Hopefully, this means Bush won't get re-"elected"...

by Michael3000 18 Replies latest social current

Reborn2002

I'm hoping then, that Carol Mosley Braun is Bush's opponent. You'd vote for her?

(Yawn)
The likelihood that Carol Moseley Braun gets past the first round of primaries is nil and zero. Your attempt to be sarcastic is futile because your comments are a joke.
Why? Because in this country that is touted for being Land of the Free and Home of the Brave / Equality for Everyone, the reality is that only white males have legitimate chances to win a Presidency. Oh wait, that's right. In 225 years since the country's inception and 43 Presidents later, the ONLY race and gender to serve in this office is the caucasian male. Yet you say Carol Moseley Braun? Surely you jest. A woman? A black woman at that? Not in this white man's world.
Then you blabber:
This is just proof that the Dems have no issues other than "Anti_Bush"
Surely your joking yet again. No issues other than Anti-Bush. HA.
Bush wages a war under false pretenses by saying that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to the security of the United States and it's allies. British Intelligence (which the US agreed with and did not refute) states he is capable of launching these weapons within 45 minutes notice. British Intelligence also presents as fact that he attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, and George Bush uses this allegation in his State of the Union Address and presents it as factual evidence to incite support for his cause in waging a war. Yet, 4 months of occupation and possessing sovereignty of the air and land, NO WMD have been found. It later emerges that statements Bush uses regarding Iraq acquiring uranium were lies. You say he did not lie? Then why are White House National Security Advisor Rice and the CIA Director George Tenet apologizing for these statements? The President gave the speech. The buck allegedly stops there. Yet it is everyone else's fault. Even more humorous when you read the caption of a Bush picture on the White House website that states he personally reviews his speech and analyzes every line word for word. Furthermore, Tony Blair and George Bush go before Congress and in convenient revisionistic fashion state that "history will forgive even if WMD are not found" yet this was the sole justification for war in the first place. United States soldiers are killed in combat and the Bush Administration cries foul to the high heavens when images of these men are displayed publicly on television. Yet, in typical hypocritical fashion, when 2 prominent leaders of the Iraqi regime, Odai and Qusai Hussein, are killed, they have no problem spamming pictures of their rotting, bullet-riddled corpses for the entire world to see. Double-standard? You betcha. Let us not kid. Dick Cheney and oil contracts for Iraq, and the simple reason that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate George W Bush's father are the true reasons this war took place. If it was to fight for the freedom of Iraq, then the US government should be pounding down doors in Iran, North Korea, Yemen, etc. Is that happening? No. You can spew propaganda and convince yourself otherwise.
The economy is in shambles and the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in over a decade. Right-wing extremists would have you believe this is the legacy of William Jefferson Clinton. To be more than generous, I will state that perhaps it is to an extent. After all, the economy was already spiraling downward at the time Bush was inaugurated. He inherited a downturn. Nevertheless, Bush has had control of all 3 branches of government in his tenure since the Republicans control the Executive Branch, and both the House and Senate are held by a Republican majority, AND the Supreme Court which voted Bush into office is composed of 7 Justices who were appointed by Republican Administrations. How long can you blame the economy on Clinton? 3 years? 4 years? Hell why not blame Clinton for the economy for the period of Bush's entire term? It is high time that Bush take some responsibility. Make excuses all you want. The reality that tax breaks for the wealthy and campaign contributors while the working class loses jobs is enough.
Or how about the clear and concise speech in the Constitution regarding seperation of Church and State? Yet Bush seems content to implement so-called Faith Based Initiatives. He also seems content to make decisions regarding stem-cell research and other medical/technological advancements based solely on his personal belief in Jeezus Khrist.
Or how about we discuss issues like the Kyoto Treaty? Bush runs to allies and other nations when he wants something done. Yet when it is something he disagrees with he brashly walks away from the table. The problem is he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, and since he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth he whines if he does not get his way.
By the way, has he ever accounted for the 2 years he was AWOL while serving in the Texas Air National Guard?
Or how about his quick action to repeal ergonomics standards? Working class workers like my father now have to submit to the will of the corporation while slaving on assembly lines even if it means injury to their hands and feet.
Or how about the fact that people are prohibited from running for political office if they have a felony conviction, yet he was arrested for drunk-driving at the age of 30 and this is ignored. Like OJ Simpson, it does not matter if you are guilty. What matters is how much money you have, and who you know.
Do I have issues with George Bush other than Anti-Bush? I have plenty. I suggest you learn the facts next time before you open your mouth and promptly insert your foot. Then again, you are a soldier in the armed forces. It is your job just to keep quiet and do as your told and to blindly defend your Commander-In-Chief. This is to be expected. Even if it means fudging a post in another thread claiming a letter came to you personally from a close friend who was in Iraq and saw events firsthand, when the exact same letter shows up verbatim on a website attributed to someone else...
DIM

