The legacy of President George W. Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Bush says he misses seeing servicemembers, WH food
May 29, 2:46 AM (ET)

By JAMES PRICHARD

BENTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) - Flying on Air Force One, eating meals prepared by the White House kitchen staff and drawing inspiration from his encounters with U.S. military personnel were among things former President George W. Bush missed since leaving office, he said Thursday.

The often-tearful meetings he had with relatives of fallen soldiers were "in some ways, it was very uplifting," the Texas Republican said in a speech to The Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan at Lake Michigan College.

About eight people protested Bush's appearance outside the venue, carrying signs that called him a murderer and a traitor. The speech Thursday was one of the first made by the former president since leaving office in January.

Bush, the nation's 43rd president, spoke to 2,500 people about "the fog of war" that followed the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the economic downturn and his return to life as a regular citizen.

"It was a roller coaster of emotions, it really was," Bush said of the terror attacks. "I think about it now at times but I definitely thought about it every day as president."

He talked about the economy, blaming "a lack of responsible regulation" in the lending industry for the recession and said that the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, shouldn't have engaged in certain financial practices.

"I don't want to sound like a self-serving guy, but we did try to rein them in," Bush said.
Click to expand...
.
 
Both Bush and Clinton are speaking together in Toronto today...had a chance at a ticket but they were pricey. Would love to be there. I'm sure there will be plenty of protesters.
 
It's my secret wish that this speaking engagement is really a sting operation for just that. :rockon:

It's too bad it's closed to media.
 
Wow, these guys really were batshit insane.

TheStar.com | World | Was Bush on a mission from God?


Was Bush on a mission from God?

May 29, 2009 04:30 AM
Mitch Potter
WASHINGTON BUREAU


WASHINGTON–George W. Bush comes to Toronto today bedevilled by fresh questions about whether the former U.S. president felt the hand of God driving his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush, a born-again Christian since age 40, arrives for today's paid speaking engagement at Metro Toronto Convention Centre with fellow former president Bill Clinton amid a series of stranger-than-fiction disclosures, one of which suggests that apocalyptic fervour may have held sway within the walls of his White House.

Bush, who turns 63 in July and was 54 when first sworn into office in 2001, has yet to comment on the reports. They include last week's GQ magazine exposé into the hawkish use of scripture in 2003, when then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld forwarded secret intelligence memos to Bush embroidered with biblical passages.

"Therefore, put on the full armour of God," a verse from Ephesians, and "Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter," from Isaiah, are among the messages that adorn reports prepared for Bush by Rumsfeld's Pentagon.

Stranger still are new accounts emerging from France describing how former president Jacques Chirac was utterly baffled by a 2003 telephone conversation in which Bush reportedly invoked fanatical Old Testament prophecy – including the Earth-ending battle with forces of evil, Gog and Magog – in his arguments to enlist France in the Coalition of the Willing.

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins," Bush said to Chirac, according to Thomas Romer, a University of Lausanne theology professor who was later approached by French officials anxious to understand the biblical reference. Romer first revealed his account in a 2007 article for the university review, Allez savoir, which passed largely unnoticed.

Chirac, in a new book by French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice, is quoted as confirming the surreal conversation, saying he was stupefied by Bush's reference to biblical prophecy and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs."

It remains unclear whether Bush will be asked to shed light on the matter in Toronto today, where civil tongues are likely to prevail in what is billed as "a conversation" between political heavyweights.

But in the absence of comment from Bush himself, disturbing questions about the extent to which his administration blurred the lines of religion and war loom large.

"Speculating on what goes on inside George Bush's head is always a bold endeavour. But the sense one gets from this is that biblical prophecy somehow factored in the thinking," said Clive Hamilton, a visiting scholar at Yale University in a recent article for counterpunch.org.

"The most striking thing for me is in the real world, trying to get France to go to war on that basis is crazy. It is hard to imagine a better way to scare off a potential friend."

Indeed, parts of these disclosures don't square with previous reports of Bush's religious motivations. In 2003, Bush reportedly told Palestinian delegates he felt the hand of God pushing him to establish a Palestinian state – an outcome opposed by hardcore U.S. evangelicals who support Israel, and campaign against Palestinian statehood on the basis of biblical prophecy.

