Bush thread:9-5-07 President Bush notified of nuclear mistake, 6 armed nuclear missles flown over U.S. by mistake

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Two years old but still very apropriate as the Iranian standoff escalates:

1-27-2005 Super War Preview - The Iranian Suicide Bombers vs. The American Crusaders

Everybody's asking me what'll happen if we attack Iran. To get a quick preview, just do what this guy in my eighth-grade class did: put a firecracker in your mouth, hold it between your front teeth, and light the fuse.

The best way of guessing what Bush will do is asking, what's the worst thing he could do to America? Whatever it is, that's what he'll do.

If we attack Iran, that'll make three Muslim countries invaded in three years. We may as well dress our soldiers in white tunics with red crosses on them, like they did in the Middle Ages.

And we're actually thinking about doing this. Incredible. It's like a man with a pit bull chomping on his leg purposely opening the door to a kennel where there are a dozen rottweilers ready to tear him apart.

In fact, it's such a stupid idea, and it'd be such a total disaster for America, that Bush probably will do it. Anybody else starting to wonder if he and Cheney are actually Al Quaeda moles?
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The only true thing he has ever said

Bush: "Money Trumps Peace".

I probably shouldn't even be surprised by now to see you post a quote completely out of context and use it to further your own fearmongering agenda. You're the biggest partisan toolbox I've ever seen.

From the transcript of the speech:

Q A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran, so I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies?

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting question. One of the problems -- not specifically on this issue, just in general -- let's put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forgo their own financial interest.

And John, that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic sanctions on countries. And I'm not making any comment about any particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.

And so, therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish. In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that if they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to flourish. And, therefore, I'm working with people to make sure that that concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing governments from acting. I make no specific accusation with that statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.

Good job on making it look like the quote was implying the exact opposite of what the President was saying.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jrenz
I probably shouldn't even be surprised by now to see you post a quote completely out of context and use it to further your own fearmongering agenda. You're the biggest partisan toolbox I've ever seen.

Good job on making it look like the quote was implying the exact opposite of what the President was saying.

Thank you, I learned from you and your masters :thumbsup:
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
I probably shouldn't even be surprised by now to see you post a quote completely out of context and use it to further your own fearmongering agenda. You're the biggest partisan toolbox I've ever seen.

Good job on making it look like the quote was implying the exact opposite of what the President was saying.

Thank you, I learned from you and your masters :thumbsup:

Did you just start drinking paint thinner one day, cause I swear to God that my dead cat could out argue you.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
I probably shouldn't even be surprised by now to see you post a quote completely out of context and use it to further your own fearmongering agenda. You're the biggest partisan toolbox I've ever seen.

Good job on making it look like the quote was implying the exact opposite of what the President was saying.

Thank you, I learned from you and your masters :thumbsup:

Did you just start drinking paint thinner one day, cause I swear to God that my dead cat could out argue you.

:cool: Pet Semetary was great
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
3-13-2007 Bush and Rove wanted to fire all prosecutors after 2004 election

The chief White House lawyer floated the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of President Bush's second term, but the Justice Department objected and eventually recommended the eight dismissals that have generated a political firestorm two years later.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers raised with an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the prospect of asking all chief federal district prosecutors to resign in 2004 as a logical way to start a new term with a new slate of U.S. attorneys.

Last week, Rove called the two-month controversy "a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it."
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
this latest situation regarding the prosecutors is going to be a big deal.

And it is just another example of how horrible this country has been managed under this administration.

I would have preferred the AG resign over Rumsfield. Now I hope we get both out of office!! And it looks like congress isn't going to let a scape goat (the AG Chief of Staff) take the fall over this.

I am happy that some level of oversight and scrutiny/accountability is coming out of congress again.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
4-22-2007 Bush administration awash in scandals

WASHINGTON - Campaigning in 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush would repeatedly raise his right hand as if taking an oath and vow to "restore honor and integrity" to the White House. He pledged to usher in a new era of bipartisanship.

The dual themes of honesty and bipartisanship struck a chord with many voters and helped propel Bush to the White House in one of the nation's closest-ever elections. Americans re-elected him in 2004 after he characterized himself as best suited to protect a nation at war.

