "closed-door", but they were public, bipartisan investigations.) There was indeed opposition from the Bush administration. By September 2002 (well within the "18 months" cited by "the resume"), the President agreed that an independent probe needed to occur. Note that Congress couldn't get its act together and the commission wasn't actually formed until November 2002.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

How do you measure this? Again, no proof is given, so it's hard to research. I will say this: Since September 11, security measures have been implemented that probably have curtailed freedoms and civil liberties to some extent. But I'm not sure how to prove or disprove this point. Note that President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for all US citizens in 1861 (until 1866) and President Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which allowed the government to arrest US citizens who wrote or spoke against the government. Both of these actions rise above the level of the Patriot Act.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

I would suggest that 1968 was probably a little more contentious than 2001-2003. Let's look at a few events from that year: Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated: "his death sparks rioting in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, Newark, Washington, D.C., and many others. Across the country 46 deaths will be blamed on the riots"; Riots in the streets at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago; Vietnam war rages: US troops kill 500 women and children at My Lai...

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

As the economy is a cyclical beast, some presidents are blessed with a good economy, while others are not. The financial policies of any president do not impact the economy immediately; therefore, I'd argue that President Clinton had something to do with the problems we're seeing today, just as Bush Sr. deserves some credit for the good economy during the 1990s. The link has a bunch of economic data that I didn't want to retype that supports this.

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

The President himself, as I mentioned earlier, has confirmed the first claim. Some evidence for the second claim is that when he became Governor, Mr. Bush received a new driver's license with a new number. I can find no evidence that the original record was erased.

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

ANOTHER LIE. GWB DID NOT GO AWOL during his time in the service. In the final months of GWB's ANG reserve committment, he decided to go to business school at Harvard, so he requested and got an honorable discharge - eight months before his service was scheduled to end. The military does not and cannot by regulation, issue an Honorable Discharge to anyone who has been AWOL or otherwise seriously reprimanded, as the "resume" would have you believe. The so called "smoking gun" that says he was AWOL is actually a standard report evaluation of ANY members that have transferred during an eval period. Each command is required to submit an eval record even if the member is no longer there to keep an unbroken line of evaluation. The wording used "Not observed at this station" is the exact proper wording found in any member's record of evaluation during a transfer. The flight suspension letter that claims he flunked flight school is also a commonplace form suspending flying until an annual physical is performed - which he did not need since he wasn't flying at Harvard Business School.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

Not true. First, it should be noted that on a number of occasions George W. Bush has acknowledged he drank too much as a young adult. He has since quit drinking and from all reports, he is in excellent physical condition. Contrary to the claims of "the resume", Mr. Bush Q1Q answer questions during the presidential campaign about rumors of past drug use. I'll leave it up to you to determine whether a presidential candidate should submit to a drug test.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Again, completely untrue. The Texas State Library and Archives direct quote from the web site - The records of Governor George W. Bush are available for research. Researchers will expedite the fulfillment of their reference requests by first consulting finding aids. Requests for records must follow the procedures set forth in the Texas Public Information Act. The Records of Governor Georae W. Bush are available for research despite the fact that they have not been fully prepared for research. As the Archives' staff prepares each group of records, this finding aid is updated on the Web at TARO (Texas Archival Resources Online).

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

The source cannot find any evidence that these records have been "sealed in secrecy". The SEC has released some documents pertaining to the Harken investigation. No reference to the investigation on the SEC website, but the search engine does not appear to cover documents prior to 1998. Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections, described on their website as "a site for the gas, oil and affiliated industry giving an overview of the trends and happenings in and around the global energy-value chain", refers to "The internal corporate documents, released by the Securities and Exchange Commission". So there is some evidence that documents do exist and are not sealed.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Referring to the claim above, internal corporate documents have been released from the Harken investigation. I don't know if they contained "minutes of meetings" as addressed in "the resume's" claim.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

There is a link in the attached document link to a lot of information on the White House's energy policy. The crux of this website is the report from the National Energy Policy Development Group, of which Vice President Cheney is a member. The report is in PDF format and is downloadable. Now, if you're talking about the secret meetings that Cheney attends with the aliens who are in control of the government, or the meetings where the President takes briefcases full of cash from corrupt businessmen, then yes-records and minutes from those meetings are "sealed in secrecy." (Please, it's a joke!)

