It's not our fault...At least, I didn't vote for Bush. LOL!nm
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-10-03
In Reply to: Ever notice that - Libby
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Sorry honey.....I didn't vote for BUSH
@@
Didn't vote for Bush, can't blame me for that...nm
9/11 Bush's fault
9/11 scenario being rewritten? LOL, in your dreams. We had many warnings about an attack but guess where Bush was?? On vacation. Well, actually he is on vacation 24/7, if you ask me. A FIVE WEEK VACATION, OMG!! This administration failed us with the attack on 9/11. A captain goes down with his ship. Bush is the captain of this administration, hence, he takes the blame..Not Clinton, not the democrats, BUSH. OMG, we were being attacked and where was Bush, reading a childrens book in Florida and then flying around, too afraid to land when we the people are vulnerable for attack. But, my concern right now is not 9/11. That has already happened. My concern is the terrorist country Bush has created with his illegal immoral criminal invasion of Iraq. Now we have to worry for decades to come due to his and Cheneys actions of invading Iraq. What really makes me shake my head in disbelief, is that so unbelieveably insane Cheney is still trying to justify this war and link it up to 9/11. This country is in a sorry state. Im ashamed, concerned, frightened and disillusioned by America right now..and dont use the republican argument, liberals always blame America first..I blame whomever or whatever is the cause of the problem and right now America has caused this major global terrorist problem, our major deficit with billions going to Iraq monthly, our thousands dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, disrespect throughout the world and a nonending war for the future, not to mention at home outsourcing of jobs, which Bush says is a good thing, gas prices going through the roof, millions going without health insurance..but hey, Bush is a good president, hun?....NOT. This situation Bush has put us into will haunt us for decades to come..
So then how is that Bush's fault?????
Doesn't make sense.
It's probably Bush's fault! nm
//
It's Bush's fault...
//
Oh, no. Everything is Bush's fault. I have never
nm
they didn't vote - they registered to vote -
that is a big difference. The votes were not counted, they were stopped by the means in which they were supposed to be stopped - ID verification, address verification, etc. The cards were filled out by the ACORN workers and then given to the proper authorities to sort through.
The phony registrations were pulled out by the actual authorities. ACORN is just a middle man.
They will probably still say "its Bush's fault".
nm
That the Obamanites will say it's Bush's fault!
I'll hold my "I could have told you so" remarks until later in the year, too. I am HOPING for the best, but have my doubts......I don't think there are *any* politicians any more who are worth their salt. Sad, sad, sad..........
If you think the economy was Bush's fault....
Remember this. In 1933 President Roosevelt regulated the banks to prevent another depression, by limiting what the banks could invest in. The collapse of the banking industry was caused by whom? BUSH? Guess again. The banks were deregulated by Clinton in October of 1999. It just took some time for the bank's bad investments to do them in, just like it would us.
Bush's fault for NO? Get your facts straight..
September 17, 2005
|
In regard to the Herald editorials and toxic letters to the editor from the hard left blaming President Bush for everything that went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:
If the above writers had done a little research they would know that FEMA is not an agency of first responders. It is not the agency responsible for bringing bottled water or fresh food or removing people from harm's way. It does not have law enforcement authority. First responders are the responsibility of local and state government. FEMA is a federal agency providing funds to local government after the problem arises. It helps the locals respond and rebuild. FEMA's Web site states, don't expect them to be there with their aid until three or four days after a disaster strikes.
The National Guard is under the command of each state's governor not the president. The president can federalize control of a state's guard on his own order, but doing so without a governor's consent to deal with an intrastate natural disaster would be an extreme insult to the governor and the state. Also, using federal troops for local police actions is against the law.
President Bush declared the entire Gulf Coast including Louisiana and New Orleans a federal disaster area days before Katrina hit in order to speed federal aid.
Now let's get down to the real problem. The president got on the phone two days before the hurricane blew in to plead with Governor Blanco to order a mandatory evacuation. She didn't act.
Even Mayor Nagin could have ordered an evacuation. He didn't act. The city's own evacuation plan required the city to provide transportation for those without vehicles or with disabilities. Yet hundreds of school buses just sat there unused and were ruined by flood waters.
Let's place the blame where it belongs. Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin.