But for many, including officials from America's Muslim communities, one need not go deep into biblical verse to be troubled.

"Just the fact that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon would overlay briefings to the president with biblical verses confirms eight years of suspicions," said Salam al-Marayati, of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council.

"What is so disturbing is that it is similar to the way Al Qaeda uses sacred text to support their ambitions. As a Muslim who loves America, who wants my children and my grandchildren to feel this is their home, it is the last thing we want to see in a president."





The GQ article referred to in this one can be found here: AND HE SHALL BE JUDGED: GQ Features on men.style.com
 
you know, my theory is this: Cheney and Rummy knew that Bush was dumb enough to fall for apocalyptic hoo-hah, so this seems like a few bad men manipulating a dumb man.
 
A while back I read this Time article about tension between Bush and Cheney at the end of Bush's presidency, because Bush refused Cheney's request to pardon Scooter Libby. Now there are even more reports of Cheney's disdain for Bush's supposed weakening in his second term.

Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush
'Statute of Limitations Has Expired' on Many Secrets, Former Vice President Says

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 13, 2009

In his first few months after leaving office, former vice president Richard B. Cheney threw himself into public combat against the "far left" agenda of the new commander in chief. More private reflections, as his memoir takes shape in slashing longhand on legal pads, have opened a second front against Cheney's White House partner of eight years, George W. Bush.

Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."

...
Click to expand...

The rest of the article can be found here: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush
 
VintagePunk said:
A while back I read this Time article about tension between Bush and Cheney at the end of Bush's presidency, because Bush refused Cheney's request to pardon Scooter Libby. Now there are even more reports of Cheney's disdain for Bush's supposed weakening in his second term.



The rest of the article can be found here: Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush
Click to expand...

I reckon the partially sane wing (I operate on the presumption that neocons are insane until proved otherwise) influenced and lobbied Bush and prevented an attack on Iran. There was a lot of briefing going on and curious stories appearing around 2006/2007 which hinted at disagreement in the administration over this issue. For example, some negative stories regarding the Cheney wing were appearing in the Murdoch press.
 
financeguy said:
I reckon the partially sane wing (I operate on the presumption that neocons are insane until proved otherwise) influenced and lobbied Bush
Click to expand...



i think this is true post-Katrina and post-2006 electoral drubbing where Rumsfeld was (finally!) fired.

it's hilarious for some to say that Obama is just following Bush's plan for Iraq, when Bush's plan for Iraq had changed dramatically after 2006, but ignoring this helps some people pretend like this had been the plan all along in 2003 and that everything has gone so smashingly.
 
Irvine511 said:
i think this is true post-Katrina and post-2006 electoral drubbing where Rumsfeld was (finally!) fired.

it's hilarious for some to say that Obama is just following Bush's plan for Iraq, when Bush's plan for Iraq had changed dramatically after 2006, but ignoring this helps some people pretend like this had been the plan all along in 2003 and that everything has gone so smashingly.
Click to expand...

Well, lets see what happened after the 2006 elections in which the Democrats re-took the House and Senate.

Did-

A. Bush do what the Democrats wanted which was to withdraw ALL US Combat brigades from Iraq in less than 16 months regardless of conditions on the ground.

B. Give a watered down version of what the Democrats wanted.


C. The exact opposite of what the Democrats wanted and increase the the number of US combat brigades on the ground in Iraq by 33%, sending US force levels in Iraq to their highest levels ever.


The answer is C.

Although there was distance between the Bush administration and Democratic members of congress before the 2006 elections, that distance actually got greater in early 2007 as Bush initiated the Surge, and the Democraticly controlled congress and Barack Obama spent most of 2007 trying to force Bush to do the exact opposite.

The Democrats failed, and further attempts amounted to nothing as the the success of the surge blew away any steam the Democrats had left on that front.

