Posts Tagged 'politics'

Has George Bush Kept Us Safe?

Today, I heard someone say, “George Bush has kept us safe.” He argued that that was Bush’s legacy. I couldn’t imagine that he was serious.

On January 20, 2001, George Bush was sworn in as our 43rd president. On September 11, 2001, terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, flew two airplanes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon while a fourth airplane crashed in Pennsylvania on the way to its target. Approximately 3,000 of our countrymen were killed in what has been called the worst terror attack on our nation. Is that what we call safe? In actuality, Mr. Bush did just the opposite: he made us an easy target for terrorists when he ignored the presidential daily briefing that said “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.”

Since then, Mr. Bush has invaded a country that was of no threat to us and had, by his own admission, nothing to do with September 11, sending more than 4,000 more Americans to their deaths. Is that what we call keeping us safe?

Al Qaeda is reconstituting, we have made more enemies in the world because of our  invasion of a sovereign nation, and our borders and ports have STILL not been made made safe. In fact, under Bush’s watch, our port security was sold to Dubai! Is that what we call safe? (Eventually, Dubai did sell off its assets in the U. S.)

We have not yet again suffered a terror attack in the U.S. and that’s what some use for the Bush has kept us safe argument. Sure, if you don’t count the three thousand killed by a terror attack under his watch and the over four thousand killed in an invasion that he spearheaded for no reason, then I guess he’s kept us safe. But even then, has he really kept us safe?

It was about 8 years between the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the second, in 2001. Under Mr. Bush’s watch, we have not pursued Osama bin Laden, have not secured our ports or nuclear facilities, and have given bin Laden ample time to plan his next move. Is that what we call safe?

Advertisements

Georgia Congressman Compares Obama to Hitler

Is this still going on? Somebody had better retrieve this gentleman from his bomb shelter to tell him that a) the election is over, b) no one is going to take his precious guns and ammo away from him, and c) he should really stop engaging in what psychotherapists call “projection.”

Congressman Paul Broun told the AP that he’s afraid of Obama forming a citizen army that answers directly to him and using it to establish a Marxist dictatorship. No, I am NOT making this up. Here’s a quote: “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press.

Did he say that it may sound A BIT crazy? I don’t know if IT sounds a bit crazy, but Broun sounds absolutely wracked with insanity.

The unhinged members (I think it’s just a small group; the vast majority of them are normal like the rest of us) of the republican party tried this tactic in the hope that it would cause Obama to lose the election, but most people didn’t believe the lie—-I think it was mostly people who were looking for a way to veil their racism, but there were also those non-racists who just weren’t paying attention to what was really going on.

No one is trying to set up a dictatorship (although I have to admit that my own mind has wandered in that direction from time to time over the past 4 or 5 years whenever I heard that George Bush was illegally spying on our e-mails and phone calls, sending citizens to secret prisons–and not-so-secret prisons—where they were tortured and not allowed to have their cases tried, said that the executive branch of the government should have more concentrated power, blah, blah, blah, you know the rest).

Obama was talking about our military being stretched too thin. Here’s another quote: ”

“The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun’s remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.” Bush administration? Bush is a Socialist/Marxist?
Here, read the article for yourselves.
 

 

 

Bush and the Environment

Since the presidential election, George Bush has been gracious and humble and supportive………in public. In private, however, he hasn’t changed. While the media has been tripping all over itself lauding Bush’s speeches on Senator Obama’s election victory and giving us the details of Bush’s graciousness in inviting the Obamas to the White House, No. 43 has been planning more raping and plundering of our precious United States. For anyone who still thinks that George Bush is a religious man who believes in a caring dominion over all kinds of life, let there no longer be any doubt about who he REALLY is.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that behind the conciliation and smiles, behind the congratulations and Godspeed, George Bush is doing business as usual. He’s working to quickly get environmental standards lowered before he leaves office so that more large corporations can continue to make a profit at the expense of the air we breathe and the water we drink. If President Bush gets his way, I hope that President Obama gets his universal health care bill passed very quickly—–because we’ll all need it.

