Bush is totally incompetent

Much of our troubles TODAY were created by his failed policies

One day we will find out he spends much of his days in a drunken
stupor

"AnAmericanCitizen" wrote in message
...


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


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

GOP Sends Mixed Messages on Immigration
Candidates talk tough about enforcement, but the White House, in an effort
to lure
Latino voters, says it's time to discuss reform.
By Maura Reynolds
Times Staff Writer

August 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's announcement last week that
stepped-up
enforcement appears to be slowing illegal immigration was designed to send
a message:
The nation's borders are becoming more secure and it's time to talk about
broad
immigration reform.

That would appear to contradict the message coming from many Republicans
on the
campaign trail: The border is dangerously porous and talk of reform is
premature.

But it is less of a contradiction than meets the eye. While Republican
candidates are
trying to hang on to their congressional majority by trumpeting the need
for border
security, the White House is laying the groundwork for a longer battle
over
immigration with an eye on capturing the Latino vote.

Republican Party leaders have the task of balancing the party's
conflicting
short-term and long-term goals on immigration.

In the short term, many if not most congressional Republicans are taking a
hard-line
approach. In some districts, that means denouncing proposals for a guest
worker
program or legalization of some immigrants as amnesty.

"What you are seeing on the House side is uniform agreement on 'border
security
first,' " said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican
Congressional
Committee. "Where they go beyond that is up to the individual.. This is
district by
district. Each race is local."

But strategists at the Republican National Committee and in the White
House are
concerned that some of the tough rhetoric could give voters the impression
that
Republicans are anti-immigrant. And that's a long-term danger for the
party, because
its leaders are convinced that Latino voters are the key to turning the
GOP into the
country's dominant party.

"You always have self-serving politicians who are focused on one thing -
getting
elected or reelected - and they put rhetoric ahead of what's good for the
country,"
said Allen Weh, chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, where the
GOP has
been battling to increase party registration.

"We're going to have some collateral damage from this rhetoric, no doubt
about it,"
Weh said.

As a voter group, Latinos hold tremendous appeal for Republicans. First
and foremost,
they are the fastest-growing segment of the population.

Republicans also believe that despite Latinos' traditional loyalty to the
Democratic
Party, they have a chance to make significant inroads by emphasizing
issues other
than identity politics.

For instance, party leaders think the Republicans' socially conservative
positions on
issues such as abortion and gay marriage will resonate with Latino
Catholics, as well
as with the swelling number of evangelical Protestants. Messages such as
self-reliance and low taxes can be made to appeal to the many Latinos who
are
small-business owners.

On immigration, the party is essentially trying to send two messages at
once.

"We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws," Republican
National
Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said this summer in a speech to a
conference of Latino
officials. "We must forge a new way, a solution that recognizes these two
essential
concepts."

Whether a double-barreled message will resonate with voters remains to be
seen. But
many House Republicans aren't willing to take chances on a long-term
strategy at the
expense of losing control of Congress in the short term.

"We have to solve our short-term problem before we solve our long-term
problem," said
a senior Republican leadership aide, who would discuss internal party
strategy only
on condition of anonymity.

House Republicans are using their summer recess to hold a series of events
around the
country designed to drum up support for their "enforcement first" approach
to
immigration.

That was the central idea behind a Republican-written bill, passed last
year, that
raised illegal border crossing from a misdemeanor to a felony. That
proposal sparked
nationwide street protests by Latinos, who carried signs saying, "We Are
Not
Criminals."

Democrats who are working to prevent Republican gains among Latinos say
that the
administration's attempt to send two messages at once caught up with them
last
spring.

Joe Garcia, who works on Latino issues for the New Democrat Network, said
that before
the street protests the administration had been courting Latino voters
while
simultaneously encouraging right-wing radio hosts to beat the drums over
border
security, raising fears of terrorists and foreigners flooding into the
country from
Mexico.