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

This claim is no different than any other claim in "the resume": it is filled with venom and anger. Though it is impossible to prove or disprove, I suggest you look at the rest of "the resume" to assess its veracity.

[TxWarEagle 3]

WTG Jenny. Post of the year for shear volume and facts...

I usually lurk, but can't help myself with this....

"As of Monday, the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region had experienced 63 days of unhealthy air quality, when ozone levels exceed federal standards. That far exceeds the 49 days of unhealthy air quality during 2002 and 36 days in 2001.

The number of unhealthy days this year also was more than twice that of the two other smoggiest areas in the country, the San Joaquin Valley and Houston, which had exceeded the federal health standard on 33 days and 25 days, respectively, as of Monday."

Smog

I guess we should blame the outgoing gov. of Calif for this, or praise Rick Perry.

War Houston Air and the Ship Channel Manufacturing Region!! If it weren't for them, the products you are using now either wouldnt be made, or couldnt get to you!

[Tigermike 3,025]

GREAT POST JENNY.

But don't anyone wait for an appology from Al or Donut for lying.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Damn Jenny! Looks like the latest cut-and-paste from the whiny liberal website of the day has been decimated.

[woods1110 0]

Wow that has to be the longest post I have ever read.

Great Post Jenny!!!!!!!!

[AUinVA 0]

Dang, Jenny just put Al thru a wall. Great Post! Jenny that took some serious searching, congrats!

[aucorner 0]

LMAO! Jenny........must be the hormones.

[stoic-one 1,543]

SIGH. I really don't have time for this

Thank god you were busy......

[MDM4AU 332]

OOOOOOOOO, BURN!

Way to go, Jenny!

[rexbo 104]

Fantastic post Jenny, I am humbled in my previous attempts to argue and converse intellgently with TigerAl and company.

[Tiger Al 0]

Yeah, Jenny, way to go!!! Wouldn't it have been easier to simply post the link and leave it at that? And, if not, wouldn't it have been easier to cut and paste the answers instead of typing them? (I noticed some typo's)

You should have vetted your source a little better - 99% of the items of this resume are just flat WRONG.

"Vetted"-That's the same word Snopes used. However, yes, if I'd thought that this was anything more than a joke on Bush then I would've "vetted" the source. I recognized it as a joke (a la the "Clinton Body Count"), though. (I know MDM, it's stupid) As far as the accuracy being "flat wrong," if you mean there is absolutely no truth to the resumes' claims, that would be "flat wrong." As Snopes put it on their site:

The George W. Bush "résumé," one of the most forwarded items of 2003, is a mixed bag of entries of varying degrees of truthfulness, many of them quite complex and/or subjective in nature. We haven't had the time to properly delve into the multiplicity of claims contained in it yet.

Anyway, Jenny, just relax...this time next year Bush will be on his way out and you can bash President Howard Dean for the next eight years!!!

[MDM4AU 332]

(I know MDM, it's stupid)

Don't bring me into this! This is between you and Jenny and Moby!

But if you must and want to compare, you posted yours as fact and failed to post the link you copied it from. To the casual reader yours appears to be fact and that's what you wanted it to look like. You and Donutboy have posted some of the same info before as a matter of "fact." Mine was from a link full of jokes and satire. Yours was full of plain lies and venom directed at one person, The President of the United States. And Moby didn't think it a joke.

Nice try but nobody's buying!