L.A. LEONARD
Rutland
|
It's Bush's Fault...You made me laugh..sm
Does anyone recall during Clinton's 8 year presidency, the opposition constantly chanting IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT !!!..???...))) Have a good one.
My roof is leaking - it's Bush's fault
I'm sure I'll find a lot of other stuff to blame on Bush
My porch has a crack in it, it's Bush's fault.
x
I have an ingrown toenail, it's Bush's fault.
Wah wah wah
So now the health care is Bush's fault? Hummmmmm....sm
I seem to recall that someone named Clinton ran largely on a platform to redo the health care plan, but of course, no one on the left ever remembers that. Bush is suddenly responsible for every sin including original sin.
Gotta laugh at the morons who think everything's Bush's fault too
x
snicker....Bush's fault-itis...started already.......sm
One thing's for sure. Obama won't get rid of all the Bush executive orders...he'll keep the dictator one, fer sure.....it's Bush's fault, after all.....
Right, it'll be "it's Bush's fault" for at least the next two years. I wonder when O
and his own white house. I'm fearing he won't. It will be "Bush's fault" for a long, long time to come.
Marmann's just proved it.
You're right. It IS Bush's fault. He belongs in jail,
.
All Bush's fault....good grief....talk about denial...
Fannie and freddie? Ring a bell? BarneyRubble on the finance committee who said (on video) why there is nothing to worry about! Fannie is sound...and even if it wasn't, the government wouldn't bail them out....ROFL. DEMOCRAT. Bush Admin and John McCain in particular years ago telling them a crisis was looming but BarneyRubble and his crew not only did nothing, they encouraged Fannie to loan even more to people who had no prayer of paying it back...with credit rating less than 0. So tell me again how it was Bush's fault...do you realize how silly that makes your post sound? Get real???? COME ON. LOL. Obama is trying...trying what? To turn us into a welfare state for sure? Yup. Throwing us down the slippery slope of socialism? Yup. Not only trying, people like you are helping him. Well, enjoy is all I can say. Glad I didn't vote for him. This is all you folks. :)
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
I didn't vote for the man......sm
and I don't uphold his policies, but this is just SICK! I wish him no harm and, in fact, do pray for his safety and for his administration. I really feel for his family.
Though I didn't vote for him...
I will hope that he will be seen as a role model for young black males. It really is a tragedy in the black community (white too) that so many young men don't have a good male role model, someone to look up to, someone to help them through tough times, etc. I am not slamming mothers out there, but boys really do need the influence of a male in their lives. We all need someone to look up to, guide us in the right direction, encourage us. This may just be what some young kid needs to put him on a better path in life, who knows.
How could that be? I didn't vote for the guy!
xx
I didn't vote for or against the Patriot Act and neither did you....
Congress did. Obama voted to reauthorize it as well.
The Patriot Act has nothing whatsoever to do with communism. What would make you say that?
No, which is why I didn't vote for Obama....
**
So if McCain didn't vote 64% of the time
how can he vote with Bush 90% of the time? LOL! 
I will be saying "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him."
nm
About 40% of the Dems didn't vote for her for speaker...
...and I'm sure a few of the "leaners" who voted for her are regretting their decision - and not just for this, but because she's been so easy for a lot of Americans to hate because her positions are very extreme.
On the other hand, is this a party that is likely to dump her? We've got a tax cheat as the head of the Treasury (and hence, the IRS). We've got Barney Frankfurtive still overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - among other things - with more than a whiff of corruption in his dealings with them. We've got Charlie Rangel, who has had a Senate charge of tax evasion pending for over six months(they can't seem to get around to it). We've got good old Charlie Schumer, who got sweetheart mortgage deals.
All of them are still doing business at the same old stand.
The Democratic "vice squad" doesn't exactly inspire confidence, now does it?
Oh, more "blame Bush" - except Bush didn't send these out, now did he?
Here's a news flash for you since you apparently haven't heard: BUSH IS NOT IN OFFICE and just today Gallup did a poll showing that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK OBAMA SHOULD START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENS ON HIS WATCH.
G E T A C L U E.
Cole family member, didn't vote for O
You win some, you lose some.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/obama-meets-with-family-members-of-uss-cole-911-victims/
The majority of the people didn't vote him in because of his polcies
They voted him in because he's black. Plain and simple.
BTW - I sitting here with a nice hot cup of coffee trying to warm up these icy toes of mine. Been in reality a long time. You should come join us.