Since 2003, Bush has consistently stayed on the course of "as they stand up, will stand down". Standing up the Iraqi military and government has taken several years, but as it was stated llong ago, provided the United States does not withdraw prematurely from the effort, it will succeed, and as Iraqi military and security forces grow in size and ability, and conditions on the ground improve, US forces can start to be withdrawn.


In January 2007, Barack Obama stated that he would withdraw all 15 US combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 regardless of conditions on the ground.

Whats funny about that statement is now that he is President starting in January 2009, he is actually KEEPING 14 brigades on the ground in Iraq at least until March of 2010!!!!!

Sorry, but this has never been and will never be, the Obama plan. It couldn't be further from it as shown above. Its the Bush plan and Obama is following it, because it is working!

We don't hear anymore crap about Iraq being a Civil War, not being a country, not having a government, that the "Surge Won't Work" or the "Surge Has Failed", and since becoming President Obama has never used his campaign statement that Iraq was a war that should have never of been fought.

On top of it all, Obama keeps Bush's Secretary Of State, a person who supported the war that he was so opposed to before becoming President. Its the first time in the history of the United States that a new President from the opposing party has kept the previous President's Secretary Of State on the job. Another endorsement that Obama has made on Bush defense and Iraq policy since being elected.

There may still be some people out there that want to defend the idea of leaving Saddam in power in Iraq, but their numbers are getting smaller every day.


Admiral Mike Mullen VS Obama on the Surge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJbsQ7oUQWw


Here Obama says that the Surge will make things worse in Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ&feature=related



In 2009, its rather clear that Obama is following Bush on Iraq policy.
 
Speaking of Lynndie England, Obama still refuses to review the "American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA)", better known as the "The Hague Invasion act", despite of the fact that there's a 400 year of friendship between Holland and the US. :angry: (The US want to celebrate it, but Holland's not in the mood)

The act is there "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party". It is designed by no one other than (very) conservative Senator Jesse Helms.

So, when a US military official is held there because of war crimes, the US are going to attack the Netherlands in order to free him/ her.
The International Court of Justice may be in The Hague, but it is an independent court, not a Dutch court. Still the post-Bush government is holding the Dutch hostage, just in case. I'm very curious why that is and why doesn't the US accept an independent international court? And what more do the Pentagon big shots have to hide?



--Bonoa (lives less than 10 minutes away from The Hague!:S )
 
In a new book, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge reveals new details on politicization under President Bush, reports US News & World Report's Paul Bedard. Among other things, Ridge admits that he was pressured to raise the terror alert to help Bush win re-election in 2004.

Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Dave Weigel, writing for the Washington Independent, notes that in the past, Ridge has denied manipulating security information for political reasons. In 2004, for example, he said, "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

The Bush administration was forced to admit in the days after the 2004 alert that it was based on intelligence three or four years old. Officials then claimed there was a previously unmentioned "separate stream of intelligence" that justified the warning -- but offered little tangible information to support their new story..

ThinkProgress recalls, the AP reported that "even 'some senior Republicans' privately questioned Ridge's timing of a terror alert that came just three days after the Democratic National Convention."

Ridge's book, "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again," comes out September 1.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

.
Click to expand...

And yet he didn't...another 'whistleblowing' coward like Scott McClellan.

Now he's got a book to make money off of...he's all about his principles.

Sheesh...
 
BVS said:
Who didn't suspect this?

Diamond, put your hand down.
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't just Diamond, was it. Actually, at the time false flag terror alerts were been raised on a regular basis in the 2003-2005 period, those who raised concerns or questions were pretty much told they were traitors, in league with terrorists, etc - and I'd wager this probably even happened on this very forum (and I certainly don't mean you, or, to be fair, any of the left wing people on here, but people even in the political centre and in the Democrats party seemed quite happy to go along with this 'questioning the President's motives is tantamount to sympathising with terrorists' bullshit that was very popular at that time).

So, now I will turn the tables.

Neocons should be treated as suspicious individuals potentially involved in terroristic conspiracies until proven otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
897
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
11 12 13
Replies
369
Views
10K
iron yuppie
iron yuppie
A
The little stranger chapter 13
Replies
0
Views
570
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
553
annj
A
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom