Simply The Best – Bush Assessment

W'S MISTAKES doesn't dwell much on Bush's accomplishments, though Mr. Lowry does mention that the Bush Administration had the fewest scandals of any in our lifetimes. In fact, if Libby is it, then the Bush Presidency could be certified scandal-free.

And while the title may sound quite negative to the President's admirers, what Lowry has done is itemize Bush's mistakes calmly and rationally. The list is low key, yet stunningly accurate, and so much so that I think every future President should read it before the start of each new day and pay close attention to what reads like a Ten Commandments for the job.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Simply The Best – Bush Assessment

  1. It's not all that hard to avoid scandal when you make it a point to maintain secrecy and attack anyone that criticizes it.

  2. TedWest says:

    Are you referring to the Clinton Administration? Otherwise, please give numerous examples as to what you're getting at.

  3. Clinton's not smart enough or doesn't have the right kind of support to be that subtle.. As for the examples you requested1. Not the only example of this, but the first I found. Halliburton and subsidiaries ripping off taxpayers:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/12/politics/main588216.shtml2. Granting mercenary agencies legal immunity in Iraq by granting CPA orders the force of law and then proceeding to write it into their *Constitution*.http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf(PDF)andhttp://www.iraqcoalition.org/government/TAL.htmlThe first link is the CPA order itself, the second is the Iraqi Consitution. If you really care, I'll even provide the relevant Article.3. Literally throwing away billions of dollars:http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN06312951200702074. Allowing mercenaries, foreign and domestic, with questionable legal status to operate on American soil. Bush doesn't hate blacks, he hates common sense. 5. Administration-endorsed (verbal) attacks on dissenters.6. Using his executive authority to write law allowing whatever president has the sand to do it to turn this country into a dictatorship, via Executive Order 51. That's not the whole list, just what immediately comes to mind. Every item on the list strikes me as far more scandalous (except #5) strikes me as far more scandlous than some moron lying about his ability to keep it in his pants. Much of that (1 to 3) was done under a veil of serecy, and others, while not exactly secret, were done in a manner as to suggest that he didn't really have an interest in subjecting himself to the risks of scrutiny by pulling it out of his backend. Any criticism of his administration's behaviour was handled by incidents like #5. Who was it again? Rumsfeld or Ashcroft that likened any American who dared to dissent (against the action in Iraq) as the modern day equivalent of Nazi apologists?If scandal is defined soley by media reaction, then I suppose that sure, he's just about scandal-free with all that flying under the radar. Deserving of that status? No.. That they aren't being showcased doesn't mean they're not there.Long-winded, I know, but that is what I'm getting at. It was originally intended as an aside about what you wrote.

  4. TedWest says:

    I don't know with whom you're used to discussing these sorts of things, but I have standards of logic and evidence, none of which you've met.
    Let's start with your opening comment which I chose not to criticize owing to the distinct possibility that such criticism might have caused you to forgo your "proof" under the guise that I'm biased when in fact, there is no one less biased than I, and I wish I could say the same about you.