Reborn, that was an absolutely brilliant post. I know that my wife and I will be voting Bush out of office. Don't forget all of the suspected terrorists that have disappeared under Bush's regime.....taken away to torture chambers. This president is the worst in history. Clinton makes more sense talking for 5 minutes than Bush has made his entire term.
Yerusalyim

Reborn,
I made the point that the Dems have no other issues other than being anti-Bush,
You said,
Surely your joking yet again. No issues other than Anti-Bush. HA.
Then in your very next sentence your wrote,
Bush wages a war under false pretenses by saying that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to the security of the United States and it's allies
Thanks for proving my point...that is an anti Bush statement, not a statement of an issue. The Dems haven't said how they would have better dealt with the situation. The statement is also a lie. The war was NOT waged under false pretenses, and the Bush admin didn't call Saddam an IMMINENT threat, but rather, a growing threat. Clinton and his cronies beleived Saddam had WMD...theUN believed it...and all those Dems that voted for the war believed it...and they saw the same intelligence Bush did. Again, the Dems have no issues other than being antiBush...thanks for proving my point.
Reborn2002

Yeru, either your an idiot or you are willfully ignorant. Given the fact I have known you from this discussion board for quite some time, I will believe it is the latter.
I say:
Bush wages a war under false pretenses by saying that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to the security of the United States and it's allies.
To which you respond:
Thanks for proving my point...that is an anti Bush statement, not a statement of an issue.
Are you kidding? You are making yourself out here to be comical. Clinton is impeached by the House of Representatives and brought to trial over issues of deceit concerning extramarital affairs with an intern. Did you even read my above post? Surely you did, but you conveniently avoid that which does not support your perspective. Just so you can understand I will reiterate it. This is hardly just an "Anti-Bush" statement as you would like to call it, but a very relevant issue.
Bush wages a war under false pretenses by saying that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to the security of the United States and it's allies. British Intelligence (which the US agreed with and did not refute) states he is capable of launching these weapons within 45 minutes notice. British Intelligence also presents as fact that he attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, and George Bush uses this allegation in his State of the Union Address and presents it as factual evidence to incite support for his cause in waging a war. Yet, 4 months of occupation and possessing sovereignty of the air and land, NO WMD have been found. It later emerges that statements Bush uses regarding Iraq acquiring uranium were lies. You say he did not lie? Then why are White House National Security Advisor Rice and the CIA Director George Tenet apologizing for these statements? The President gave the speech. The buck allegedly stops there. Yet it is everyone else's fault. Even more humorous when you read the caption of a Bush picture on the White House website that states he personally reviews his speech and analyzes every line word for word. Furthermore, Tony Blair and George Bush go before Congress and in convenient revisionistic fashion state that "history will forgive even if WMD are not found" yet this was the sole justification for war in the first place.
Inserting false statements and presenting them as fact to gain support for the war? An impeachable offense if we hold it to the same standard for which William Jefferson Clinton was held.
Comprehend now? Probably not.
The Dems haven't said how they would have better dealt with the situation.