Sticks and stones, my friend. Didn't vote for the man...
he is not MY President. I honor the office, not the man in it. Not Bush, and certainly NOT the great and powerful 0. Last time I looked this was a free country, although Barry from Chicago may change that before he is finished. I don't have to claim him because you folks elected him. I don't have to sig heil. I certainly don't have to respect him. I used to respect the office of the presidency and I might again if an independent nonpuppet with a mind of his freakin own (or HER own) ever gets elected. If McCain had been elected, would he be YOUR president? Would Palin have been YOUR vice-president? Come onnnnnn.
Sorry about that....chief.
VOTE FOR BUSH--As the worst!!!
338 OF 415 HISTORIANS SAY G.W.B.
IS THE FAILING AS A PRESIDENT- DO YOU AGREE?*
An overwhelming 338 of 415 historians polled by George Mason University
said Friday that George W. Bush is failing as a president. And fifty of
them rated Bush as the worst president ever, ranking him above (below?)
any other past president - even those you've never heard of who were
also really awful. Why do these misguided, obviously-socialist,
ivy-smoking and - of course -American-hating intellectuals feel that Bush isn't
doing his best?
Well, they look at the record ...
# He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend
and foe alike in the process;
# He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive
military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;
# He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and
state;
# He has repeatedly misled, to use a kind word, the American people
on affairs domestic and foreign;
# He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and
foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);
# He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of
pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;
# He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;
# He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems,
corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.
Quite an indictment. Perhaps it is too early to evaluate a president -
or is it?
I'm sure you did vote for Bush but now u are embarrassed nm
hahahhaa fools!
I agree. Nobody vote for Bush this year.
Problem solved.
Bush HID those who didn't
So you think Bush was an open book? LOL!!!!!
If there were tax evaders on Bush's team we would never know about it. He was the King of Cover-Up!
I didn't say he blindly supports Bush.
Scarborough is objective and honest, and if something is wrong, he tells people. He doesn't blindfold himself and play follow the leader like so many Bush supporters. He's not a Bush apologist.
Uh Bush didn't wiretap the Kings
Bush Jr. wasn't president then, although you all like to blame him for things that happened before his presidency. I think the Kennedy's had everything to do with the King wiretappings...
Carter is a tool and one biggest failures of a president in American history. The only thing of substance he's ever done was Habitat for Humanity, and I think he would do himself and everyone else a favor by sticking to that.
Of course BUSH didn't wiretap the Kings...
...and nobody including Carter claimed that. Is that the best you can do? How lame. Bush was embarrassed by the REFERENCE and rightfully so. And if you know anything about Hoover's FBI, blaming the Kennedys for the rampant intelligence abuses at the time is even more disingenuous.
Not going to argue about Carter's record - Repugs have always hated him just as they anybody who demonstrates intelligence, bravery and a dedication to public service. No surprise there. George Bush Sr. is the only Republican President in recent times who has not simply retired to live in reclusive luxury - not surprising either that he and Clinton get along so well. Kind of a thorn under the shrub's saddle isn't it?
Those Democratic Presidents though (not to mention the Democratic vice-presidents) - they just seem to keep on giving and contributing in the public arena. Must be the result of a basic difference in ideology between the parties.
EXACTLY. Bush didn't want SCHIP but he darn
healthcare for children is socialism but this is not. He is about 5 beers short of a 6 pack!!
Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress.
.
Bush didn't create the federal reserve......
xx
Why didn't the Bush bashers leave then? Did you feel the same about them?
//
Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
If it Clinton screwed something up - why didn't Bush fix it? He had 8 years!
As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?
Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.
Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.
We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)
All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.
Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.
THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.
Yeah and Bush's policies got us in a fine mess didn't they?
Conservatives believe Bush didn’t act in time because God told him to get rid of poor black people
on welfare and old people on Social Security because they cost taxpayers too much money.
A radio talk show host just said that…and I agree. They can’t admit that Bush has shown us all how he will refuse to protect Americans in a national emergency, even though he used that as a campaign promise, and that Bush doesn’t even have to care any more since he can’t be President again. I hope they can live with their collective conscience. That is if they have one. I’m starting to believe they don’t.
I agree neither choice is great, but will vote McCain just as a vote against Obama. nm
x
|