Read the story here.

Does Anyone Really Care About the Chief of Staff?

For those of you who are Republican, some of your political brethran are making themselves look bitter, ridiculous, and horribly partisan. They’re already trying to undermine and criticize President-elect Obama, thus trying to give the conservative mainstream media political machine an early start to their lies and spin.

Rahm Emanuel is said to have been chosen as Obama’s chief of staff, so John Boehner is already calling foul on Obama’s statement that he’d change the way things are done in Washington. Are you kidding me? Emanuel is known for getting things done. These republicans say that he’s partisan. Oh, really? Here’s a little bit of information: Obama is a DEMOCRAT, and he’s going to choose a lot of DEMOCRATS for his staff and cabinet. He will also choose Republicans, but it sounds as if these Republicans are trying to convince us that Obama is already lying to us because he’s not choosing all right wingers. (I wonder if they’d feel the same way about a John McCain staff choice.) I guess there are some Republicans who don’t like someone who is a straight shooter and can’t be intimidated; it makes it a lot more difficult for the conservatives to lie and spin.

What’s funny about it is that most of us don’t even KNOW what the chief of staff does, and we don’t know the name of Bush’s chief of staff, and, frankly, we don’t care.

If the situation were reversed, the media wouldn’t even be reporting on this piece of insanity. They know that no one cares; they’re just going to dissect every move Obama makes in order to try to turn the public against him. Good luck with that.

What Winning At All Cost Says About You

Do you remember when you were a child and your mother or father or other parental figure said, “It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s how you play the game”? I started thinking about that saying within the context of a presidential election, and it made me wonder whether there really was more to winning than just winning.

There was a time when thelogicalreport might have supported John McCain, but that was a very long time ago. Sadly, it’s not just us; there have been many others who have made the disappointing contrast between the John McCain of years past and the John McCain of the 2008 election. For me, the problem with Senator McCain winning the presidency isn’t so much his being the president, for he isn’t a malicious, evil individual. The problem with McCain winning the presidency is the way in which he might win it: through constant, unmitigated, purposeful lies. What’s just as disturbing is that most of the mainstream conservative media have gone happily along with the lies. Here are just a few.

Lie #1: Barack Obama associates with terrorists (and it’s even been intimated that because he associates with them, he is one of them).

Barack Obama does not “associate” with terrorists. If I sit in the cubicle next to someone who committed a crime 40 years ago, and I have lunch with him every day, and I didn’t know that he’d committed a crime 40 years ago, I have news for you: that doesn’t make me a criminal. Even if I did know that he committed a crime 40 years ago, it still doesn’t make me a criminal, and it doesn’t mean that I take my societal cues from criminals. Senator Obama’s actions of service, kindness, and compassion in working for those who are impoverished in the country speak for themselves.

Lie #2: Barack Obama is a Socialist/Marxist. The McCain campaign has been only too happy to take something that is more honorable and honest than anything that George W. Bush has said or done in his entire 8 years and turn it into the number one single on Joe McCarthy’s hit parade. I’m still trying to figure out why so many people are willing to illogically believe that “spreading the wealth around” means Marxism just because an opposing campaign and it’s panicking supporting players in the conservative media say so. It’s a wonderful example of taking something out of context and assigning a false meaning to it. I think that most Americans want the wealth to be spread around and are tired of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of tax-dodging corporations who take advantage of the rest of us daily. Spreading the wealth around, as Obama explains it, means closing corporate tax loopholes and restoring the progressive tax system that was so successful before W lowered the tax rate for the richest among us. That’s it. If that’s Marxism, then those of you who believe it are Fascists.

Lie #3: Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t pretend to know who started this one, but I did hear MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough encourage the lie by not correcting it. And I’m happy to say that I did hear John McCain FINALLY correct the lie—-once, after which time he seemed to have abandoned that particular lie.

Barack Obama is a Christian; we all know it. Obama has said so, and even McCain has said so. He goes to a Christian church–not that it should matter. Why are so many people willing to believe that Muslim means terrorist? Again, is it just because the conservative media says so?

