Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Feb 15th, 2004, 12:01 AM        Salon: retired officer saw Bush natl. guard records in trash
It's a bit lengthy, and you should support Salon.com anyway, so I'll just post the link.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ett/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Feb 15th, 2004, 02:24 AM       
damn, i heard he overheard a speakerphone conversation about shredding the docs, i'd expect they didnt just throw them in the can.


i havnt read the book though i wonder about the conflicting stories now
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 15th, 2004, 06:39 PM       
This Burkett guy has a chip on his shoulder.....

http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us...pinionId=10979

Hmmm.....

It looks like Burkett has changed his story a few times.....I wonder why?

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003240.html

Obviously I don't have any inside information and I've never spoken to Burkett. But I've got a few problems with his story:


It's awfully convenient. He just happened to be in General James' office when Allbaugh called? And despite the fact that Burkett's job was investigating irregularities in recordkeeping, James decided to put this call on the speaker? And then Burkett just happened to see the offending documents in the trash a few days later? This is a remarkably sloppy job on the part of Bush's people.


When he clarified his remarks in his press release in 2000, why didn't he tell the story he's telling now? It's pretty sensational, and surely deserved an accusing finger.


Burkett said of the scrubbing, "For most soldiers at Camp Mabry, this was a generally known event." If that's true, why hasn't anyone else come forward to confirm his story?


Burkett has a big time axe to grind. He was a whistleblower regarding problems in the Texas Guard and was later denied medical treatment for an illness he contracted in Panama, an incident that he blames on retaliation by Bush. He sued the National Guard over this incident but lost the case.


Bottom line: Burkett's story might be absolutely true. I don't know. But there are enough red flags that I'm skeptical of it without further backup. In the meantime, caveat emptor.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 15th, 2004, 06:47 PM       
This guy actually blames Bush for not getting certain health benefits......HAHA!

"I was a pawn then caught in a struggle..." - Burkett

You still are, pal....

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/what...say_032203.htm

VETERANS FOR PEACE
Veterans Working Together for Peace & Justice Through Non-violence. Wage Peace!

By Bill Burkett
Online Journal Contributing Writer

March 19, 2003—I've sat in total grief for the past three years, watching the institutions of America being spent as if they were lottery winnings.

I don't want to say it, "But I told you so."

In January of 1998 and what seems like a full lifetime ago, I was stricken by a deadly case of meningoencephalitis. I was returning from a short duty trip to Panama as a team chief to inspect the hand over of Ft. Clayton to the Panamanians. I had been 'loaned' from the senior staff and state planning officer of the Texas National Guard to the Department of the Army for a series of these special projects after angering George W. Bush by refusing to falsify readiness information and reports; confronting a fraudulent funding scheme which kept 'ghost' soldiers on the books for additional funding, and refusing to alter official personnel records [of George W. Bush].

George W. Bush and his lieutenants were mad. They ordered that I not be accessed to emergency medical care services, healthcare benefits I earned by my official duty; and I was withheld from medical care for 154 days before I was withdrawn from Texas responsibility by the Department of the Army, by order of the White House.

I was a pawn then caught in a struggle for right and wrong, but also caught within a political struggle between a man who would do anything to be 'king' of America and an institution of laws that we knew as America.

For five years, I have fought my battles around two fronts; the personal retaliation that was waged against me and the individual organizational unlawful acts and practices waged against our institutions.

But I first had to survive. Without a single bit of help, contact and in spite of threats against my life and that of my family, I have had to relearn to walk and to live. My daily pain is far worse than anything I could have previously imagined. I suffer from extreme constant headaches, body pain and even my hair hurts. I now have a severe seizure disorder which we are starting to gain slight control over.

My mother faced her final four years guiding and supporting me through my struggle to live. My wife, Nicki, and our four wonderful children totally reshaped their lives in support of this struggle as well. But, only three dear friends from those military days dared to help me. CW3 George Conn gave up his career and was released from duty for his support. He is now a civilian personnel specialist in Europe for the US Army. CW4 Harvey Gough actively fought for medical care for me. He received a court martial and was kicked out of the Army after an illustrious 28-year career. He filed suit for some of the comments made within their retaliation at him; including calling him a "Goddamned Jew" and threatening him with actions by making comments such as "we're going to treat you worse than the Jews in Auschwitz".

LTC Dennis Adams tried to operate within the system to get me medical support. When he was deposed and served as a witness within the district court case; Dennis was retired from service.

