Partisans and Fools Still Back Bush

[Tiger Al 0]

For George W. Bush and company, these are good, bad and ugly days -- very little good, a lot of bad and mostly ugly. A series of events are converging. Past lies and flawed policies are now apparent. The administration built on the four Ds -- deception, debt, dirt and deals -- is now in serious disarray and the American people are catching on.

You know Bush is getting desperate when he makes an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." He was often hesitant and always evasive. Host Tim Russert let him get away with some whoppers.

Bush repeated over and over that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us with or without weapons of mass destruction, but never really explained how that threat was manifested. George W. admitted he "sounded like a broken record," which was the most truthful thing he said in the interview.

He dodged and danced around his being AWOL from his National Guard duties and Russert let him off. Bush had the nerve to say that critics of his wild spending are wrong and that "discretionary spending has declined" under his leadership.

That is simply not true. Who is the biggest spender of them all, the conservative "National Review" asks? The percentage increase of discretionary federal spending has skyrocketed 8.2 percent from 2002 to 2004 under Bush's spend-and-borrow policies. Keep in mind that discretionary spending under those liberal Democrats, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, grew only 2 percent and 2.5 percent respectively during their administrations. Mix in a $500 billion deficit and we have in George W. Bush the most fiscally reckless president we've ever had. Russert should have pointed that out to his viewers. Only blind partisans and fools would now argue that the Bush administration's estimates of the threat of Saddam Hussein were anything more than wild exaggerations used to sell the war to the American people, done with the disgraceful compliance and assistance of corporate media. Intelligence is simply information. The real issue is how the Bush crowd "cherry-picked," hyped, distorted, shaped and used information selectively to build the case for a war of choice, and how they systematically excluded the use of information that pointed away from the conclusions the warmongers had already made.

Recall how detailed the deception was. In last year's State of the Union address, Bush told us, with certainty, that Iraq had stashes of weapons of mass destruction, including "30,000 warheads, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulism toxin, 1 million pounds of sarin mustard and VX nerve gas and tons of yellowcake uranium." The president claimed Iraq had bought the uranium from the African country of Niger. Field Marshall Rumsfeld told us he knew "exactly" where these weapons were hidden.

CIA Director George Tenet now admits, for the first time, that, yes indeed, the spy agency may have overestimated Iraq's illicit weapons capacity. Tenet denied any political interference from policy-makers. I guess he forgets Vice President Cheney's Saturday morning visits and reviews of the CIA's homework.

Tenet made his defense in a speech at Georgetown University, but what was most interesting was what he didn't mention. Not a word about the myth that Saddam was shopping for enriched uranium. Most telling, no mention whatsoever of any link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, one of the most repeated and effective lies in the phony case for war.

There certainly is a link, though, between al-Qaeda and many of the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as enemy combatants. Most were apprehended in Afghanistan and were loyalists of Osama bin Laden, the real bad guy and the brains and money behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The United Press International did a detailed survey of the nationalities of the detainees and, lo and behold, 160 of the 650 -- almost one-quarter of the total -- are from Saudi Arabia, the most dangerous terrorist-breeding nation on earth.

While the Saudis are No. 1 in the nationality breakdown at GITMO, there is exactly one Iraqi there. George W. Bush has mentioned Iraq, Saddam, terrorism and Sept. 11 countless times in the same paragraph. Can anyone recall a single time the president has ever mentioned Saudi-spawned terrorism, the kind that kills and threatens Americans? He never will. Too many family business pals there.

Vice President Cheney's having bad and ugly days all of his own devious making. His old company Halliburton is again caught cheating the taxpayers. Pentagon auditors found the company overbilled the U.S. government $27.4 million for meals for troops in Iraq and Kuwait. The company has promised to refund the money, which is no big deal since Halliburton has already raked in $8 billion in war-related contracts.