    "It's not all that hard to avoid scandal when you make it a point to maintain secrecy and attack anyone that criticizes it."
    That answer was wholly non-responsive and would have been objected to in court. It's also a non-sequitur, but even if it made sense, you are not in a position to know how if it's "hard… when…" That's mere speculation.
    In addition, How would you know how secretive the Bush Administration was both in terms of its own operation and relative to other administrations? Answer: you don't – more speculation. In fact, the Bush administration may be far less secretive, but better able to keep those few secrets than Clinton was, and it could be argued that Clinton's public "secrets" were far more damaging… we could argue that if we knew what to compare them with.
    But we (meaning: you) don't. Because if you know Bush Administration secrets, they aren't secrets. Nevertheless, you then provided a list of supposed secrets that have been uncovered and designated as fact. And you've gone further by implying that they are not only fact, but they are damaging to Bush or to us, or… who knows?
    Regardless, I asked you for examples and you were certainly not short on listing what you consider examples of Bush secrecy and of attacking those critical of the Bush Administration, but before I get to them, I have to take note of your preposterous claim that "Clinton's not smart enough or doesn't have the right kind of support"
    Which begs the question: how old are you? I mean, were you old enough to be aware of Clinton and his gang of thugs? And to claim that he's not smart enough must have eyes on both sides rolling. He was touted as a genius, and only during the recent campaign did loony lefties realize what we knew all along – that there's nothing special there. So you may be using hindsight in claiming he wasn't smart enough, but fools on the left were dancing merrily in his later years as President because they felt he was so adept at outsmarting everyone.and circumventing the law.
    Now I'm certainly not going to devote this much effort to your list which is also filled with opinion and speculation and short on evidence, but then you're probably one who claims "Bush lied" and you can prove it despite the fact that you can't.
    Also, I am not going to follow your links. I asked that YOU provide examples, and the last time I asked one of your lot to do that, I did allow him to present links, and after reading them closely, he turned out to be a moron. if you look back on this blog, you'll find the episode, and like you, this fellow (the name "David" sticks in my mind for some reason) thought he was very perceptive and rational when he was anything but.
    And despite saying all that I read the first few paragraphs of your first link which offers nothing whatsoever to substantiate your point. What were you thinking? I asked you to show how Bush was secretive and/or how he attacked his critics, and your first example is about Haliburton and how they MAY have overcharged the Pentagon, but that they didn't profit from it because THEY were overcharged? Are you crazy? Not only has that got nothing to do with Bush, but it wasn't even an attempt to defraud, though the article seems to want to portray it as such.
    So one down…
    2) As Michael Scott might say, restate that so a five-year-old can understand it. Then I doubt it would sound anywhere near as ominous as you'd like.
    3) Huh? What do you think Congress is doing right now? But again. How was Bush secretive about it? Oh, and while I'm at it, even if there was secrecy involved how does that involve the President himself? Waste is terrible, but it is not, in and of itself evidence of secrecy, much less criminality.
    4) I won't even deal with. It's both nonsensical and apparently your opinion, which is now suffering greatly in the credibility department.
    5) This is EXACTLY what I asked you to prove. And you answer with a restatement? Don't tell me, you went to public school, and later got a GED?
    6) While you finally said something which can be understood, it assumes facts not in evidence. Bush has issued Presidential statements, and some or all of them -could- be bad things, but he's not the first to do so, nor are any of them turning America into a dictatorship. Hyperbole never works when you're asked to prove something. Not to mention that they are not secret,
    So it would appear that you've struck out – twice!
    But here's what I've learned – that despite your protestation, you are a far left loon, which I already knew, but I was more than happy to allow you to demonstrate that you were moderate if you could. Ironically, it wasn't your "points" about Bush that ultimately did you in it was your assertion that your gripes about Bush were "far more scandlous than some moron lying about his ability to keep it in his pants."
    They might have been – or they might be if you could make your point with any one of them, but failing that, you have completely mischaracterized the Clinton debacle as leftists are so determined to do. So I declare that I'm saying this for the last time, and from now on, anyone who voices such nonsense will be immediately dispensed with…
    Clinton lied under oath – a violation of his own oath and the laws of this country, and he was found liable for doing so, not by the Congress, but by a judge. And in doing what he did, he attempted to deprive another person of the justice she was seeking. The actual act which Clinton lied about is irrelevant since his lie had much greater importance, and people who have lied under similar circumstances about things of similar consequence have served jail terms.
    Now let's tidy up… I noticed your spelling of "behaviour," which I presume was not a typo. In which case, before you say anything else, please tell me why am I even talking to you?
    Finally, there's this:
    "Who was it again? Rumsfeld or Ashcroft that likened any American who dared to dissent (against the action in Iraq) as the modern day equivalent of Nazi apologists?"
    How dare you. provide the actual quote and attribution, or don't come back.

  5. Liberals want to force all of us to join a society like "Animal Farm" & that they will have the same outcome doesn't trigger a thought in their little minds. It's frightening to me just how close to "Brave New World" we have become!

  6. Darcy says:

    Amen to that. I get real offended when I hear liberals say that we are the ones trying to force our views on them. They are the ones trying to cram their world view down our throats. My first instinct is to say "just leave us alone" but that is not working anymore.

  7. TedWest says:

    I just came here and read your two comments, and only moments before, Barry Young was talking about the inauguration and how everyone was criticizing Bush four years ago for "celebrating" in the midst of war and the cost of it, and he was saying that there are ads out now saying that "we are one." Barry said that he can't remember ever seeing anything like this. He didn't say it, but it's just like you depicted, Zak, and after Barry finished, I said to my wife, "We are ONE? If the media had done this with Bush, we might have had the Iraq war over long ago."