Finally, if the best you can do is point out that she typed it rather than posting a link or "cut and paste" and had typos, you are more pathetic than I first thought. :headshake:

Pathetic, I say! :roll:

[CCTAU 3,312]

Yeah, Jenny, way to go!!! Wouldn't it have been easier to simply post the link and leave it at that? And, if not, wouldn't it have been easier to cut and paste the answers instead of typing them? (I noticed some typo's)

You should have vetted your source a little better - 99% of the items of this resume are just flat WRONG.

"Vetted"-That's the same word Snopes used. However, yes, if I'd thought that this was anything more than a joke on Bush then I would've "vetted" the source. I recognized it as a joke (a la the "Clinton Body Count"), though. (I know MDM, it's stupid) As far as the accuracy being "flat wrong," if you mean there is absolutely no truth to the resumes' claims, that would be "flat wrong." As Snopes put it on their site:

The George W. Bush "résumé," one of the most forwarded items of 2003, is a mixed bag of entries of varying degrees of truthfulness, many of them quite complex and/or subjective in nature. We haven't had the time to properly delve into the multiplicity of claims contained in it yet.

Anyway, Jenny, just relax...this time next year Bush will be on his way out and you can bash President Howard Dean for the next eight years!!!

Unfortunately, you and yours use your lying "joke" as if they were the truth. And it has been shown in the past that the demons believe that if you lie to them long enough, they'll believe it. So if you walk on the razors edge and get your a$$ cut everynow and then, don't look for anything from us except a little "rubbing" alcohol.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Thanks guys - I can't believe anyone actually read that!! It was worth the time it took tho. As for the sheer volume of research, etc., I take NO CREDIT AT ALL for any of it. Like I said, this info all came from a website this guy set up to refute the crap in the Moby post - I merely disseminated the information. Hormones had nothing to do with it.

AL -

After that typo comment, you better make darn sure your posts are purely perfect from here on out. If you had bothered to go to the link, you would have seen that it was in PDF protected format. No way to "cut and paste". So I printed and scanned 45 pages, and then did a cut and paste, which would explain the typos, as no OCR program is perfect. But did you also consider the fact that after a great deal of time responding to so much bulls**t that perhaps my brain grew tired? Your post singlehandedly used up my daily quotient of dealing with BS.

And like they said - YOU didn't post a link. No smiley faces. No winks. No evil grins. You posted like that crap was fact. And your pinko minion donut hole was lapping up every word as gospel fact, like other less enlightened people may have as well. There was no way in hell I would have let that post stand without rebuttal. I wasn't about to just add a link (you didn't AT ALL, so take that snide comment elsewhere), as not everyone would have taken the time to see what is obvious - that your post was full of spin, half truths, and out and out lies. Snopes comes right out and says

We haven't had the time to properly delve into the multiplicity of claims contained in it yet.

But this guy DID do the research and showed quite convincingly that 99.99% of it was a baldface lie. Unfortunately, people of your ilk are so ready to believe that George Bush is Satan, Hitler and the Anti-Christ rolled up into one that they will blindly believe whatever pablum is put in front of them. No wonder your party is in deep caca.

And if you honestly think Howard "President of the Dukes of Hazard Fan Club" Dean is going to be president for the next FOUR years, much less eight, then you have my sympathies.

[Tiger Al 0]

First of all, Jenny, I didn't point out your typo's as a knock on you, but to make the point that with the ton of typing you did it seemed to me an easier task to simply cut and paste and add your own comments to it. If you update to Acrobat 6.0, you CAN cut and paste. See this cut and pasted quote from your link:

While surfing Moby’s web site one day (Moby Online), I came across one of Moby’s “journal entries” called “GW Resume”. Moby didn’t write it, but it appears to be something that started on the Internet and spread like wildfire. “The resume” is a sarcastic stab at the President, purporting to list his “work experience”, “accomplishments”, and “references”. It is obvious that the author isn’t a fan of George W. Bush. Unfortunately, this person isn’t a fan of the truth, either, because most of the claims made in “the resume” are completely false. For the casual reader, however, the claims seem plausible.