The government of Nigeria is investigating allegations that Halliburton paid $180 million in bribes to land a $4 billion natural gas project there while Cheney was CEO. The Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission are also looking into the deal that happened during Cheney's watch.

We are now learning more about Cheney's duck-hunting vacation in Louisiana with Supreme Court Justice Antonin "Tony the Thug" Scalia, the administration's favorite member of the high court. Scalia doesn't see any problem with this social intimacy with Cheney while the Supreme Court is reviewing a case involving the vice president's fight to keep secret the details of his energy policy task force and how people like Enron's disgraced Ken Lay got to help craft that policy.

Scalia traveled with Cheney on a government jet to a private hunting camp in a secluded bayou. The camp is owned by Wallace Carline, a multimillionaire oil services company mogul and big-time Republican campaign contributor. Scalia certainly didn't pay a nickel for his cushy, taxpayer-provided transportation, and I'll bet anything neither he nor Cheney paid for their plush accommodations.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers tells the Los Angeles Times that Scalia should recuse himself from Cheney's case. "If the vice president is the source of the generosity, it means Scalia is accepting a gift of some value from a litigant in a case before him," Gillers says. "It is not just a trip with a litigant. It's a trip at the expense of the litigant. This is an easy case for stepping aside."

LINK

[Tigermike 3,425]

Interesting Al that you leave off the title of the article:

PARTISANS AND FOOLS STILL BACK BUSH

All along I have thought that ONLY PARTISANS AND FOOLS BACK DEAN OR CLARK OR KERRY!

[Tiger Al 0]

Interesting Al that you leave off the title of the article:

PARTISANS AND FOOLS STILL BACK BUSH

Mike, look at the title of the thread.

[DKW 86 7,726]

This isnt even a real newspaper, I think it is just a Condo Rag.

Go to the Home Page and read about the "Republican Smear Machine."

[Tigermike 3,425]

Mike, look at the title of the thread.

You are right Al, I was looking at the post rather than the title page.

[Tiger Al 0]

This isnt even a real newspaper, I think it is just a Condo Rag.

Go to the Home Page and read about the "Republican Smear Machine."

It claims to be "The Falls' Only Locally Owned Newspaper." It's even got a sports section!!!

[CCTAU 3,369]

This isnt even a real newspaper, I think it is just a Condo Rag.

Go to the Home Page and read about the "Republican Smear Machine."

It claims to be "The Falls' Only Locally Owned Newspaper." It's even got a sports section!!!

That was a very good article....

It had every stretch of an argument made so far by the libbies. Just like all of the arguments so far, if this article were a bucket, I could shower under it.

Kerry............

IF .... I ..... COULD ..... JUST ...... S T R E T C H ..... A ......LI T T LE ..... F A R T H E R, ....I ...... M I G H T ...... R E A C H ..... A ...... LEGITIMATE ............A R G U M E NT ....

[Tigermike 3,425]

It claims to be "The Falls' Only Locally Owned Newspaper." It's even got a sports section!!!

And a very un-biased newspaper isn't it Al? Here are a few of the headlines.

EDITORIAL

SHILL RUSSERT GIVES GEORGE W. A PASS

When President George W. Bush's approval rating slipped to its lowest point since the Supreme Court installed him in the White House, he decided he'd better take some drastic action. Actually, it was Bush Svengali Karl Rove who decided that the President should take some drastic action, so he booked him on the Sunday morning chat show "Meet the Press."

MOUNTAIN VIEWS: REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE GEARS UP FOR CONTEST WITH WAR HERO KERRY

by John Hanchette

With Massachusetts senator John Kerry knocking off rivals state-by-state for the impending Democratic Party presidential nomination, studious Republican researchers in stuffy little offices in the nation's capital and elsewhere are getting to work.

NEW YORK PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY COULD PROVE PIVOTAL, OR MEANINGLESS, FOR DEMS

"All along, I thought he had the best ability to defeat President Bush," Brown said.