  8. TedWest says:

    Because we certainly aren't "one," and that sort of talk makes me feel that we'll be "runners" trying to avoid capture in the not-too-distant-future. There's nothing going on that's not scary.
    And Barry just came out of Commercial saying, "We are one… Bubinski, do you feel like one?" Michelle Larson said, "I'm not quite there… because he wasn't so much elected as he was anointed."
    And Barry just pointed out that February is Black History Month.

  9. Darcy says:

    It is scary indeed. I don't have any answers or even any suggestions. But I am all ears if you or anyone else does. Don't you just want to scream "Wake up People!!"?!?

  10. TedWest says:

    I wrote a piece yesterday that I didn't post because it read too negatively, but I don't see any hope whatsoever. it's the thirties all over again but with far bigger stakes, and we're gonna have to go through it. I also wrote two columnists, John Stossel and Jack Kelly about their nonsensical prescriptions for fixing the financial mess.
    Both decry the bailouts and the deficit spending, but both see more spending by the consumer financed by lower taxes as the answer, and Stossel thinks that the answer is less government regulation and more "buyer beware," when ti comes to investment. It's not the first time Stossel said something insane, and it's spending of all kinds that got us where we are.
    So the only long-term solution is for people to learn that saving is good for its own sake, but that is not only not likely to happen if for no other reason than a lot of people will now have nothing to save and nothing left in their savings. I don't see anything but a long period of contraction, but if the politicians avoid that with the bailout mentality, it would seem that we'll just be putting off a collapse for a decade, more or less.
    And just think, the column I didn't post was far more negative than this…

  11. Darcy says:

    I've always liked John Stossel. I like the lower taxes angle but am not optimistic about it really happening.

  12. TedWest says:

    I like Stossel too. But he's an idealist libertarian (is that redundant?) He even made some very good points – then came to the wrong conclusion.
    As for your suggestion, I'm on it. But first, and it's my perennial problem, I have to get past the gripes. Luckily, that doesn't mean I have to voice them all first, it just seems like that.

  13. Darcy says:

    I know what you mean. Sometimes I just want to complain for about 30 minutes, then I can move on to something productive. It doesn't solve anything, but it sure makes you feel better.

  14. TedWest says:

    I'm happy for you! The truth of the matter is that what you read here is not how I am in person. I may seem totally focused on the negative and it seems even to me that I'm ranting incessantly, but in reality, I can
    't wait for The Office tonight… and the Suns getting creamed by the Denver Nougats, and the ton of forensics shows I have recorded.
    But I want you to know that I'm here for you, and I actually mean that. Anytime you think I can be of assistance, just let me know, because I see you, madam, as the best of the best.

  15. Darcy says:

    Thank you very much!I actually have cable TV and a phone now!! I have this new remote control that I don't know how to use. It gets 700 or so channels? It seems like is skips by 50 or a 100 I don't know. I really don't have time to mess with it. Yesterday was the first day with a real phone again.

  16. TedWest says:

    LOL! It's basketball. I'll have nothing to do with football. And no, it's the Nuggets, but don't you think Nougats is catchier?
    Yesterday,I made my wife read an article about Cleveland, and she couldn't believe it. Then we saw a show on TLC about someone with a condition that required they live in a cooler climate, so I said to my wife who thinks Phoenix is too cold in the winter, "If I get that, will you come with me?"
    Wife:
    Me: Hey, If I had to move to a cold climate, are you with me?
    Wife: I'm thinking…
    Me: Oh that's great.
    Wife: It doesn't have to be THAT cold.
    Me (thinking north): So how far would you go?
    Wife: Hawaii?
    I swear!