The only benefits that we have received have come at the end of a court order; and they have been under constant challenge. Needless to say, we know the White House counsel personally. We know Dan Bartlett, Karen Hughes, Joe Allbaugh, Don Evans, and many others very personally. Dick Cheney used to be a close friend. No longer.

So when asked by many "what should we do?" on this beautiful, but very sad morning, I can't help but remind everyone that for over three years, since the spring 2000 campaign, I have forecasted the actions that have taken place in great detail. I know GW Bush and his inner circle very well.

As I said, a UN vote would not stop GW Bush from attacking Iraq. Nor will anything else. And weapons of mass destruction will be discovered in great quantities; but the entire affair will stink to high heavens because it will be as staged as the White House press conference you just viewed.

The human death toll will publicly not be mentioned, yet in truth, it will far exceed 120,000. Our vast size and force will quickly break the back of any Iraqi resistance, yet we will not break their spirit. This is a society which has learned to live in troubled politics. They will go about their business while seething inside. There will be small uprisings, but they will quickly be crushed. The emotion and anger that we will have built will spill over into other countries and meld like an alloy with other problem areas of the Middle East, becoming a deeper seated problem. We will have insured that America's dynasty is nearing an end.

While GW Bush will be cast as a conquering hero by his political team and accepted by the population as such, history will treat him as Napoleonic. Bush will reach a new lofty level of acceptance by first fear and then staged triumph. Those who waited too long to gain their voice will lose their voice again.

America will over pledge economically in order to establish this new footprint; but the economic worth will not go to offset our fiscal investment, or to the Iraqi people. Iraq will be stripped by the vanquishers; the major corporations, who will then control not only the assets, but the cash flow. Their names will be Mobil, Exxon, Halliburton and the likes.

Our homeland warnings will again revert to 'fusia' a color only associated with confusion, and cosmetic image.

And America will again be asked to bow at the feet of this small man with big ideas.

Lost within a short time will be the name Saddam; for like Osama, he was never the purpose of this campaign. Never in the history of the world has a great society survived whenever its focus was allowed to magnetize to its most powerful. And here we will clearly have in view that there is little value accorded to the innocent 3-year-old Iraqi girl who will today be playing in the streets, or the 19-year-old soldier who will launch the missile that will kill her.

What do you do? Watching the sunrise on a beautiful morning, I used to feel hope. Before my illness, I felt exhilaration at the prospects of the day. After my illness, I felt hope that I might work hard to live. Now I feel sickness that today another massive group of people, held worthless by this anointed king, will be trampled upon like grapes. But their blood will not be rendered into wine. It will be spilled into the sands of this desert or another, or on the streets of Washington, or in the halls of the US Congress, or in the courts.

But there is a difference from any phenomenon previously faced by a spoiled American populace. With Teddy Roosevelt, we badgered and dented him into listening; with Franklin Roosevelt, we tenaciously talked until he listened; with William Jefferson Clinton, we crippled him through deceit and his own frailties. But none were anointed as king.

We must now revert to the history of Europe to discern what to do. We must study the nemesis of France and how Napoleon was felled before understanding the damage a tyrant does to a nation and society. We must examine the ruthless and dictatorial rise of yet another of the three small men—one whose name is not spoken out of fear of reprisal, but his name was Adolf. We must examine history, in order to not repeat it, and to understand the mesmerism of a public to a murderous scheme. Three small men who wanted to conquer . . . and vanquish. Each created a need for a balancing throng; history then recorded the damage from a far better perspective.

More than one French or German household now sits watching the US expending her virtue through the tools of greed, anger and vengeance. And they caution us. They caution that out of this strong arm tactic will bring about the rise of a United Europe or Asia to counterbalance an arrogant superpower.

I do not believe that this world can, or will, stand idly by. While many will rally to the side of this conqueror, there must be a steadfast collective group who hold their ground, their principles and the Constitution of this land. For there is never found the word "King" within that great architecture of Democracy, or as the Republicans like to say this "Republic". There is only the structure of an equally shared and responsible government "of, by and for the people" anchored within the principles of defense rather than attack.

Yes, we are on the edge. But there is no one who says that we have to help push this nation over the cliff. Instead, we must redouble our efforts. Being ever mindful of law and the tactics being employed, we must focus ourselves to what has been successful and keep it successful, while moving aggressively forward. We must withdraw the anger and be able to 'turn the other cheek,' for there will be many opportunities to do so. Our battles must be waged with resolve, not emotion.