"This is an issue that plays to the xenophobic base," Garcia said. "For a
long time,
[the president] was able to conduct two separate campaigns. The problem is
that the
two of them met."

It's conventional wisdom in Washington that little is expected to happen
on
immigration legislation before the election in November, which allows
candidates
maximum leeway to run against whatever version of immigration reform works
best in
their districts.

But some GOP House leaders are weighing whether it would help candidates
if they were
to pass a modified immigration reform proposal before the election. Under
discussion
is a two-stage bill: first, border security, and second, some form of
guest worker
program "triggered" by certification of improvements in border security.

"We can do it in phases," the House Republican aide said, noting the goal
would be to
act before the election. "I wouldn't rule that out."

Garcia said too much damage had been done to the Republican Party's image
among
Latinos. A poll conducted recently for his group showed that support for
the
president and the GOP had fallen dramatically since the 2004 election.

"How do you call a certain group 'criminals' and then turn around and
offer an olive
branch?" Garcia said.

However the congressional election turns out, the long-term strategists
are unlikely
to give up on their goal of sending more Republican Party membership cards
to
Latinos.

And toward that end, they hope to move the discussion, at least
incrementally, toward
the next stage: Now that the borders are tight, what is to be done about
the millions
already here?

"I don't expect every Hispanic to wake up tomorrow and suddenly realize he
is a
Republican," Mehlman said in his speech this summer. "But I do hope we can
come
together as a nation to talk about immigration - without the angry
rhetoric."


Do you want a Mexican way of life or an American way of life? That
isn't a dumbass liberal vs conservative question, it's a critical
question of what quality of life you and your children will have for
themselves. You want the kind that half the population of Mexico is
running to the border to get away from? That is what you'll get.
....Hoy Paloy

The White House affirms:

"Democracy is like an old ugly whore who must drop her drawers faster and
faster for less and less."

Hank

wrote:
Bush is totally incompetent

Much of our troubles TODAY were created by his failed policies

"HIS" failed policy's? Maybe his incompetence and a lifetime around
right wing ideologues made him the perfect puppet. Who was in charge
during 9/11? Matter of record that Cheney was giving orders to Bush.
Who accompanied Bush to the 9/11 hearings to make sure he didn't screw
up his testimony? And *they* insisted on testifying in private, without
being place under oath.

Who Bush serves is a good question. Clearly its not the American people
(9/11, Katrina, deficit, idiotic war) or the "Its just a God damned
piece of paper" Constitution he swore to uphold.

How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
information. That was in the 9/11 report.




"F. H." wrote in message
news:QyDIg.1432$4O4.787@trnddc02...
wrote:
Bush is totally incompetent

Much of our troubles TODAY were created by his failed policies

"HIS" failed policy's? Maybe his incompetence and a lifetime around right
wing ideologues made him the perfect puppet. Who was in charge during
9/11? Matter of record that Cheney was giving orders to Bush. Who
accompanied Bush to the 9/11 hearings to make sure he didn't screw up his
testimony? And *they* insisted on testifying in private, without being
place under oath.

Who Bush serves is a good question. Clearly its not the American people
(9/11, Katrina, deficit, idiotic war) or the "Its just a God damned piece
of paper" Constitution he swore to uphold.

Hell_Toupee wrote:
How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
information. That was in the 9/11 report.


Also noted was the fact that while Clinton held almost weekly meetings
with his anti-terrorism task force, Bush's taks force, headed by Dick
Cheney had their first meeting on September 4, 2001, more than eight
months after the start of Bush's administration. He also stopped the
Predator surveillance of bin Laden in the spring of 2001.

On Sept. 10, Diane Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee
briefed on July 5th, asked Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby
when
the administration would start focusing on these terror threats which
had
so pre-occupied CIA's Tenet, the most severe in decades - she was told
it
would have to wait another six months.