Lie #4: Obama is going to raise your taxes.

McCain says that people earning over $42,000 will have their taxes raised. It’s a lie. Obama has said time and time and time and time again that if you earn under $200,000, you’ll get a tax DECREASE. If you earn over $250,000, your taxes will go back to what they were under Bill Clinton, when we were building up a surplus, that is, he’ll let the temporary tax cuts for the wealthiest among us expire. If you earn between those two amounts, things will stay the same. Tax cuts for 95% of us, and higher taxes for the richest among us? Oh no, he’s a tax and spend liberal!

So, is this how John McCain wants to win the White House? McCain has taken every opportunity to try to win the election by attacking Obama’s character, saying that we can’t trust him, and who IS Barack Obama, and he’s secretive, and he won’t reveal specifics on his policies. But if you lie about someone else’s character, not to mention his policies, in order to win, doesn’t that say everything we need to know about YOUR character? And shouldn’t it send up a red flag to warn us that YOUR policies are not in our best interest?

Is this how John McCain wants to win the presidency? Is he that desperate? Apparently, he knows that his policies favor, once again, the wealthiest among us and so has to deflect attention to lies about Obama’s character.

Attack Senator Obama’s policies; that’s fair game. But don’t lie about his policies and then attack his character for them. Senator McCain, doing so only tells us more about you than we want to know——-especially if you’re elected tomorrow.

Something About Bush…

I’m not a morning person, so I wasn’t very alert when I heard one of the folks on the outstandingly liberal Joe Scarborough show on the overwhelmingly liberal MSNBC (Why does having two truly liberal hours on one 24-hour-per-day network get a network branded as liberal?) when I heard one of the crazy liberal guests say something like There’s something about Bush that’s made people passionate about this election. That’s a paraphrase, not a quote–it was very early to be listening to a lunatic liberal like Joe Scarborough.

That quote got me thinking: What could it have been about Bush that has resulted in such a passionate electorate? It’s clearly something that has just sort of happened, not something that he provoked, right?  That’s clearly what this lunatic liberal was saying.

What could it possibly have been? Just thinking out loud here, but could it have been his politics of division—to the point of firing judges who wouldn’t go along with his partisan fights? No, that couldn’t have been it. Bush is a uniter, not a divider! Could it possibly have been waging an invasion on a country that had nothing to do with an attack on us? No, who would get upset about that? Could it possibly have been forcing deregulation of financial institutions down our throats to the point that we are on the brink of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? No, who cares about whether they can pay their mortgages or retire on time? Could it have been the abandonment of some of our basic rights, such as habeus corpus and the right to have telephone conversations without being spied on by the government? I doubt it—caring about the Constitution is so 1776.

I know what it is—it’s that’s liberal bias of the media.

Senator Ted Stevens, Covicted Felons, and Voting

Senator Ted Stevens, senior republican from Alaska, has been found guilty on all corruption charges and could go to prison for five years. Meanwhile, from what I’ve read, he’s still running for re-election. Oh, and he doesn’t have to give up his current Senate seat. (I know that the election is next week, but it’s the principle here that I’m after; even if this had happened a year ago, he would not have had to leave the Senate.)

Soooooooooooo, let me get this straight: If you’re a convicted felon in this country, you can’t vote…………..But you can still serve as a United States senator. Hmmmmmmmm.

If Mr. Average American commits a felonious crime against society, he forfeits his right to vote in an election. A United States senator, on the other hand, who commits the same felonious crime against society can remain a United States senator. Does that mean that he can vote, too? Will Stevens be able to vote? Will he be able to vote for president? Will he at least be able to vote for himself? And if he does, and if he wins, then will he serve as senator while he’s serving as Prisoner #490580149240385089348098403218340?

The Congress does have the power to expel Senator Stevens, but it has to vote on it, and a two-thirds majority is needed. I wonder if we could all get together and vote on whether non-congressional convicted felons should be given the right to vote; to be fair, passage could require a two-thirds majority.