  17. Darcy says:

    Hawaii?!? ROFLOL!!You better stay healthy 🙂

  18. *sigh* I guess this is what you refer to when you talk about how you like to be confrontational and controversial. I'm going to ignore the attacks for the time being and just deal with the meat of the issue. I'll be the first to admit that my standards of proof may not be up to snuff. Many of the people I end up arguing with are younger (in college or just out of it) and reactionary to an extreme, whether it be right/left/anything else. As such, I'm sure some of my standards have slipped.Understand that in addition to not being a leftie, or rightie, I don't think I would be called a moderate, either. Some of my views may lean to the left, others to the right, and I share my criticisms of both sides freely. Having similar values on a single issue will not make us comrades.Don't bother threatening me with shutting me out. Either do it, or don't. I'm not going to censor myself just to make sure I live up to the TedWest standard. I'm not going to pull a Snowy and dog you in and out. You won't shed a tear, and neither will I. Simply say goodbye and be done with it.You're operating on a mistaken assumption – that I've ever touted Clinton as a genius. I didn't support the man, and never considered him anything extra special…. like you. Don't talk about my hindsight because it doesn't apply. I didn't vote for him, and I ended up being glad I didn't. However, I don't consider an outright lie under oath more scandalous than deceit that results in people dying, especially when it's our own people's lives. The same applies to Scandalous – that is what you asked me for, and as such, you're asking me for my opinion. Scandalous is something that offends moral proproiety, and my morals say that deceit, whether it be through secrecy or under oath, is far more scandalous when it costs lives. The same applies to theft, and actions that run counter to what I consider our national principles.It's also important to understand that while I may consider one *more* scandalous, I never gave Clinton a free pass. That's a separate issue that I'm plenty willing to discuss if you're interested – but it wasn't the subject at hand. So, to the point at hand. Did I fail in making my points in an effective manner? I've no problem with admitting that you're right. I'll go further with that, but before I do, I'd like to address what you said about secrets. Note that one can be effective at maintaining secrecy or not… in some cases Bush has, in others, less so. The end result will not necessarily be the same… we're talking about secrecy, not secrets. Behaviour (not a typo, just bad spelling, like colours), not the product of it. I'm also not comparing his secrecy to other administrations. It's far too long and involved a subject, and it wasn't my point.1. Halliburton. Note that what you inferred is not what was written. Anonymous people say they "may" have been overcharged? Straight answer? No. Followup? Case(s) apparently still in progress and prosecution by the Pentagon, KBR singles out some targets who supposedly did all the bad stuff, Halliburton cuts off KBR and Bush response? Halliburton should repay if anything is discovered. Rumsfeld chimes in by saying that to his knowledge what we are seeing, isn't overpayment at all, that it may be disagreement between the contractors and the DoD. Talks about repayment end up in criminal charges. The overcharge is fact, but who dunnit has yet to be proven. Both companies still operate in Iraq.Relevance? Despite serious allegations being reported from as far up as former PARC Greenhouse, the Bush administration (or more appropriately, Bush himself) has yet to do/say anything about it despite the fact that he's the Commander in Chief. It's part of his job, so why isn't he addressing it… or, if he is, why is he doing it secretively? Yeah, I am making an assumption in going with the latter, but quite frankly, the former would be worse.2. Blackwater's (single example of coalition mercenaries) legal immunity in Iraq. I didn't say it was ominous, I said it was scandalous. The CPA order was given force of law by the first Iraqi constitution. Relevance? Paul Bremer was appointed head of the CPA by Bush, and reported directly to him. The interim council that drafted this was created by Bremer, and the drafting mediated by Bremer. The order he wrote required these mercenaries be given legal immunity in a warzone. That's an insane benefit we don't even grant OUR troops. This was before Blackwater got reigned in. Rambling? Probably, but I wanted to establish the chain of command and why this is scandalous. Relevance, again? Rather than accept the importance of the issue of agencies he has admitted responsibility for, he's made no attempt to reign them in until the hugely public September incident. Even then, it was treated as a "sensitive" issue, with no further public rationalization as to why these companies should be allowed some sort of special immunity. You wouldn't call that secretive behaviour? (yeah, I'm going to continue mispelling that out of habit, sue)3. Literally throwing away money. (*$#)&%) I hate my browser. Shortening this so I don't lose it again. I'm not letting Congress off the hook. This isn't a comparison, it's pointing out scandalous behaviour. If the two ARE comparable, then isn't his equally so? Relevance? Bremer again. Bush is his boss, and accountable. Refusal to acknowledge this, or at least publicly show a willingness to correct it is an example of secretiveness to my eye. Are previous administrations equally guity? Probably.4. Blackwater on American soil. This is fact, not opinion. I was rather vague, and apologize for that. I thought the reference to Katrina would spur the connection Oh well. Blackwater -Worldwide- is not and hasn't been a purely American military agency. They were employed by the DHS for Katrina, as well as by private companies. A military agency with almost no accountability. Relevance? The director of the DHS is part of Bush's cabinet, making him directly responsible. Yes, it is my opinion that this is highly scandalous, and since you know more about what I'm talking about, I'd be interested as to what -you- think about having mercenary/security contractors acting on our soil by order of our government, without the same legal oversight as our military. Heck, at this point, nobody even knew if Blackwater had -any- legal status.6. Attack on dissent. Two mistakes here. One, for some reason I addressed it later, and referred to them as apologists instead of appeasers. Not a huge difference, and you'd still call me on it for daring to say so. Two, to be fair to Ashcroft, I should have verified it as Rumsfeld's quote. Congratulations, Rumsfeld officially sucks, and here's the quote. Better yet, here's the link, because I don't want to retype the relevant parts. That site crashes this browser, and there's no reason it should be removed from context.www.stripes.com/article.asp?section104&article=39720If you have time, read it all for context, if not, start at "That year" and end at "learned history's lessons".That's not to say that there are NO valid points in his speech, but the problem here is that he went overboard by likening Americans who dissent with policy on Iraq to Nazi appeasers. Disgusting. If I wanted to read that kind of garbage, I could go to some radical leftie or rightie blog. Relevance? Obvious. When/if you decide to respond to this, I want to remind you of something. This is addressing a very specific issue, and despite what you may think due to your beliefs about my leanings, isn't intended to let anyone else off the hook. It's intended to put someone on it. Don't derail the issue by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant stuff. If you want to discuss that separately, you'll probably find that I agree with you on a lot of it. Using one scandal to excuse another is wrong.