If you close your eyes long enough, your enemies will take advantage of
it. Bush and the Christian Right were more concerned with fighting
pornography and medical marijuana than they ever were about terrorism
until 9/11. After 9/11, they did start to focus on terrorism, but after
such an event, anyone would have. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

As for the recession, there was a tech bubble, and the effects would
have been shorter and lighter if 9/11 hadn't occured. The current
situation wouldn't be as bad if we were not engaged in a pointless war
in Iraq, completely unrelated to 9/11. Oil prices would be lower, and
we would be saving more than $100 billion per year. Add to this a
record of deficit spending that has set new records, a feat which will
have an impact on inflation and interest rates for years to come, and
you have to give some of the "credit" to George W. Bush.

But you're obviously a Republican, so despite Republican control of all
three branches of the government, it must all be Clinton's or the
Democrat's fault. It must be, because despite their shrill rhetoric
about personal responsibility, Republicans are going to try to dodge
responsibility for their actions, much like their leadership dodged
Veitnam, all while they loudly supported the Veitnam War. Do I sense a
pattern here ?

How can I blame Bush ? It is very easy. I hold a person responsible for
their actions, or lack thereof. Of course, Republican's still can't
understand how anyone could hold Ken Lay responsible for Enron. He was
only the CEO. Obviously people in charge get credit for the possitive
things, but we can't expect them to take resposibility for their
errors, can we ? YES, We can, and I do. Bush is the President, many of
the decisions were his, or at least signed off by him. He gets the
credit and the responsibility.

Dean G.

You've guessed wrong, sir. I am a Libertarian. I hope you don't work as a
circus hustler trying to guess a persons' weight!


"Dean G." wrote in message
ps.com...

Hell_Toupee wrote:
How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening
to
Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
information. That was in the 9/11 report.


Also noted was the fact that while Clinton held almost weekly meetings
with his anti-terrorism task force, Bush's taks force, headed by Dick
Cheney had their first meeting on September 4, 2001, more than eight
months after the start of Bush's administration. He also stopped the
Predator surveillance of bin Laden in the spring of 2001.

On Sept. 10, Diane Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee
briefed on July 5th, asked Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby
when
the administration would start focusing on these terror threats which
had
so pre-occupied CIA's Tenet, the most severe in decades - she was told
it
would have to wait another six months.

If you close your eyes long enough, your enemies will take advantage of
it. Bush and the Christian Right were more concerned with fighting
pornography and medical marijuana than they ever were about terrorism
until 9/11. After 9/11, they did start to focus on terrorism, but after
such an event, anyone would have. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

As for the recession, there was a tech bubble, and the effects would
have been shorter and lighter if 9/11 hadn't occured. The current
situation wouldn't be as bad if we were not engaged in a pointless war
in Iraq, completely unrelated to 9/11. Oil prices would be lower, and
we would be saving more than $100 billion per year. Add to this a
record of deficit spending that has set new records, a feat which will
have an impact on inflation and interest rates for years to come, and
you have to give some of the "credit" to George W. Bush.

But you're obviously a Republican, so despite Republican control of all
three branches of the government, it must all be Clinton's or the
Democrat's fault. It must be, because despite their shrill rhetoric
about personal responsibility, Republicans are going to try to dodge
responsibility for their actions, much like their leadership dodged
Veitnam, all while they loudly supported the Veitnam War. Do I sense a
pattern here ?

How can I blame Bush ? It is very easy. I hold a person responsible for
their actions, or lack thereof. Of course, Republican's still can't
understand how anyone could hold Ken Lay responsible for Enron. He was
only the CEO. Obviously people in charge get credit for the possitive
things, but we can't expect them to take resposibility for their
errors, can we ? YES, We can, and I do. Bush is the President, many of
the decisions were his, or at least signed off by him. He gets the
credit and the responsibility.

Dean G.

Hell_Toupee wrote:
You've guessed wrong, sir. I am a Libertarian. I hope you don't work as a
circus hustler trying to guess a persons' weight!