We must be vigilant. We must be credible. We must be respectful of those [such as soldiers ordered to take the field of battle] who are entrapped within this immoral act. And we must be the best educators that have ever stepped forward on this earth. We must be teachers in the image of Peter, John and Mark; the disciples of Christ, or their equivalents within Judaism, or the Muslim Faith, or the great philosophers. We must grow a new generation of those who believe that war is the last resort, not the first. And we must call them patriots, for their battle is not protected by flack vests, armor plating, or armor piercing rounds.

The only thing that can be said this morning is that though we feel that our world is ended and that there will be many who will die within the coming days—die without reason or cause—we must dedicate ourselves to stop this action at a future point, so the carnage will not become even greater. As I have taught many young soldiers, at the end of the first battle you will be either elated and filled with yourself, or sickened to the point of vomiting. But in either case, you will have only completed a single battle. The war is yet to be won.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 15th, 2004, 07:42 PM       
Here is more.

It looks like this guy has serious credibility issues.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/17932.htm

BUSH'S GUARD 'ACCUSER' ADMITS FAULTY MEMORY

By DEBORAH ORIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 15, 2004 -- Serious doubts have been raised about the stories of two key Alabama National Guard figures who questioned whether President Bush showed up for weekend duty there in the early 1970s.
Retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, the 187th's Tactical Reconnaissance Group's former commander, recanted his statement that he couldn't remember if Bush reported for duty, now saying his memory is faulty because he's in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease.

And The Boston Globe, which took the lead in challenging Bush's Guard service, reported serious doubts about the account given by one of Bush's prime accusers.

Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say he remembered Bush well, and that in fact it was Turnipseed, then a colonel, who introduced Bush to him.

"Col. Turnipseed brought [Bush] in when he first came to me. I just know that he saw him there," Calhoun told The Post. Turnipseed said he regards Calhoun as trustworthy and believes he'd remember it correctly.

Calhoun's ex-wife, Patsy Burks, said she remembers her husband talking about Bush back in the 1970s when he switched from the Texas Air National Guard to Alabama, where he was working on a political campaign for family friend, Winton "Red" Blount.

Another Alabama Guardsman, Joe LeFevers, told The Birmingham News earlier this week that he remembers seeing Bush on the Alabama base.



Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett had claimed he heard Bush aides talking about having his Guard records scrubbed and saw it happen.

But the Globe reported Thursday that Burkett's corroborating witness, former Chief Warrant Officer George O. Conn, disputes virtually every point in Burkett's account.

------------------------

I guess this put's an end to that......
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #6  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2004, 12:08 AM       
if you don't have it download the bbc report by palast, go to minute 18, burkett talking to palast
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/bush...y_fortunes.wmv

great vid
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #7  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 16th, 2004, 12:38 PM       
Yeah, if only ths guy was a credable, reliable source with a proven track record like Drudge. Then we'd know for certain W was guilty.

I wonder if the media should investigate this and get to the bottom of it.

Nah. After all, not even completeing military service which kept you out of the Vietnam war and then lieing about it throughout your entire political career isn't a serious issue, like alleged adultery.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2004, 10:39 PM       
Thanks for proving my point, Max.

Why can't the media give equal coverage?

Burkett has already recalled his statements.....why is this still an issue.

Especially after people are now coming forward saying that they served with Bush.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #9  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 09:25 AM       
Your one step ahead of me. People from Alabama? 'Cause that's the issue, such as it is.

Does the relative free ride W was given on this issue in 2000 mean that the media was less biased back then? Or maybe had a conservative bias?

Or maybe since W.'s famous sixteen words and since no WMD have been found, the media feel that W has lost credability since 2000 and that his claims of truth deserve a little less trust and a little more digging.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
BombsBurstingInAir is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 11:37 AM       
Care to quote those 16 words Max? I forget them.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 11:51 AM       
"Englands are learning a uraninum which are purchasasafied for nukeyalar purposeful yellar cake with lemon frosting."
George "It was them pretzels" W. Bush, Statrification of them unyum.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
BombsBurstingInAir is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 12:37 PM       
I have sympathy for you and your kind Max.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 01:23 PM       
I have no 'kind', friend owl, though it's kind of you to say so. Kind of stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
BombsBurstingInAir is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 01:42 PM       
Max is really a good guy. I am just trying to get attention since I can't get girls.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 03:27 PM       
"Does the relative free ride W was given on this issue in 2000 mean that the media was less biased back then? Or maybe had a conservative bias?" - Max

There has been no free ride because there was never a real story here. There is NO proof that Bush didn't complete his duty. All the left has is a bunch of accusations by Burkett that have been proven false. This whole story has been manufactured by the left.