When all is said and done all the dems have is a hope that their candidate can:

"All along, I thought he had the best ability to defeat President Bush," Brown said.

That is all you folks are looking for. Someone that can beat Bush. Nothing else matters. That is why Kerry's exit poll numbers look good. Because the democrats at the democrat primaries want someone who looks like he can beat Bush. No real platform, just Beat Bush!

[Tiger Al 0]

And a very un-biased newspaper isn't it Al? Here are a few of the headlines.

I never claimed anything about its' bias one way or the other. But, according to you, if it's called a newspaper it's liberal, anyway.

That is all you folks are looking for. Someone that can beat Bush. Nothing else matters.

No, it doesn't, because by beating Bush everything else will fall into place. Please don't attempt to give me feigned hysterics in response because you've proven that nothing else matters to you except a republican in the WH. You claim to hate lies, deceit and corruption, but that's not true. You don't mind any of that as long as it originates from a republican.

[Tigermike 3,425]

I never claimed anything about its' bias one way or the other. But, according to you, if it's called a newspaper it's liberal, anyway.

Not so!

No, it doesn't, because by beating Bush everything else will fall into place.

By falling in place do you mean the US troops will be removed from Iraq and Afghanistan and those countries left to the terrorists and pirates of the world.

Or do you mean the US troops will be placed under UN control like John "flip- flop" Kerry advocates?

Or do you mean that Kerry after 19 years as a senator and only 3 bills with his name on them will be able to lead the nation?

Or maybe you are just hoping that if Kerry were to win that on inauguration day we could hear Dean Scream again? :wacko:

Please don't attempt to give me feigned hysterics in response because you've proven that nothing else matters to you except a republican in the WH.

No hysterics feigned or other wise. And by that statement are you inferring that you have proven that ANYTHING matters to you except a pinko democrat in the White House?

There is NO democrat running that has said anything except "I HATE BUSH!".

That is all you have and all your candidates have chanted for six months.

:roflol:

"All along, I thought he had the best ability to defeat President Bush," Brown said.

[Shug2003 1]

Like everyone else, politicians grow fat and lazy with power. Bush and the republicans have held power so long they feel bullet proof and invisible. Granted, he has served during a time of great stress and change, but the same old "Reaganomics" won't work. To export jobs to foreign countries just to remain competetive (or so they say), along with unrestricted entry by Mexican citizens, and others is destroying our country. This, combined with an extremely liberal supreme court, will finish the job if we don't take the country back. Just my thoughts.

[CCTAU 3,369]

Like everyone else, politicians grow fat and lazy with power. Bush and the republicans have held power so long they feel bullet proof and invisible. Granted, he has served during a time of great stress and change, but the same old "Reaganomics" won't work. To export jobs to foreign countries just to remain competetive (or so they say), along with unrestricted entry by Mexican citizens, and others is destroying our country. This, combined with an extremely liberal supreme court, will finish the job if we don't take the country back. Just my thoughts.

Are you willing to take a job cleaning toilets???? didn't think so. Somebody has to do it. But its beneath our society. The jobs being taken arre not being filled by lazy-ass Americans anyway. i'm sorry that you are losing your job to someone over-seas, but that, unfortuantely, is how free enterprise works. Yes, it can be tweaked, but it take a while to figure out how to tweak it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Like everyone else, politicians grow fat and lazy with power. Bush and the republicans have held power so long they feel bullet proof and invisible. Granted, he has served during a time of great stress and change, but the same old "Reaganomics" won't work. To export jobs to foreign countries just to remain competetive (or so they say), along with unrestricted entry by Mexican citizens, and others  is destroying our country. This, combined with an extremely liberal supreme court, will finish the job if we don't take the country back. Just my thoughts.