Now, with fewer than two years left of his second term, the Bush administration is embroiled in multiple scandals and ethics investigations. The war in Iraq still rages. Bush's approval ratings are hovering in the mid-30s. And Democratic-Republican relations have seldom been more rancorous.

In the highest-profile current case, even some key Republicans are questioning the truthfulness and judgment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. The panel is investigating whether the prosecutors were dumped to make way for more politically obedient successors.

Gonzales is fighting to hold onto his job. So far, two top aides have resigned, one indicating she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if questioned by Congress.

The furor over Gonzales and Rove's e-mail practices follow disclosures of shoddy medical treatment of war-injured veterans, FBI abuses of civil liberties, and the conviction of a top White House aide of lying to a grand jury.

What ever happened to restoring honor and dignity?

"From the very beginning, this administration emphasized loyalty over competence. And at some point, that catches up with you," said Paul Light, a professor of public policy at New York University. He said the increase in scandals and investigations also reflects the "natural decay" that happens late in a second presidential term as many experienced people have already left and those remaining start focusing on their financial futures.

Some recent incidents:

? World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war as deputy defense secretary, acknowledged he erred in helping a female friend he is dating to get transferred to a high-paying job at the State Department while remaining on the World Bank payroll. The revelations fueled calls from the bank's staff association for him to resign.

? Matteo Fontana, a Department of Education official who oversaw the student loan industry, was put on leave after disclosure that he owned at least $100,000 worth of stock in a student loan company.

? Lurita Doan, head of the General Services Administration, attended a luncheon at the agency earlier this year with other top GSA political appointees at which Scott Jennings, a top Rove aide, gave a PowerPoint demonstration on how to help Republican candidates in 2008. A congressional committee is investigating whether the remarks violated a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes.

? Julie MacDonald, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service but has no academic background in biology, overrode recommendations of agency scientists about how to protect endangered species and improperly leaked internal information to private groups, the Interior Department's inspector general said.

Republicans like to emphasize that scandals, some large, most small, happen under Democratic presidents too. But Bush's critics say the number of current ethics allegations is unusually high. And they say evidence is strong of close links between the Bush administration and certain industries such as energy and defense.

Not all the administration officials who have left under a cloud have been accused of white-collar misconduct.

Claude Allen, who was Bush's domestic policy adviser, pleaded guilty to theft in making phony returns at discount department stores. He was sentenced last summer to two years of supervised probation and fined $500.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Has any President not been mired in scandal especially late in their term?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Has any President not been mired in scandal especially late in their term?

From the previous post---your answer appears--But Bush's critics say the number of current ethics allegations is unusually high.

Right now the scandals are on mere ethics---which in the GWB&co. administration has been
"unusually low."

I think I can predict with a high level of confidence that soon the scandals will shift from the
mere ethical to the clearly criminal----sometimes around July I expect. Or to put it another way--we ain't seen whats really happening yet.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Like rats jumping a sinking ship

5-7-2007 At least 20 senior Bush security aides leaving posts early

Top members of President Bush's national security team are leaving in one of the earliest waves of departures from a second-term administration ? nearly two years before Bush's time ends.

Turnover is normal as an administration nears its end, but "this is a high number," said Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University and an expert on government.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Relentless attack by extremists and radicals

Al-Qaider Al-Qaider Al-Qaider

Surge Surge Surge

Bomb Murder Bomb Murder Bomb Murder Bomb Murder

Lots of fighting ahead Lots of fighting ahead Lots of fighting ahead

Lots of dead U.S. soldiers Lots of dead U.S. soldiers Lots of dead U.S. soldiers

Skeptical Americans are reason for failures Skeptical Americans are reason for failures

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
He didn't veto one time for his Republican buddies.

Why am I not surprised.

This man and everyone that supports him is beyond disgusting.

6-16-07 Bush warns he'll veto Democrat runaway spending

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush warned Congress on Saturday that he will use his veto power to stop runaway government spending

"The American people do not want to return to the days of tax-and-spend policies," Bush said in his radio address.

The House passed a $37 billion budget for the Homeland Security Department on Friday, but Republicans rallied enough votes to uphold a promised veto from Bush.