You do know that Libertarians are just Republicans who
have admitted they're going to hell, right?

--Blair

Hell_Toupee wrote:
How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
information. That was in the 9/11 report.

The outgoing Clinton administration and the holdovers sure did share
the information about al Qaeda with the incoming Bush administration,
though. That was in the report too.

z wrote:

Hell_Toupee wrote:
How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and an inherited recession? Not that I'm
blaming Clinton for the recession, because it's all of us not listening to
Greenspan. But Clinton DID get the security agencies to not share
information. That was in the 9/11 report.

The outgoing Clinton administration and the holdovers sure did share
the information about al Qaeda with the incoming Bush administration,
though. That was in the report too.

From the books I have read on the topic it seems that a lot of ex White House
staffers, some of home had worked with several previous administrations, not
just partisan appointees out to screw Bush the lesser, claim that al Queada was
a major concern but could not convince the Shrub. He had a thing about Iraq and
insisted that they dig up the dirt on Saddam. He ended up surrounding himself
with yes men who made up the dirt that he wanted. Then when he was embarrassed
about the inability to find WMDs in Iraq he blamed it on stale intelligence.

I agree with most of what's been said- Bush came in ignoring terrorism
(those stupid Clinton people had to be ignored), focused on the foolish
tax cut and also foolish missile defense.
Don't know why we're talking politics on this group, though the
level of discussion on most dedicated groups is pretty awful from what
I've seen. I am a partisan lib/ dem, but still like discussions to be
civil and honest. Clinton did have his failings in foreign policy-
mostly it didn't interest him much, and he was understandibly wary of
involvements after Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda- and
didn't want to get involved in Yugoslavia, either. The Europeans could
have taken more initiative there, and I think Clinton was _partially_
reluctant for fear he'd then be charged with racial disparity after
doing nothing over Rwanda. Gore pushed him to get involved- one reason
I think he would have made a pretty good President besides his interest
in re-inventing government eg getting various levels to talk to each
other eg those FBI memos which might have prevented 9/11.
Clinton did wake up to al Quaeda after embassy and Cole bombings,
but by then was embroiled in Lewinsky mess and feared he'd be accused
of 'wag the dog' diversion if he acted too strenuously- thus the
cruise missile strikes were his only response.
The tech boom was undoubtedly responsible for part of the surplus,
but Clinton did manage finances pretty responsibly, and deserves credit
for it. Were people really so overtaxed in those years? I think the
federal tax cuts are resulting in a shifting of burdens to state/ local
levels, and the middle class taxpayers, meaning most of us. Not to
mention the shear recklessness of the debt, which will haunt us for
many, many years.

Sev wrote:

I agree with most of what's been said- Bush came in ignoring terrorism
(those stupid Clinton people had to be ignored), focused on the foolish
tax cut and also foolish missile defense.
Don't know why we're talking politics on this group, though the
level of discussion on most dedicated groups is pretty awful from what
I've seen. I am a partisan lib/ dem, but still like discussions to be
civil and honest. Clinton did have his failings in foreign policy-
mostly it didn't interest him much, and he was understandibly wary of
involvements after Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda-

He did a little more than nothing. To do nothing is to do nothing. The US
used its position on the SC to block intervention in Rwanda.

Sev wrote:
I agree with most of what's been said- Bush came in ignoring terrorism
(those stupid Clinton people had to be ignored), focused on the foolish
tax cut and also foolish missile defense.
Don't know why we're talking politics on this group, though the
level of discussion on most dedicated groups is pretty awful from what
I've seen. I am a partisan lib/ dem, but still like discussions to be
civil and honest. Clinton did have his failings in foreign policy-
mostly it didn't interest him much, and he was understandibly wary of
involvements after Somalia. Thus he did nothing about Rwanda- and
didn't want to get involved in Yugoslavia, either. The Europeans could
have taken more initiative there, and I think Clinton was _partially_
reluctant for fear he'd then be charged with racial disparity after
doing nothing over Rwanda. Gore pushed him to get involved- one reason
I think he would have made a pretty good President besides his interest
in re-inventing government eg getting various levels to talk to each
other eg those FBI memos which might have prevented 9/11.