I understand you eagerness to destroy Bush no matter what the cost but you have to realize that it calls into question your own credibility when you back partisan politics such as this.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #16  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 03:44 PM       
No there there?
Now I know you've only been posting the Kerry no there there intern scandal by way of object lesson. Would you like to come out and say you think there's nothing there there?

I've already pointed out in several posts what W. did or didn't do back during the vietnam war is small potatoes. I've got way more to dislike about his actions as president which are more recent and actually impact the world.

I'd suggest, there or not, if you compare coverage of this issue during 2000 vs. now has to do with a percieved decline in W's alleged strong suit, credability. Or are you suggesting that the press has suddeny become more liberal? I think the press, a lot of craven dogs for the most part if you asked me, feel pretty stupid about all the times they dutifully reported WMD had been found. I think they're now less inclined than they were to simply believe there's no there there just cause the whitehouse tells them so.

And again, I'm asking because I haven't heard, has anyone from the Alabama National guard come forward to say they served with W. I just hate to think of a hotshot pilot senators son being so... unmemorbale. I'm also curious has he yet said anything about not showing for his physical?

Answers or not, story or not, I'll say it again. I think his performance as president is what merits him getting the boot and this is just a sideshow. But I think he's just sewing what he's reaped with the press. He got a honeymoon like none other I have ever seen a president get from the press. It's over, and that's not liberal bias, that's about time.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 04:11 PM       
In my opinion he never got a honeymoon from the press. All we heard for months was how stupid he was and how his daddy paid for his grades at Yale and Harvard and how he was a draft dodger.....

"I've already pointed out in several posts what W. did or didn't do back during the vietnam war is small potatoes. I've got way more to dislike about his actions as president which are more recent and actually impact the world." - Max

In fairness to you, yes you have....But you've also make statements saying or implying that Bush went AWOL when he didn't. There is NO evidence saying he did....

....so I don't understand why the same people are getting upset when the Kerry story is brought up. It's a contradiction.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #18  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 04:40 PM       
I'm not upset. I think it's pap.

Find me the first main press story you can after 9/11 mentioning W. stupidity or richboy connections. Late night talk shows stopped making fuun of the guy. Slate stopped publishing Bushisms for over a year, which I think is a tragedy for the history of comedy.

I agree, the situation was unprecedented, but I'm guessing the Bush free ride after 9/11 went on longer than FDR's after Pearl Harbor.

Congress gave W a blank check for war in Iraq. The press didn't dig at what turned out to be ludicrous statements. I'm not talking about the general disagreement over WMD, I'm talking Cheney saying Iraq had nuclear weapons. The patriot act? Congress for the most part admits it was passed WITHOUT BEING READ. The whole country lined up behind W, and perhaps they should have. It would be nice to feel W had risen to the occasion. Personally I feel his cabal of weasels and wolves used it to get everything on a political wish list that predated 9/11 and in many cases was not even tangientially related. But that's neither here nor there, since this issue is about free rides.

W was an investigation free zone for well over a year. For a guy who immediately acted as if he had a sweeping mandate when in fact most people didn't vote for him, that's a historically unprecedented free ride.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 05:55 PM       
"Find me the first main press story you can after 9/11 mentioning W. stupidity or richboy connections. Late night talk shows stopped making fuun of the guy. Slate stopped publishing Bushisms for over a year, which I think is a tragedy for the history of comedy." - Max

I wasn't reffering to what happened after 9/11. I was talking about what happened before and after the election. Who cares if people stopped making fun of Bush for a year....other than people who view it as wasted opportunity to further their political agenda. After facing the worst attack in our nations history the vast majority of Americans didn't want to hear or see their president being made fun of or criticized unfairly. Even comedians themselves refrained........It was a more serious time unlike now. "Comedy",where the president was concerned, just wasn't very important to most people....there were more important things going on.

"I agree, the situation was unprecedented, but I'm guessing the Bush free ride after 9/11 went on longer than FDR's after Pearl Harbor." - Max

9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor....anyways, I think your guess was wrong.

" Congress gave W a blank check for war in Iraq. - Max
The press didn't dig at what turned out to be ludicrous statements. I'm not talking about the general disagreement over WMD, I'm talking Cheney saying Iraq had nuclear weapons."