The measure ? one of several annual spending bills that Congress began to consider this week ? exceeds Bush's request for the department by $2.1 billion.

Democrats on Friday defended the extra money in the homeland security bill, noting it contains money to hire 3,000 additional border agents, improve explosive detection at airports and provides money to double the amount of cargo screened on passenger aircraft.

Most recently, Democrats added $17 billion to an Iraq war funding bill, money not sought by Bush. All told, Democrats plan spending increases for annual agency budgets of about $23 billion above the White House budget request.

House GOP conservatives have pledged to come up with the votes needed to uphold any Bush vetoes.

In his radio broadcast, Bush also railed against earmarks ? a common Capitol Hill practice of slipping pet projects into spending bills.

He said that in January, the House passed a rule that called for full disclosure of earmarks. To give the public a chance to peek at earmarks, he said the administration has started posting them on a web site called http://www.earmarks.omb.gov.

When they ran the House, Republicans larded legislation with these pet projects.

But on Thursday, they were the ones forcing Democrats to be more open about Congress' pork barrel ways.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
The Dems should just concentrate on rasing taxes for the rich. Draw the proverbial "line in the sand" and expose the phoney neocon bastards for what really they are.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The Dems ran on the platform that they were going to change the way things were done.

They are not - different players, same rules.

Bush is exposing as such.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The Dems ran on the platform that they were going to change the way things were done.

They are not - different players, same rules.

Bush is exposing as such.

They can only do so much. Republicans are able to rally just enough votes to prevent overriding any vetoes from the president. Unfortunately the Dems are allowing the THREAT of vetoes to prevent them from continuing. I say make the president veto it. At least then Congress is getting its part done. Let the damn votes go on record. Force the arrogant dickhead in chief to be the one that kills the bills.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
So what? It's called politics. Im not pointing fingers, but Clinton vetoed 37 bills passed by the Republican senate.

So what?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So what? It's called politics. Im not pointing fingers, but Clinton vetoed 37 bills passed by the Republican senate.

So what?

And just how many spending bills has Bush vetoed in the last 7 years while deficits soared with 6 of those years under FULL GOP control? Not that I mind controlling spending as I think it's about time. That's the great thing about a government in gridlock....things actually get done. If it were a GOP House and Senate and the same bill were presented, there would have been no issues (as there were none in the past).

Just goes to show that Clinton, for all of his faults, had far more fiscal restraint than Bush ever will.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So what? It's called politics. Im not pointing fingers, but Clinton vetoed 37 bills passed by the Republican senate.

So what?

And just how many spending bills has Bush vetoed in the last 7 years while deficits soared with 6 of those years under FULL GOP control? Not that I mind controlling spending as I think it's about time. That's the great thing about a government in gridlock....things actually get done. If it were a GOP House and Senate and the same bill were presented, there would have been no issues (as there were none in the past).

Just goes to show that Clinton, for all of his faults, had far more fiscal restraint than Bush ever will.

What part of politics do you not understand? The partisan part I guess? Let me break it down to grade school level for you: it's not a Bush issue, it's not a spending bill issue, it's a GOP vs Democrat issue.

Get it yet?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So what? It's called politics. Im not pointing fingers, but Clinton vetoed 37 bills passed by the Republican senate.

So what?

And just how many spending bills has Bush vetoed in the last 7 years while deficits soared with 6 of those years under FULL GOP control? Not that I mind controlling spending as I think it's about time. That's the great thing about a government in gridlock....things actually get done. If it were a GOP House and Senate and the same bill were presented, there would have been no issues (as there were none in the past).

Just goes to show that Clinton, for all of his faults, had far more fiscal restraint than Bush ever will.

What part of politics do you not understand? The partisan part I guess? Let me break it down to grade school level for you: it's not a Bush issue, it's not a spending bill issue, it's a GOP vs Democrat issue.

Get it yet?

You don't have to break anything down, that's exactly what I said. If the Republicans had been in power, there would be no threat of veto. By the way, no need for the snotty "grade school level" comment. I actually commended Bush for "trying" to show a little fiscal restraint, even if it is in the partisan/political realm.