Since you were unable (you thought) to cut and paste and, as you said, you didn't have much time, it seemed to me a simpler task to post the link to the site instead of spending however long you did to reply to what most people would recognize as a joke, like the "Clinton Body Count", which was presented as "fact." I didn't feel the need to rebut every person it names to prove that Clinton didn't have them killed. But, the "un-smilied" link would have you believe that Clinton is the greatest mass murderer this country has seen. I realized that it was either a joke or some knucklehead's convoluted reality. Either way, it wasn't worth my time because I felt, possibly wrongly, that everyone sees it for what it is and Clinton doesn't need me to come to his rescue everytime someone takes a shot at him.

Anyway, the 'resume' was an obvious joke filled with, as Snopes said, varying degrees of truthfulness (not lies), and if you and the rest couldn't discern that then you may need to loosen up a bit.

Here you go:

[Jenny AU-92 0]

"Varying degrees of truthfulness"? Many of those items had ZERO degrees of truthfulness. No one in their right mind would have believed the "Clinton Body Count" thing, which I have never seen or read. But the so-called "Resume" is presented in such a manner as to mimic fact. I will always take the time to defend GWB against a smear campaign. Truth is truth, but lies are wrong.

I have come to the recent conclusion that on my worst day, I could never hate Clinton as much as many of the liberals in this country hate Bush. I mainly have issue with Clinton the man, not Clinton the President. I enjoyed the 90's economy too. But you libs seem to hate Bush the Man, the President, the World Leader, the Christian, the Texan, the Father, the Husband, the Son, the Dog Owner, the Business Man, the College Student...etc. No quarter. Doesn't matter what he does, it will forever be wrong and evil and full of hidden agendas just because he did it. And that is just sad and pathetic.

[Tiger Al 0]

But you libs seem to hate Bush the Man, the President, the World Leader, the Christian, the Texan, the Father, the Husband, the Son, the Dog Owner, the Business Man, the College Student...etc. No quarter. Doesn't matter what he does, it will forever be wrong and evil and full of hidden agendas just because he did it.

Well, I have to disagree with you and say that you use that as an excuse to disregard legitimate criticism of Bush. It is much easier to simply write off the criticisms as liberals barking at the rain instead of considering that we MAY have a point.

Are there people who will hate him simply because he has an "R" as his political party? Sure. Just as there are those who will dismiss ANYTHING Greenpeace does as being whacko. But, mainstream American Democrats, which I consider myself to be a part of, didn't start to sour on Bush until he started using 9/11 as a lightning rod to push a very, very conservative, self-serving agenda.

I thought he handled the downed spy plane incident in China very well. Compared with his recent behavior, I'm surprised he didn't drop bombs and put a few divisions on the ground. Of course, for the little time that the Democrats had control of the Senate, between Jeffords going independent and the 2002 elections, he was very much into bipartisanship. Once the Republicans got it back in 2002 his sense of bipartisanship waned.

But to use the argument that so often gets used, that we don't like HIM so we poo poo on his policies, is in most cases incorrect. It is because of his extremely conservative views and actions that most people who dislike him do so. His secretive ways also don't do anything to foster trust in a lot of people.

His mishandling of the situation in Iraq has been the biggest fly in the ointment as far as I'm concerned. He and his administration have, through mere ineptness to outright dishonesty, have fumbled the ball so many times it's pathetic. They've manipulated intelligence information, lied about military capabilities and tried to damn anyone who disagreed with them. That isn't the kind of leadership I want to live under and that isn't the kind of America we need to be.

And, to a degree you're right. A lot of the problem WAS caused by Bill Clinton because now, too many people in this country will be happy with anyone who's president as long as there are no sex scandals. It doesn't matter what they do in office as long as it isn't that. Anything else is o.k. That's sad, to me, that we'd call something "good leadership" based on that kind of criteria and then gladly accept it. Why can't we have it all? Maybe in 2004 we can.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

But, mainstream American Democrats, which I consider myself to be a part of, didn't start to sour on Bush until he started using 9/11 as a lightning rod to push a very, very conservative, self-serving agenda.