The Congress and the Senate saw the same exact intelligence that the president saw. They made up their own minds about the security risk in Iraq. There was NO blank check in Iraq or at least the kind that you are talking about.

"The patriot act? Congress for the most part admits it was passed WITHOUT BEING READ. The whole country lined up behind W, and perhaps they should have. It would be nice to feel W had risen to the occasion. Personally I feel his cabal of weasels and wolves used it to get everything on a political wish list that predated 9/11 and in many cases was not even tangientially related. But that's neither here nor there, since this issue is about free rides." - Max

Whether or not you agree with The Patriot Act is a whole seperate issue. It sounds like your argument here is with Congress, not Bush.

"W was an investigation free zone for well over a year. For a guy who immediately acted as if he had a sweeping mandate when in fact most people didn't vote for him, that's a historically unprecedented free ride." - Max

Well, his approval rating was in the mid 80's so I don't think your complaint is really with the media here.....it's with the American people.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #20  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 07:00 PM       
W got no honeymoon in the election, and had none coming. A contested election where the winner had less than half the votes doesn't get you a honeymoon. Soon after, 9/11. My personal opinion is it rescued his presidency.

The respect he was given vsa vis unwarranted criticism was a mark of American Character, and I think the office of the President warranted it. The absence of warranted criticism was a honeymoon. Are you suggesting his performance was perfect?

I have problems with the administration, the congress and the press. I think the latter two gave W. a huge benefit of the dooubt during a time of crisis. I think he abused that trust. I think congress and the press abdicatted their responsability to the nation by giving him such free reign. I have problems with the way the adminsitration used that free reign.

"The Congress and the Senate saw the same exact intelligence that the president saw."
That may be a true statement. However, the adminsitration implied over and over that they knew things they couldn't reveal for national security reasons. The feeling among many conf=gressman was that the administration HAD to have solid info or they wouldn't e doing what they were doing. Again, an abdication of responsability and an abuse of trust.

"Whether or not you agree with The Patriot Act is a whole seperate issue. It sounds like your argument here is with Congress, not Bush."

Congress abdicatted responsability passing legislation they hadn't read. The administration abused trust at a time of national tragedy by writting such a piece of abussive, unamerican tripe.

"Well, his approval rating was in the mid 80's so I don't think your complaint is really with the media here.....it's with the American people."

If by media, you mean US magazine, then I suppose theirs a connection beytween aproval ratings and reporting. I think journalism ought to be held more closely to standards connected to truth. I don't wish to make a comparison between the two leaders, but Hitler had a hell of a high approval rating for quite a while. Popularity and reality often walk seperate paths. When the media is cowed by popularity, the abdicate responsability. When a President takes advanage of a cowed media, he abuses the nations trust.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2004, 08:53 PM       
"W got no honeymoon in the election, and had none coming. A contested election where the winner had less than half the votes doesn't get you a honeymoon. Soon after, 9/11. My personal opinion is it rescued his presidency." - Max

I disagree. 9/11 gave him an advantage in the polls early on but now many problems associated with 9/11 are hurting him in the polls....such as the economy, war, etc......But I see what you are saying..and I agree that for a time Bush was not bashed in the media as much as he is now or when he was elected.

"Are you suggesting his performance was perfect?" - Max

Certainly NOT perfect...I like the way he's handled forign policy and I disagree with much of his domestic policy.....I think most Americans would agree.

"I have problems with the administration, the congress and the press. I think the latter two gave W. a huge benefit of the dooubt during a time of crisis. I think he abused that trust. I think congress and the press abdicatted their responsability to the nation by giving him such free reign." - Max

I don't agree with you as far as the media is concened. I just think that you have your opinion and that you wish to see more of your opinion on t.v. Max, we all feel that way.....but I seem to remember a lot of criticism surrounding The Patriot Act....

With Congress I can certainly understand your viewpoint and I totally agree but you still can't argue that the president got a free ride from the democrats.....just look at all the judges that were shot down. But I agree the Congress has a responsibility not to give the president too much leeway........the president can't be blamed for that. It's his responsibility to send bills to congress and it's their job to refine them. It's not his job to actually wright the laws.....

"I have problems with the way the adminsitration used that free reign. " - Max

I know you really need to do this but it's just not the president's responsibility worry about whether or not Congress is going to do their job. Congress has to take responsibility for that.