Are you willing to take a job cleaning toilets???? didn't think so. Somebody has to do it. But its beneath our society. The jobs being taken arre not being filled by lazy-ass Americans anyway. i'm sorry that you are losing your job to someone over-seas, but that, unfortuantely, is how free enterprise works. Yes, it can be tweaked, but it take a while to figure out how to tweak it.

If this were a truly just world, CCT, then you'd get to be on the receiving end of your compassion.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

The tone in which CCTAU expressed his question aside for a moment, what is your solution to this dilemma Al? Would you enact protectionist policies such as high tariffs on imported goods designed to help American companies keep jobs here? Would you enact some kind of minimum "living wage"? What? And are you prepared to deal with the inevitable fallout of your chosen solution such as pissing off the EU and any number of other trading partners and having them retaliate, or seeing companies close their doors because they can't produce and sell a product profitably enough to pay whatever this "living wage" is determined to be? Or do you have another option?

[channonc 466]

Well, Titan, in theory I am very pro-Free Trade. I think in theory, everyone in the situation wins.

However, unfortunately in reality we have been very detrimental to our economy by allowing free trade but no level playing field. So yes, right now American workers are losing!! Countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc. don't have to abide by the same labor standards we do, they don't have to abide by the similar laws that govern the workplace (safty codes, etc.), they aren't expected to provide medical benefits, they don't have to make necessary improvement to facilities or products to protect the environment. All of these create costs for a company, thus increasing the price of the product.

But I also see this argument from a market aspect. If all of the people that bitch about products would talk to store managers of places they buy clothes and demand American made products, then things wouldn't be perfect b/c of the above reasons I listed, but it would sure put pressure on other countries. I try my hardest to buy American made products wherever I go, even if they are a little more expensive. I would rather support our workers than workers overseas. I have also quit shopping at Walmart, as they don't provide products made in America.

To sum it up, if people were more cautious about what they bought, and we did not participate in free trade with countries that did not have similar standards on businesses than we do, then I would be all for FT. As of now, I think we are only hurting ourselves by participating in free trade with these countries.

[Tigermike 3,425]

I sold industrial supplies for year in So Ala, Miss. & Fla. 99% of all the products I sold were manufactured in the United States. But that sure held no weight with the large corporations I called on. If I only had a $1.00 for every time I visited a union plant that had a huge sign out front, BUY AMERICAN. But then they bought foreign to save a penny. Quality would take a back seat to saving a penny every time.

[Tiger Al 0]

I think that countries that we enter into labor agreements with should have to maintain a universal minimal standard regarding workers' rights and labor/safety practices. I don't think we should do business with countries that allow workers to be exploited, period, so high tariffs probably wouldn't address that as the companies would just decrease the paltry wages they already pay to make up for it.

Treaties like NAFTA were a step in the right direction, but they seemed to stop once the ownership side was satisfied and the labor side has little to nothing in the way of protecting workers. As a result, Mexico is attractive to businesses because the labor standards are almost non-existent and they can make a product with exploited workers cheaper than in the US.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I can agree with that...but even if you required these foreign companies to have the same kind of safety standards, environmental standars, and basic health insurance, they would still undercut American workers because in most of the countries where this is happening, they wouldn't have to pay the workers nearly as much for them to have a good standard of living in their country. If you paid a worker in India, Mexico, or China the kind of money a factory worker makes here, they'd be insanely wealthy in their country. It would be so far out of whack for the market, it wouldn't fly. How would you address the wage gap?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I sold industrial supplies for year in So Ala, Miss. & Fla.  99% of all the products I sold were manufactured in the United States.  But that sure held no weight with the large corporations I called on.  If I only had a $1.00 for every time I visited a union plant that had a huge sign out front, BUY AMERICAN.  But then they bought foreign to save a penny.  Quality would take a back seat to saving a penny every time.