Just how is trying to secure this nation self-serving? Just what is Bush personally getting out of this? His decisions are serving MY personal interests, in that I haven't been blown up on a plane or in a building lately. Once again, I shudder to think what shape this country would be in right now if Al Gore had been in the WH on 9/11. It is real easy to bash Bush for all his administration has done since 9/11, but please explain to me what a liberal administration wuold have done differently that would have been a positive thing? Appeasement is not a positive thing. I STILL have not heard ONE democratic presidential hopeful provide any type of coherent national security policy or plan for dealing with terrorism, or how they would do things differently from Bush. So even if I were not a Bush supporter, feeling as I do about the security of this country, i would be hard pressed to support any of the 9 declared candidates.

But to use the argument that so often gets used, that we don't like HIM so we poo poo on his policies, is in most cases incorrect. It is because of his extremely conservative views and actions that most people who dislike him do so. His secretive ways also don't do anything to foster trust in a lot of people.

Secretive? Please explain that to me. Is it just because he does not take every opportunity to jump in front of a camera and kiss the media's ass like Clinton did? Bush gets hammered no matter what he does. He holds a press conference, they make fun of the way he talks and nitpick his every word. He doesn't hold a press conference, he is being secretive. Can't say as how I blame him for ignoring the media - keeping them happy is NOT his job. Protecting this country IS his job and I would rather he focus on that. If you are referring to the dissenmination of "information", then just how important is it that every Tom Dick and Harry on the street know all about the intelligence sources this country uses to protect itself? Not my concern - that is why we have people in Washington to interpret all that stuff, as best they can anyway. I am probably better off NOT knowing all that stuff.

His mishandling of the situation in Iraq has been the biggest fly in the ointment as far as I'm concerned. He and his administration have, through mere ineptness to outright dishonesty, have fumbled the ball so many times it's pathetic. They've manipulated intelligence information, lied about military capabilities and tried to damn anyone who disagreed with them.

I don't remember seeing a "Cliff's Notes Guide to Rebuilding Former Dictatorships" in Bush's back pocket. This type of situation has never been accomplished in this way and on this large a scale with a country as backwards as Iraq was when we got there. Trial and error, and try again. It has only been seven months for Pete's sake!! We were in Japan for FIVE YEARS and that was a developed country!!!!! Again, REALLY EASY to criticize, but I see few people with better ideas. They just say "We shouldn't be there in the first place." Bull. That was the right thing to do. Any deficiencies in military capabililties can be addressed one of two ways - one, the previous administration scaled back and DEVASTATED the military's ready response capability. We are making do now with what we have to work with in terms of troops and equipment. Second, as I already said, sometimes you have no idea of what you are dealing with until you get on the ground and assess the situation. Which is what we are doing now. I agree that things are not going smoothly, but they are not the "quagmire" or "Vietnam" the poor lib presidential candidates are hoping for either. I see great potential for good in Iraq - criticizing Bush and his administration for trying different things when something doesn't work is counterproductive.

How long does it take people to realize that intelligence information is nebulous, is never 100% reliable, is never a sure thing. As much as politicians like to have a guarantee going in, it is not always possible. So you make a decision based on what you know at the time, and hope it is the right one based on good information. Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this one does not hold water. I genuinely believe that history will bear this one out - that Bush going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

And with regards to manipulating intelligence information, after the memo that no one will talk about from Rockefeller's staff, I don't think ANY democrat should be accusing anyone else of manipulating intelligence information.

And, to a degree you're right. A lot of the problem WAS caused by Bill Clinton because now, too many people in this country will be happy with anyone who's president as long as there are no sex scandals. It doesn't matter what they do in office as long as it isn't that.