I am not a Democrat. Unlike some here, I do not vote based strictly on partisan political lines. I consider myself an Independent Moderate who analyzes the platform of each available candidate and then votes accordingly. So making reference to Democrats in response to me is not only inappropriate, but further demonsrates your extreme right-wing unwavering loyalty even in the face of evidence.
The statement is also a lie. The war was NOT waged under false pretenses, and the Bush admin didn't call Saddam an IMMINENT threat, but rather, a growing threat.
Surely your joking again.
The British Intelligence report which the United States did not refute but instead used to garner support for the war stated Saddam Hussein had launch capability within 45 minutes. Claims by Bush and Blair used to gain support, and to date are unfounded, even to the point that Jack Straw and Colin Powell backed off.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html
Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.
Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.
The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation.
The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims.
Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.
Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the UN security council, according to the transcripts.
But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence.
Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces".
What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.
People circulating the transcripts call themselves "allied sources supportive of US war aims in Iraq at the time".
The transcripts will fuel the controversy in Britain and the US over claims that London and Washington distorted and exaggerated the intelligence assessments about Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programme.
An unnamed intelligence official told the BBC on Thursday that a key claim in the dossier on Iraq's weapons released by the British government last September - that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of an order - was inserted on the instructions of officials in 10 Downing Street.
Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted the claim was made by "a single source; it wasn't corroborated".
Speaking yesterday in Warsaw, the Polish capital, Mr Blair said the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the dossier was "evidence the truth of which I have absolutely no doubt about at all".
He said he had consulted the heads of the security and intelligence services before emphatically denying that Downing Street had leaned on them to strengthen their assessment of the WMD threat in Iraq. He insisted he had "absolutely no doubt" that proof of banned weapons would eventually be found in Iraq. Whitehall sources make it clear they do not share the prime minister's optimism.
The Waldorf transcripts are all the more damaging given Mr Powell's dramatic 75-minute speech to the UN security council on February 5, when he presented declassified satellite images, and communications intercepts of what were purported to be conversations between Iraqi commanders, and held up a vial that, he said, could contain anthrax.
45 minutes notice is not an imminent threat? Get real.
You further rant:
Again, the Dems have no issues other than being antiBush...thanks for proving my point.
I see you conveniently avoided everything I said regarding your sarcastic comment about Carol Moseley Braun. I also notice you conveniently ignored every statement I made regarding the economy, Bush's faith-based initiatives, his disrespect for the environment, and the double-standard made available to him when it comes to his military service and criminal record. I suppose these are all Anti-Bush statements, and not relevant issues.
People are usually silent when they have nothing useful to say. All that ever comes out of your mouth in a political discussion is right-wing rhetoric.
I see you for what you are. Everyone else reading this sees you for what you are, so I suggest you stop now while you still only have 1 carton of egg on your face, and not two.
badwillie