  19. EDIT NOTE: This post replaces another that I accidentally skipped point 6 on.*sigh* I guess this is what you refer to when you talk about how you like to be confrontational and controversial. I'm going to ignore the attacks for the time being and just deal with the meat of the issue. I'll be the first to admit that my standards of proof may not be up to snuff. Many of the people I end up arguing with are younger (in college or just out of it) and reactionary to an extreme, whether it be right/left/anything else. As such, I'm sure some of my standards have slipped.Understand that in addition to not being a leftie, or rightie, I don't think I would be called a moderate, either. Some of my views may lean to the left, others to the right, and I share my criticisms of both sides freely. Having similar values on a single issue will not make us comrades.Don't bother threatening me with shutting me out. Either do it, or don't. I'm not going to censor myself just to make sure I live up to the TedWest standard. I'm not going to pull a Snowy and dog you in and out. You won't shed a tear, and neither will I. Simply say goodbye and be done with it.You're operating on a mistaken assumption – that I've ever touted Clinton as a genius. I didn't support the man, and never considered him anything extra special…. like you. Don't talk about my hindsight because it doesn't apply. I didn't vote for him, and I ended up being glad I didn't. However, I don't consider an outright lie under oath more scandalous than deceit that results in people dying, especially when it's our own people's lives. The same applies to Scandalous – that is what you asked me for, and as such, you're asking me for my opinion. Scandalous is something that offends moral proproiety, and my morals say that deceit, whether it be through secrecy or under oath, is far more scandalous when it costs lives. The same applies to theft, and actions that run counter to what I consider our national principles.It's also important to understand that while I may consider one *more* scandalous, I never gave Clinton a free pass. That's a separate issue that I'm plenty willing to discuss if you're interested – but it wasn't the subject at hand. So, to the point at hand. Did I fail in making my points in an effective manner? I've no problem with admitting that you're right. I'll go further with that, but before I do, I'd like to address what you said about secrets. Note that one can be effective at maintaining secrecy or not… in some cases Bush has, in others, less so. The end result will not necessarily be the same… we're talking about secrecy, not secrets. Behaviour (not a typo, just bad spelling, like colours), not the product of it. I'm also not comparing his secrecy to other administrations. It's far too long and involved a subject, and it wasn't my point.1. Halliburton. Note that what you inferred is not what was written. Anonymous people say they "may" have been overcharged? Straight answer? No. Followup? Case(s) apparently still in progress and prosecution by the Pentagon, KBR singles out some targets who supposedly did all the bad stuff, Halliburton cuts off KBR and Bush response? Halliburton should repay if anything is discovered. Rumsfeld chimes in by saying that to his knowledge what we are seeing, isn't overpayment at all, that it may be disagreement between the contractors and the DoD. Talks about repayment end up in criminal charges. The overcharge is fact, but who dunnit has yet to be proven. Both companies still operate in Iraq.Relevance? Despite serious allegations being reported from as far up as former PARC Greenhouse, the Bush administration (or more appropriately, Bush himself) has yet to do/say anything about it despite the fact that he's the Commander in Chief. It's part of his job, so why isn't he addressing it… or, if he is, why is he doing it secretively? Yeah, I am making an assumption in going with the latter, but quite frankly, the former would be worse.2. Blackwater's (single example of coalition mercenaries) legal immunity in Iraq. I didn't say it was ominous, I said it was scandalous. The CPA order was given force of law by the first Iraqi constitution. Relevance? Paul Bremer was appointed head of the CPA by Bush, and reported directly