|
Banned
|
pan... I appreciate the respect and diplomacy that you are affording me here. Please consider that this examination and commentary about the Bush "usage" of "democrat", in place of democratic, takes place in the wider context of his record of duplicity, misrepresentation of who he is, and what he stands for, and...to put it charitably, the misleading nature of the man. You may dismiss the notion that it is very telling that he has worked so hard....and it must be hard...answering the probing and even derogatory questions of the press corp...and consistently getting his morphed adjective "democrat"...."democrat leader", "democrat party", "democrat votes"....right. It seems to me this petty obsession is not "on me"...it is owned by the man who practices it, so diligently and successfully....wednesday, thursday, in the 2000 debate with Gore....and much more accurately than Cheney has been capable of performing this "word game".
Now....we must decide....trust the man...take him at his word...or not. Is the "new Bush" more honest now, less dangerous...more trustworthy....how much of your willingness to take him at his word...now, is buoyed by hopefulness....how much of my unwillingness is clouded by skepticism and contempt? These are some facts; he's lost his congressional majority that allowed him to do as he pleased....he all but ignored it's leaders, when his party controlled both houses..wrote signing statements to circumvent it's legislative intent, bullied it and used recess appointments to aggressively negate it's decisions dispproving his appointees.
We've got a guy "leading" us....for six years...where? We know he went to Andover, and Yale, and Harvard grad. school....that he scored very highly on the military pilot program pre-admission test...yet we cannot even agree on whether or not he is "smart", capable, or intelligent. Isn't that odd....doesn't it make you curious enought to wonder, evena after six years, WTF the POTUS, the CIC....really is? Treat what I've offered here as a snippet, but one that I think is revealing of the "measure of the man"....relentless....obsessive....successful in whatever he has attempted, including training himself to always say "democrat". <b>At the least, I've posted some things, in every post on this thread, that you probably didn't know. We all need to watch and listen to Mr. Bush more closely. I think that he has conceded nothing, offered only contradictions, and the signs, and the odds.... that he is "equipped" with a messianic-like self-identity...ego, if you will, now damaged, but unbowed....have not diminished, IMHO.</b>
Thursday....this seems to be what his message was....he intends to milk the final days of his party's congressional control....not to ensure the safety of the US during his long, GWOT, but to cement the passage by the senate of this piece of his own personal protection from future prosecution....his and his cronies. <b>Did anyone know that this POS of a bill, was passed by a unanimous republican house vote, and received a no vote from almost all house democrats, back on Sept. 29?</b>Is he not a war criminal, and perhaps a traitor (remember the outing of Valerie Plame, and Libby's trial, scheduled to begin in two months?)
Considering what his stated legislative priorities are, now, and the post election, "blame game" he's playing, that the documentation below, describes, is Bush actually displaying any real candor, contrition, or acknowledgment of his own missteps and failures? If he is doing so....please point to examples of his sincerity and new penchant for putting his "country at war", first.
I've shared with you how "Bush's war" effects my family, and to an extent, my opinion. My stepson was emailing and/or calling us and his girlfriend, almost daily, and no one has heard from him for about ten days. It's only fair that I offer that info here, and let you decide how much that diminishes everything else that I've posted on this thread....I suggest though, that the facts, and the news reporting should be considered seperately from my opinions and personal circumstances.
Quote:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...d109:H.R.5825:
H.R.5825
Title: To update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sponsor: Rep Wilson, Heather [NM-1] (introduced 7/18/2006) Cosponsors (13)
Related Bills: H.RES.1052
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
House Reports: 109-680 Part 1, 109-680 Part 2
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/quer...U91Cx9:e22462:
<b>SEC. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS AND ANTITERRORISM PROGRAMS.</b>
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and <b>in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other provision of law, no action, claim, or proceeding shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for an activity arising from or relating to the provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or assistance during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, in connection with any alleged communications intelligence program that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, or would be intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack. This section shall apply to all actions, claims, or proceedings pending on or after the effective date of this Act.</b>
(b) Jurisdiction- Any action, claim, or proceeding described in subsection (a) that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable pursuant to section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.
(c) Definitions- In this section:
(1) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY- The term `intelligence community' has the meaning given the term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
(2) PERSON- The term `person' has the meaning given the term in section 2510(6) of title 18, United States Code.
|
<b>Perhaps you view him as "de-fanged"...less dangerous? How does that equal more trustworthy....more "worthy" of being given the "benefit of the doubt"? Would you afford such a thing to anyone else suspected of committing such serious crimes against the US and the communtiy of nations?</b>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20061109.html
THE PRESIDENT: Earlier this week the American people went to the polls, and they cast their ballots for a new Congress. The American people made their decision; I respect the results, and so does my Cabinet. I want to congratulate <b>the Democrat leaders</b> on the victory they achieved for their party.....
........Some of these issues need to be addressed before the current Congress finishes its legislative session, and that means the next few weeks are going to be busy ones. First order of business is for Congress to complete the work on the federal spending bills for this year, with strong fiscal discipline, and without diminishing our capacity to fight the war on terror.