You are missing the point. Bush's being of good moral character means to me that when he takes action, I can be assured that it is because he genuinely believes that what he is doing is RIGHT - that there is no political motivation behind it, that he is not trying to distract from some other personal event, that he is governing this country with the best interests of Americans on his mind, not his next sexual encounter. It drives libs nuts that the only motiviation they can find for Bush's actions are his own closely held beliefs - they can't accept the fact that the man thinks he is right to take the actions he is taking - there HAS to be an ulterior motive!!!!!

I see no candidate on the democratic ticket that would make me think he or she is a leader under whom we can "have it all". Until they stop bashing Bush (and each other) and start producing coherent, legitimate policy positions all their own as an alternative to the things they bash the President for, I and most other Americans are going to continue to tune them out.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TigerAl....one thing for sure, you should never add "making strong responses when confronted with the truth" to you resume.

[Tiger Al 0]

Just how is trying to secure this nation self-serving?

First, you're fantasizing if you think that tightening the screws on Arab-AMERICANS and freezing a few bank accounts has made you safer. The kid who slipped all the ILLEGAL contraband past airport security and then had to e-mail the airline multiple times confessing as much should tell you something. Snap out of it!!!

  Just what is Bush personally getting out of this?

Well, right now it looks like he's at least hoodwinked you out of a vote.

  His decisions are serving MY personal interests, in that I haven't been blown up on a plane or in a building lately.

If the kid had slipped REAL plastic explosives onto the airplane you were on or used the knives to commandeer it into your office building would you really be that much safer?

  Once again, I shudder to think what shape this country would be in right now if Al Gore had been in the WH on 9/11. It is real easy to bash Bush for all his administration has done since 9/11, but please explain to me what a liberal administration wuold have done differently that would have been a positive thing? Appeasement is not a positive thing.

There you go again with the old "What if it'd been Gore" ruse. As I told you before, neither you or I know what Al Gore would or would not have done and it is arrogance if you think you do. It would be just as accurate to suppose what Bush would've if it HAD been Gore. But, you know what? We don't have to guess what either one of them would've done if they'd had to go to Vietnam, do we? I don't think, however, if I had to pretend what Gore would've done, that he would've stayed in a classroom reading about goats with some third graders for ten minutes after being informed that tower number 2 had been hit by another airplane. I wouldn't have predicted that George would've even done THAT!

I STILL have not heard ONE democratic presidential hopeful provide any type of coherent national security policy or plan for dealing with terrorism, or how they would do things differently from Bush. So even if I were not a Bush supporter, feeling as I do about the security of this country, i would be hard pressed to support any of the 9 declared candidates.

Generally, when one closes her eyes and puts her hands over her ears she doesn't see OR hear very much. If you used the same dogged determination you used scanning and cutting and pasting the rebuff to poor George's resume, you'd find that all of the candidates have plans. You, or I, may not like or agree with them all, but they've got them.

Secretive? Please explain that to me. Is it just because he does not take every opportunity to jump in front of a camera and kiss the media's ass like Clinton did? Bush gets hammered no matter what he does. He holds a press conference, they make fun of the way he talks and nitpick his every word. He doesn't hold a press conference, he is being secretive. Can't say as how I blame him for ignoring the media - keeping them happy is NOT his job. Protecting this country IS his job and I would rather he focus on that.

Well, I guess if I HAD meant his avoidance of press conferences then you might have an argument. However, I would use that as an example of how Bush just isn't very bright and you would say that at least he recognizes his limitations and then I'd have to agree with you.

If you are referring to the dissenmination of "information", then just how important is it that every Tom Dick and Harry on the street know all about the intelligence sources this country uses to protect itself? Not my concern - that is why we have people in Washington to interpret all that stuff, as best they can anyway. I am probably better off NOT knowing all that stuff.

Bingo. I agree with you that neither you, me, Tom, Dick or Harry should be privy to Top Secret information. But those in government should, especially when they're on a committee that was created specifically to investigate 9/11. Reports given to members of Congress that have 26 pages missing seems suspicious. The anonymity of Cheney's energy 'council' is odd, considering they're creating public policies and are not elected officials. This may well all be very innocent, but, then, why all of the secrecy?