"That may be a true statement. However, the adminsitration implied over and over that they knew things they couldn't reveal for national security reasons. The feeling among many conf=gressman was that the administration HAD to have solid info or they wouldn't e doing what they were doing. Again, an abdication of responsability and an abuse of trust." - Max

Max, they looked at the same intel. PERIOD. When you say the administration said that there were other things they couldn't reveal...they were talking about the general population, not the members of the senate and congress that ended up voting for the war. Senators like John Kerry voted for the war either because they believed the intel. or for political reasons.

"Congress abdicatted responsability passing legislation they hadn't read. The administration abused trust at a time of national tragedy by writting such a piece of abussive, unamerican tripe."

You can't say the administration abused trust just because Congress didn't do it's job. If Congress would have, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.........not that I'm 100% against The Patriot Act. To be honest I probably don't know as much about it as you do. Have their been any documented abuses of The Patriot Act that we know of?

"I think journalism ought to be held more closely to standards connected to truth." - Max

I agree.....and I agree that there is a problem. ....but it's just the opposite what you think it is.

"I don't wish to make a comparison between the two leaders, but Hitler had a hell of a high approval rating for quite a while." - Max

So was JFK, FDR, Churchill, Reagan, Thatcher......why use Hitler? Because you just wanted to compare him with Hitler...

"Popularity and reality often walk seperate paths. When the media is cowed by popularity, the abdicate responsability. When a President takes advanage of a cowed media, he abuses the nations trust."

I don't think that's the case here but I can certainly agree with your statement, just not the context in which it was given.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #22  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 18th, 2004, 10:27 AM       
" I know you really need to do this but it's just not the president's responsibility worry about whether or not Congress is going to do their job. Congress has to take responsibility for that."

I see your point, but as the leader of the country, I think there are certain limmits on Machiavelian behavior we should be able to expect on their own, without congress hving to reel the executive branch in. Suppose tthe President had asked for the incarceration of all Arab Americans for the duration of the 'war' on terrorism. If Congress let him do it, shame on them, but shame on him for asking. I think some of the things he asked of during this time of crisis and the speed with which he asked for their approval were abuses of American trust. I think Congress dropped the ball, but I also think the administration conived and lied in ways that are shameful even within the already shameful realm of politics, especially for a man who campaigned as a 'uniter, not a divider'.

I see the media's job as making it as hard as possible for a president, Democrat or Republican, to get away with lies.

I think the Democrats upheld their responsabilities as the opposition party in the area of judicial appointments. I think they abdicated it in both foreign and domestic policy in absolutely every other arena.

" It's not his job to actually wright the laws..... "

Hmmm. Someone ought to tell Dick Chenney and John Ashcroft that. They could use the opportunity to tell them that Lobbyists are REALY not supposed to write legislation.


"Max, they looked at the same intel. PERIOD."

That statement is in some cases incorrect and in others highly credulous. Chenneys office had under secretaries in the Pentagon funnelling hand picked, unvetted intelligence directly to the VPs office, and this is a matter of public record at this point. Looking at the same intel as someone else is no excuse in cases like the Nigerian Yellowcake when it has been determined that you could prove those documents false with the internet. Looking at documents without making any effort to see if they are true or not absolves you of nothing. If you and an expert look at the same piece of Intel and the expert says "This is an obvious forgery" and you say "This is proof positive and leaves no doubt that Iraq is attempting to build a nuclear weapon," the fact you both saw the same thing is irrelevant. The same goes for Iraqi unmaned drones, aluminum tubes, word of mouth reports from highly unreliable Iraqi National Congress members with HUGE vested interest living in America on the CIA dime, mobile weapons labs and whatever unreleased intelligence allowed Rumsfeld and W to both say we knew where the weapons were. What they looked at is not so much the isue as how they chose to interpret it, and how they chose to play up things they may well have known were false. Putting a PERIOD on it is basically saying what congress did. "I know you would never lie to me, and I know you've given this the proper scrutiny and I know this is the real reason you're doing what you're doing".

"Senators like John Kerry voted for the war either because they believed the intel. or for political reasons. "

You might be suprised I agree with you partially here. I think Kerry voted for the war as a political calculation, and it's why he wasn't my first choice for the nomination. Again, it's not the intel, it's the spin, and I think some in congress didn't think the administration would actively spin such a serious matter.

"You can't say the administration abused trust just because Congress didn't do it's job."

I don't. I say both took place, no 'just' involved. If congres abdicated respponsabilty when W. asked for better parking, I say W. was not at fault. This is a wee bit bigger, and I think the President has national responsability beyond doing whatever the Congress doesn't prevent him from doing.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.