Another important priority in the war on terror is for the Congress to pass the Terrorist Surveillance Act. We also need to pass the bipartisan energy legislation that's now before Congress.....
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...41100879.html/
<b>Meet the 'New Bush'</b>
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, November 9, 2006; 1:06 PM
What a difference this election has made. It was, in some ways, a whole new President Bush who appeared before the assembled press corps for a post-election <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html">news conference</a> yesterday afternoon.
<b>Meet the New Bush:</b> Owning up to all sorts of unpleasant realities; Speaking well of Democrats; Vowing to act in a bipartisan fashion while acknowledging voter skepticism on that point and pledging to overcome it with deeds; Self-deprecating, rather than bullying.
And -- oh yes -- jettisoning Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the quintessential symbol of his administration's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the current strategy in Iraq is failing.
<b>So is this New Bush to be taken at his word?</b>
<h3>It probably depends on whether you think the president's badly eroded credibility has been restored by his admission that he lied during the campaign -- or whether that just adds to the damage.</h3>
Because possibly the most startling aspect of a consequential press conference on a incredibly tumultuous day was <b>Bush's repeated acknowledgment that things he said when he was campaigning were either no longer operative -- or were outright deceptions.</b>
Most notably, it was just one week earlier that Bush had told <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_20">wire-service reporters</a> in an interview that he wanted Rumsfeld (and Vice President Cheney) to remain with him until the end of his presidency.
Here's how Bush tried to explain that yesterday:
"[Associated Press reporter Terence] Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was, they're going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer."
<b>It is quite telling that rather than duck the question -- which Bush is more than capable of doing -- Bush chose to lie instead.</b>
But, amazingly enough, that wasn't the only example of Bush saying he didn't really mean what he was saying in the run-up to the election. Bush repeatedly -- and casually -- asserted that many of the major elements of his stump speech were, in fact, not to be taken seriously any longer.
Consider this passage in his introductory remarks:
"Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America's strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.
"To the people of Iraq: Do not be fearful. As you take the difficult steps toward democracy and peace, America is going to stand with you. We know you want a better way of life, and now is the time to seize it.
"To our brave men and women in uniform: Don't be doubtful. America will always support you. Our nation is blessed to have men and women who volunteer to serve, and are willing to risk their own lives for the safety of our fellow citizens."
On the one hand, a noble and gracious and important assurance to the world of America's enduring values and determination. On other hand -- given the ferocious way that Campaigner Bush attacked Democrats as troop-hating terrorist-appeasing cowards -- an astonishing admission that he was just making that stuff up.
Said New Bush: "I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see -- no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That's what I believe."
Q. "Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today?"
Bush: "What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won."
Here are some <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802508_pf.html">"before" and "after"</a> Bush excerpts, from The Washington Post.
Another reporter noted that Bush had been equally reassuring about both Rumsfeld and Cheney in the pre-election interview. So, just checking:
Q. "Vice President Cheney, of course, has made -- takes many of the same positions that Secretary Rumsfeld did on the war. Does he still have your complete confidence?"
Bush's response: "Yes, he does."
Q. "Do you expect him to stay -- "
Bush: "The campaign is over. Yes, he does."
In other words: This time I'm telling you the truth. Honest.
Deja Vu
Bush's comments yesterday -- and the aversion within the traditional media to actually calling what he did lying -- are reminiscent of an earlier incident that I chronicled in my June 1 column, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/01/BL2006060100995.html">Bush's Lie</a> . As I wrote at the time: "[W]ith credibility a paramount issue for the White House these days, <b>it's worth noting that when asked about Treasury Secretary John Snow's future last week, President Bush could easily have ducked the question, or told the truth -- but instead, he chose to lie about it."</b>
One Reporter's Take
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1556714,00.html">James Carney</a> writes in Time about Bush's press conference, and starts off with a positive spin on Bush's new candor:
"Give President Bush credit for being honest about his dishonesty."
But Carney then indicates that reporters soon had reason to believe it was a lie and that Rumsfeld's days were in fact numbered:
"After Bush declared his unbending support for Rumsfeld last week, it was telling how few aides and advisers to the President were willing to reaffirm what the President had said. When asked about Bush's Rumsfeld comments, one official didn't try to hide the pain the question caused him. He wouldn't talk about it. He and others made it clear that the President said 'what he had to say.' In other words, Bush's support for Rumsfeld would last only until the last polling station closed on Tuesday night."
Carney then attacks Bush for not having fired Rumsfeld earlier: "[T]he move that might actually have helped Bush and congressional Republicans when it mattered, before election day -- would have been to fire Rumsfeld last week, last month or last year. . . .
"[B]y waiting so long he let his pride get in the way of a much-needed change in Iraq policy. That mistake didn't just cost the Republicans seats in the Congress. It may have cost lives."
But here's my question: Don't those reporters who apparently knew it was a lie -- but didn't tell anybody -- bear some responsibility as well? What other lies do the reporters know about, but choose not to report?
The 'Honest Lie'?