to him. The interim council that drafted this was created by Bremer, and the drafting mediated by Bremer. The order he wrote required these mercenaries be given legal immunity in a warzone. That's an insane benefit we don't even grant OUR troops. This was before Blackwater got reigned in. Rambling? Probably, but I wanted to establish the chain of command and why this is scandalous. Relevance, again? Rather than accept the importance of the issue of agencies he has admitted responsibility for, he's made no attempt to reign them in until the hugely public September incident. Even then, it was treated as a "sensitive" issue, with no further public rationalization as to why these companies should be allowed some sort of special immunity. You wouldn't call that secretive behaviour? (yeah, I'm going to continue mispelling that out of habit, sue)3. Literally throwing away money. (*$#)&%) I hate my browser. Shortening this so I don't lose it again. I'm not letting Congress off the hook. This isn't a comparison, it's pointing out scandalous behaviour. If the two ARE comparable, then isn't his equally so? Relevance? Bremer again. Bush is his boss, and accountable. Refusal to acknowledge this, or at least publicly show a willingness to correct it is an example of secretiveness to my eye. Are previous administrations equally guity? Probably.4. Blackwater on American soil. This is fact, not opinion. I was rather vague, and apologize for that. I thought the reference to Katrina would spur the connection Oh well. Blackwater -Worldwide- is not and hasn't been a purely American military agency. They were employed by the DHS for Katrina, as well as by private companies. A military agency with almost no accountability. Relevance? The director of the DHS is part of Bush's cabinet, making him directly responsible. Yes, it is my opinion that this is highly scandalous, and since you know more about what I'm talking about, I'd be interested as to what -you- think about having mercenary/security contractors acting on our soil by order of our government, without the same legal oversight as our military. Heck, at this point, nobody even knew if Blackwater had -any- legal status.5.. Attack on dissent. Two mistakes here. One, for some reason I addressed it later, and referred to them as apologists instead of appeasers. Not a huge difference, and you'd still call me on it for daring to say so. Two, to be fair to Ashcroft, I should have verified it as Rumsfeld's quote. Congratulations, Rumsfeld officially sucks, and here's the quote. Better yet, here's the link, because I don't want to retype the relevant parts. That site crashes this browser, and there's no reason it should be removed from context.www.stripes.com/article.asp?section104&article=39720If you have time, read it all for context, if not, start at "That year" and end at "learned history's lessons".That's not to say that there are NO valid points in his speech, but the problem here is that he went overboard by likening Americans who dissent with policy on Iraq to Nazi appeasers. Disgusting. If I wanted to read that kind of garbage, I could go to some radical leftie or rightie blog. Relevance? Obvious. 6. Executive Order 51. I specifically excluded this from my list of scandals with an element of secrecy. This is public record, and on the government website, not something pulled from one of his speeches. Feel free to read/comment:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.htmlBe sure to understand the definitions and the context they're written in. When/if you decide to respond to this, I want to remind you of something. This is addressing a very specific issue, and despite what you may think due to your beliefs about my leanings, isn't intended to let anyone else off the hook. It's intended to put someone on it. Don't derail the issue by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant stuff. If you want to discuss that separately, you'll probably find that I agree with you on a lot of it. Using one scandal to excuse another is wrong.Realize also that I'm not a lawyer, just an anonymous blogger with no reason to believe that any of my, yours, or anyone else's opinions should hold up in a court of law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s