I don't remember seeing a "Cliff's Notes Guide to Rebuilding Former Dictatorships" in Bush's back pocket.

Seeing it in his pocket wouldn't impress me. His reading it and understanding it...THAT would be impressive!!!

This type of situation has never been accomplished in this way and on this large a scale with a country as backwards as Iraq was when we got there. Trial and error, and try again. It has only been seven months for Pete's sake!! We were in Japan for FIVE YEARS and that was a developed country!!!!! Again, REALLY EASY to criticize, but I see few people with better ideas. They just say "We shouldn't be there in the first place." Bull. That was the right thing to do.

If we felt so morally obligated to overthrow this government for humanitarian reasons then it should've been done through the UN.

Any deficiencies in military capabililties can be addressed one of two ways - one, the previous administration scaled back and DEVASTATED the military's ready response capability. We are making do now with what we have to work with in terms of troops and equipment.

Military capability isn't the problem. Clinton's military did exactly what they were supposed to do; Meet the opposition and defeat it. The military's job was supposed to be over May 1st. Move on to the next phase.

Second, as I already said, sometimes you have no idea of what you are dealing with until you get on the ground and assess the situation. Which is what we are doing now. I agree that things are not going smoothly, but they are not the "quagmire" or "Vietnam" the poor lib presidential candidates are hoping for either.

I agree. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the UN is better suited for post-war occupation? Maybe people closer to that part of the world might have a better idea of how to rebuild an Islamic country into a democracy than Paul Bremer?

I see great potential for good in Iraq - criticizing Bush and his administration for trying different things when something doesn't work is counterproductive.

How many failures do I have to allow him? He's been a worse failure than Tommy Tuberville and most on the football side are ready to boot him out. So, you tell me, at what point does my tolerance for Bush's failures get the honor of validation by you? I shudder to think how far you and yours will let Our Great Leader go before you come to your senses.

How long does it take people to realize that intelligence information is nebulous, is never 100% reliable, is never a sure thing. As much as politicians like to have a guarantee going in, it is not always possible. So you make a decision based on what you know at the time, and hope it is the right one based on good information. Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this one does not hold water.

Their "intelligence" has turned out to be about 2% reliable. How many major, life altering decisions, like going to war perhaps, would YOU make based on that kind of reliability? Unfortunately, much more reliable intelligence was available but it was ignored because it didn't fit the program.

I genuinely believe that history will bear this one out - that Bush going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

And I genuinely believe in an individual's right to fool herself, too.

And with regards to manipulating intelligence information, after the memo that no one will talk about from Rockefeller's staff, I don't think ANY democrat should be accusing anyone else of manipulating intelligence information.

Nice try. When Rockefeller's memo starts having dead bodies and grieving mothers, fathers, spouses and children attached to it, then I'll be concerned.

You are missing the point. Bush's being of good moral character means to me that when he takes action, I can be assured that it is because he genuinely believes that what he is doing is RIGHT

Because Bush thumps a Bible and says "God bless America" and wants to annihilate public schools so kids can get a voucher to a private Christian school does not grant him membership in the "good moral character" club. Someone of "good moral character" wouldn't even think about cutting benefits of soldiers who are in harm's way. Someone of "good moral character" wouldn't allow for one minute someone who had leaked classified information to remain in his administration. Someone of "good moral character" wouldn't lie his way into a war. No, you judge a tree by its' fruit, and Bush's is bad. By the way, I'd bet you that Hitler, FDR, Mussolini and Churchill ALL genuinely believed what they were doing was right. Two of them were wrong.

that there is no political motivation behind it, that he is not trying to distract from some other personal event, that he is governing this country with the best interests of Americans on his mind, not his next sexual encounter. It drives libs nuts that the only motiviation they can find for Bush's actions are his own closely held beliefs - they can't accept the fact that the man thinks he is right to take the actions he is taking - there HAS to be an ulterior motive!!!!!