<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/09/rumsfeld_bush/">Walter Shapiro</a> writes in Salon: "In the annals of presidential truth-telling (a thin volume), there is no obvious precedent for Bush's startling admission that he lied to reporters when he offered Don Rumsfeld a strong presidential vote of confidence just before the election.... Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution whose knowledge of the White House dates back to his days as a young Eisenhower speechwriter, called it 'the honesty of the honest lie. Bush was telling the truth when he said he lied.'
Old Bush
There were still some sign of Old Bush yesterday, of course.
For instance, the president still seems to believe that he can send the press -- and the public -- into a state of collective amnesia, simply by changing his rhetoric.
Bush marveled that the voters hadn't endorsed his Iraq policies.
"Somehow it seeped in their conscious [sic] that my attitude was just simply 'stay the course,'" he complained.
See my <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/27/BL2006102700776.html">October 27 column</a> for video and excerpts from the more than 50 documented instances of Bush himself using that phrase to describe his approach -- back when he thought it made him look heroic.
Old Bush still thinks the voters just didn't get it: "I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security."
It was New Bush who owned up to the public skepticism over his intention to act in a bipartisan manner -- New Bush who said action is more important than words.
"How do we convince Americans that we're able to do it?" he asked. "Do it. That's how you do it. You get something done. You actually sit down, work together, and I sign legislation that we all agree on. And my pledge today is I'll work hard to try to see if we can't get that done."
But it was Old Bush who insisted that his administration had already "made some progress on changing the tone" in Washington.
It was Old Bush who made it sound like Democrats are opposed to giving the government the tools it needs to protect the country. Democrats, of course, are in favor of the government having lots of tools -- just not certain ones they feel violate the Constitution, like torture and warrantless eavesdropping.
And it was Old Bush who diminished the clear message from the voters about Iraq. "I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there," he said. "Yet I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat."
By contrast, most Americans and leaders seem to have concluded that there's no way to achieve victory in Iraq.
The Coverage
........More on Lying
White House Briefing Reader Brent Zenobia of Portland, Ore., writes: "I found his most telling admission to be that all those nasty comments he made about the Democrats during the campaign were suddenly inoperable -- not that he regretted them, of course, but that he thought it was ridiculous anyone would take them seriously and of course he would say anything he had to to obtain the outcome he wanted. So much for Mr. Straightforward-Plain-Speaker, the public personality that was once the foundation of his approval rating ('someone we trust'). My religion teaches that lying is a particularly insidious sin, because the more you do it the more difficult it becomes to tell what's real and what's not. Bush evidently has lied so often that he no longer is able to see any ethical problem with it, and probably thinks everyone does it. Thus, if we're dumb enough to take him at his word, then that's our problem for being so gullible.
"How can people expect him to be a good faith partner for bipartisan cooperation when he himself admits that he will say anything to get his way, and never expects to be held accountable even if he's caught in the act of lying as he was yesterday with the pre-election Rumsfeld comment?"
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110801900.html
The Thumpees Try Their Luck at the Blame Game
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, November 9, 2006; Page A02
......He blamed corruption: "People want their congressmen to be honest and ethical, so in some races that was the primary factor."
He blamed Mark Foley, whose name remained on the Florida ballot: "People couldn't vote directly for the Republican candidate."
He blamed ballot rules. "You could have the greatest positions in the world . . . but to try to get to win on a write-in is really hard to do."
He blamed Democratic organization: "I'm sure Iraq had something to do with the voters' mind, but so did a very strong turnout mechanism."
He blamed bad luck: "If you look at race by race, it was close."
Implicitly, of course, he blamed Donald Rumsfeld, by firing him as defense secretary in favor of the "fresh perspective" of Robert Gates.
And, not least, he blamed the uncomprehending voters: "I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it's time for us to move on."........
.........The creator of this stiff wind, however, was in no mood for contrition. "Say, why all the glum faces?" Bush asked when he entered the East Room. In fact, his aides had worn exaggerated grins as they took their seats.
Clearly, Bush was trying to tone down the rhetoric from the campaign, when he said the Democratic "approach comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses." Yesterday, he voiced soothing notions of "consultations" and "bipartisanship."
But he seemed unsure how much to concede. He began by saying "Iraq had a lot to do with the election." He amended that to "Iraq had something to do with it." And finally he cited cases where "I'm not sure Iraq had much to do with the outcome." While he said "many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure" with Iraq, he looked puzzled when a reporter suggested that voters wanted the troops withdrawn. He said he was "making a change" at the Pentagon to respond to the voters, but he also said he was going to sack Rumsfeld "win or lose."
Likewise, he wrestled with the message voters sent on Tuesday. "If you look at race by race, it was close," he reasoned. "The cumulative effect, however, was not too close. It was a thumping." But when the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg repeated the "thumping" description, Bush bristled. "Let's make sure we get the facts," he said. "I said that the elections were close. The cumulative effect: thumping."
Ken Herman of Cox News teased the wounded president. <b>"That was 'thumpin',' without a 'g,' correct?" he queried. "I just want to make sure we have it right for the transcript."<b?
|
|