A friend of mine owns a business that sells scaffolding and other such equipment like metal bleachers and stages. Years ago, they and all their competitors had American companies buying American steel making their product. But the last 10 years or so, more and more competitors started going to China. They held out and kept using American workers and materials because the quality was so much better here than from China. They were more expensive, but there was a noticeable quality gap in everything from the steel itself, to the welds and other important issues related to it's construction. So, they shifted to being the "premium" brand and did fine for a few years.

But, eventually the Chinese caught up. The competitors' products were every bit as good for a lot less because of the foreign labor and materials. They tried to use the "buy American" pitch, but the gap in the pricing was just too wide and the difference in the product was miniscule if there was one at all. Finally, they had a decision to make: close the doors and do something else or buy from China. They decided not to close a family business that had been around for 30-40 years and buy from China. They didn't want to do it, but they had to.

So, it's not always about "saving a penny" vs. "quality". Sometimes it's about both and it's about lots of dollars, not just a penny or two. And it's about saving the jobs you can instead of going out of business altogether. There isn't a magic wand solution here.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I have also quit shopping at Walmart, as they don't provide products made in America.

OK, I have to say something here, now that two people have mentioned Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's corporate policy is that they PREFER to buy American and will do so - IF, and only if, the American product is of the same quality and durability as a foreign competitor. They are NOT going to hurt their bottom line and their market share by selling an inferior product JUST because it says "Made in the USA". It's called competition. Granted, foreign competitors have an advantage because of the low compensation for its workers. But let's pause for a moment and think about where all the tons of taxes, regulations and restrictions on American companies came from - gee, did the unions and the liberals in this country have ANYTHING to do with that? :roll:

Go ahead and slam me for all of the benefits American workers, myself included, enjoy because of these regulations. But my comment is that if you are bitching about jobs going overseas and foreign trade, you are lying in a bed of your own making if you have supported unions in this day and age.

[channonc 466]

Granted, foreign competitors have an advantage because of the low compensation for its workers.

Sorry Jenny. They have low compensation b/c there is no right to form unions in most of these countries. Not to mention poor facilities, no health benefits (which employers here are expected to provide). Sorry, this isn't a bed anyone here made. This started many decades ago in this country. We are better off for having environmental and labor standards in this country.

Do I think that unions often exploit their own members for power? Of course, no different than any politician. But they do serve a purpose. Trust me I am definately not one to jump on the union bandwagon, but there are times even in this day in age that unions have done some good.

Walmart themselves are being investigated for violating labor laws here! I trust them to make sure that their suppliers are doing the same?! Puleeze!!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

channoc, do you not agree that even if the employees in those countries could organize that the final salary they would be willing to take would still easily undercut what American workers are willing to work for? So we're back to the idea of tariffs again...which would have their own set of adverse consequences.

[channonc 466]

channoc, do you not agree that even if the employees in those countries could organize that the final salary they would be willing to take would still easily undercut what American workers are willing to work for? So we're back to the idea of tariffs again...which would have their own set of adverse consequences.

I agree. But I think that this senario would only be short term. For instance, look at the Euro, it is now much closer to the dollar than most of the other single European currencies. Much of that is due to the similarities in business regulation.

I think these foreign currencies would begin to increase in value do to market fluctuations of adding a standard minimum wage, forcing companies to comply with OSCHA type standards, environmental standards, etc.

So to answer your question, I agree this would happen, but market forces would eventually even it out.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Ok, but wouldn't that only work if other countries required the same things of developing nations like China? Wouldn't it put American companies at a severe disadvantage if they didn't and used the opportunity to gain a foothold?

[channonc 466]

Ok, but wouldn't that only work if other countries required the same things of developing nations like China? Wouldn't it put American companies at a severe disadvantage if they didn't and used the opportunity to gain a foothold?

That is exactly my point!! We don't require them and we should of these countries!! That is exactly what I am getting at. Yes, we would still be at a disadvantage until they caught up, but that would only be a short term thing.

My point is, we jump into these agreements without any of those things being prerequisite, which in turn, only hurts the whole premise for free trade (the everyone wins senario).