Everthing he does is politically motivated. He's a politician. No, his PERSONAL EVENTS are covered by the invocation of 9/11. More tax cuts for the wealthy-remember 9/11. Jobs-9/11. Forest fires-9/11. Stripping environment standards-9/11. Clogged toilet-9/11.

I see no candidate on the democratic ticket that would make me think he or she is a leader under whom we can "have it all". Until they stop bashing Bush (and each other) and start producing coherent, legitimate policy positions all their own as an alternative to the things they bash the President for, I and most other Americans are going to continue to tune them out.

If you've tuned them out, then, how do you know what they do or do not say? Sadly, I agree with you on the bashing of each other, but that's how politics are played. I remember, in the 2000 Republican primary, how Bush and McCain just beat the hell out of each other...

[Tiger Al 0]

TigerAl....one thing for sure, you should never add "making strong responses when confronted with the truth" to you resume.

Sorry, PT. I'm working and they feel like I should pay more attention to my job than swatting gnats!!!

I hooked you up, though.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

You are wrong that I don't read about the democratic candidates - I get my Newsweek every week, read it cover to cover, watch the news, and read articles on the internet, but I still have not seen anything that remotely resembles a plan to keep my family safe that does not involve the words "Bush is wrong, Bush screwed up, Bush shouldn't have done this/that/the other". No economic plan that makes sense, no security plan that makes sense, not even a plan for uniting their own party, for pete's sake. Until someone can provide an alternative for me to consider, I will just consider myself "hoodwinked". :roll:

I am so sorry that you are still torqued that I bothered to totally refute your "resume" - obviously it really bothers you to be shown that things you would love to embrace as fact are instead made up crap. It didn't take me THAT long to make that post - at least not so long that I felt it was not worth my time - why should you care if it took me all day and all night too? Your "information" was still wrong, I called you on it, and you had no ground to stand on, other than to say it was "just a joke".

I broke my promise to myself and responded to someone that will never take his own hands off his own eyes and ears. Once again, I am not always right or always wrong, and neither are you, but since we can't ever change the other one's mind, I am ending this. I had a slow day today, and apparently it was a waste of my time to pursue a discussion with you.

Although I must say that if I am so blind and wrong, a majority of the people on this board must be too. Thank the Lord we have you on here to enlighten us all.

[Tiger Al 0]

You are wrong that I don't read about the democratic candidates - I get my Newsweek every week, read it cover to cover, watch the news, and read articles on the internet, but I still have not seen anything that remotely resembles a plan to keep my family safe that does not involve the words "Bush is wrong, Bush screwed up, Bush shouldn't have done this/that/the other". No economic plan that makes sense, no security plan that makes sense, not even a plan for uniting their own party, for pete's sake. Until someone can provide an alternative for me to consider, I will just consider myself "hoodwinked".

O.K. hoodwinkey.

I am so sorry that you are still torqued that I bothered to totally refute your "resume" - obviously it really bothers you to be shown that things you would love to embrace as fact are instead made up crap. It didn't take me THAT long to make that post - at least not so long that I felt it was not worth my time - why should you care if it took me all day and all night too? Your "information" was still wrong, I called you on it, and you had no ground to stand on, other than to say it was "just a joke".

I'm not torqued. I haven't given anyone on this board the power to torque me.

I broke my promise to myself and responded to someone that will never take his own hands off his own eyes and ears. Once again, I am not always right or always wrong, and neither are you, but since we can't ever change the other one's mind, I am ending this. I had a slow day today, and apparently it was a waste of my time to pursue a discussion with you.

Sorry. I liked the discussion. I think you did, too.

Although I must say that if I am so blind and wrong, a majority of the people on this board must be too. Thank the Lord we have you on here to enlighten us all.

You're welcome.