Clinton did wake up to al Quaeda after embassy and Cole bombings,
but by then was embroiled in Lewinsky mess and feared he'd be accused
of 'wag the dog' diversion if he acted too strenuously- thus the
cruise missile strikes were his only response.

Well, more than that. The Clinton administration caught Al Qaeda
operatives actively involved in attempts to blow up Los Angeles
International Airport on Millennium Eve, the Holland and Lincoln
tunnels in New York and the United Nations building, aborted a planned
assault on the Israeli embassy in Washington, and in cooperation with
intelligence services on every continent successfully arrested,
prosecuted, and imprisoned or executed dozens of terrorist cells
overseas from the former Soviet Union to the Philippines, and froze
$254 million in Taliban assets in the United States; besides actually
hitting the convoy in which bin Laden was driving with an RPG, which is
still closer than the current Keystone Kops have gotten to nailing the
*******. Clinton signed a National Security Decision Directive
authorizing an intensive campaign to destroy al Qaeda and capture or
kill bin Laden and sent the CIA into Afghanistan with a Pakistani
commando unit to get him, until Musaharraf pulled the plug on the
operation for fear of al Qaeda supporters in his administration and the
military.

And the anti-terrorism legislation Clinton tried to pass in 93, but the
Republicans voted down, then again in 95 hoping McVeigh's home-grown
terrorism might wake up the Republicans but it got voted down again,
with Senator John Ashcroft of all people saying it was an unwarranted
assault on Americans' rights and privacy. Now that's bleakly funny.

And Clinton's bioterrorism preparedness initiative, which (besides all
those preparedness drills) established a new national stockpile of
emergency medical supplies, including 40 million doses of smallpox
vaccine for the CDC which the Bushies used after 9/11.

"Robert M. Gates, former director of the CIA was on hand to share some
of his experiences and give his insights to the nation's ongoing
challenge to battle terrorism.... He cited several instances where
plans from terrorists were realized and halted throughout the 1990s,
including:
An attack on the Federal building in New York
Plans to destroy the Lincoln and Holland tunnels
A plan to fly a plane into CIA headquarters
A millennium New Year's Eve plot to attack Los Angeles International
Airport ..."
http://www.ism.ws/ConfPastAndOnlineDaily/files/May02/Keynote02.cfm

"[The Clinton administration was] correctly focused on bin Laden."
-Paul Bremer,
ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department and
later chair of the Congressional National Commission on Terrorism,
Washington Post,
Dec. 2000

"Overall, I give [the Clinton administration] very high marks [on
counterterrorism]."
- Robert Oakley,
also ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department,
Washington Post,
Dec. 2000

'The Clinton administration was "obsessed" with bin Laden'
-the report of the 9/11 Commission

The tech boom was undoubtedly responsible for part of the surplus,
but Clinton did manage finances pretty responsibly, and deserves credit
for it. Were people really so overtaxed in those years?

Ironic juxtaposition of the two topics:
Clinton tried to pass airport security legislation, but the Republican
Congress rejected it because they didn't want the government to pay for
it, and the 8 Republicans on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee killed it
because their big contributors, the airlines, didn't want to pay for it
either.

I think the
federal tax cuts are resulting in a shifting of burdens to state/ local
levels, and the middle class taxpayers, meaning most of us. Not to
mention the shear recklessness of the debt, which will haunt us for
many, many years.

It doesn't take a financial genius to figure that if the federal
government is going to spend tons and tons more at the same time as it
cuts revenues, it's going to show up as a hole in somebody's pocket.
But most people are apparently in agreement with the Bush analysis:
"Fuzzy math".