Hey Yeru -
I am anti-Bush (against Bush), just as much as you seem to be pro-Bush. It's a free country still, right? I am not afraid to say that I'm not standing behind a certain candidate (and believe me he has been relegated to merely candidate status by many I talk to, included those that did vote for him)
I did not start out against Bush (I didn't even vote in the 2000 election - I was still a dub). Here are some of the reasons I am against Bush for reelection:
ECONOMY
ASSERTION: President Bush: "Government cannot manage or control the economy." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003)
TRUTH: George W. Bush's administration cannot manage or control the economy.
ASSERTION: "This budget . . . is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth [and] to generate jobs" (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002)
TRUTH: Since January 2001, over three million jobs have been lost. (WSJ, 7/24/03)
ASSERTION: ". . . [O]ur budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term." (President Bush, State of the Union address,1/28/2003)
TRUTH: "... by 2013 the deficit will reach $530 billion or 3.0 of Gross Domestic product, equivalent to $2,300 for each household in America. In addition, such a policy of amassing ever greater debt over the next decade will cause the cost of annual interest payments on the debt to soar to $425 billion a year by 2013. . ." (CBPP, $300 Billion Deficits, As Far as the Eye Can See, 7/8/2003)
ASSERTION: "Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage growth." (President Bush, Western Michigan University remarks, 3/27/2001)
TRUTH: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% (NYT, 6/27/03)
ASSERTION: "Now, you hear talk about deficits. And I'm concerned about deficits. I'm sure you are as well. But this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003)
TRUTH: The CBPP reports, "Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted tax cuts is almost three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism--including the action in Afghanistan--are counted as 'war costs,' along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq." (Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 8 July 2003)
ASSERTION: "The minute I got sworn in, we were in a recession. And that's why I went to Congress for a tax package." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003)
TRUTH: Bush was inaugurated in January 2001; the recession began in March 2001. He did not inherit a recession. Moreover, the tax package he took to Congress was the same one on which he had campaigned. (National Bureau of Economic Research; Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 7/8/2003)
ASSERTION: "The growth and jobs plan I outlined earlier this year will provide critical momentum to our economic recovery. For every American paying income taxes, I propose speeding up the tax cuts already approved by the Congress." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003)
TRUTH: Ten recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science said Bush's plan would not provide a short-term boost and would create long-term budget deficits. Franco Modigliani (MIT), who received the Nobel in 1985, called Bush's plan "preposterous." Daniel McFadden, the 2000 recipient, described the plan as a "weapon of mass destruction aimed at the middle class." (Blanton, The Boston Globe, 2/12/2003)
ASSERTION: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (President Bush, Radio Address, 4/26/2003)
TRUTH: "Analysis shows that 8.1 million lower and middle-income taxpayers, who pay billions of dollars a year in income taxes, will receive no tax reduction under the legislation." (Robert Greenstein, CBPP, 6/1/2003)
ASSERTION: "We have priorities at home as well--restoring health to our economy above all. Our economy had begun to weaken over a year before September 11th, but the terrorist attack dealt it another severe blow. This budget advances a bipartisan economic recovery plan that provides much more than greater unemployment benefits: it is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth, to generate jobs, and to give unemployed Americans the dignity and security of a paycheck instead of an unemployment check." (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002)
TRUTH: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% and 1.2% of mortgages were in foreclosure, setting a record high. The unemployment rate climbed to a nine-year high of 6.4% in June. Setting a new record, 1.6 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy last year. (NYT, 6/27/03; USA Today, 7/10/03; WSJ 7/24/03; U.S. News & World Report; 7/21/03)
ASSERTION: In his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said, "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."
TRUTH: The White House released a deficit projection in July, 2003 of $455 billion. (Source: "White House Sees a 455 Billion Gap in the 03 Budget" New York Times David E. Rosenbaum 7/16/03)
EDUCATION
ASSERTION: In January 2003, Bush defended No Child Left Behind: "The main reservations we've heard in the year since we passed the reform have come from some adults, not the children, who say the testing requirement is an unfunded mandate on the states. Well, that's not true. We put up $387 million to provide for testing ...We demanded excellence. We're going to pay for the accountability systems to make sure that we do get excellence." (Official statements, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 1/13/03)
TRUTH: The GAO released a report that the new testing will cost the states between $1.9 and $5.3 billion. (GAO Report, "Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, May 2003) The FY 2004 Bush budget request was only $387 million; Congress has already appropriated $771 which still leaves a shortfall of $742 million. (Congressional Press Release, 5/8/03)
ASSERTION: President Bush: "You don't teach the test when it comes to literacy. We went to a Title 1 classroom -- or a classroom with Title 1 students in it, where the teacher was using some of the most advanced thought about teaching reading, a balanced approach including phonics. You teach a child to read and he or her (sic) will be able to pass a literacy test. I don't buy teaching the test as an excuse to have a system that doesn't hold people accountable for results." (Townsend Elementary School, Tennessee 2/21/2001)
TRUTH: In Texas, the board voted to reduce the number of questions that students must answer correctly to pass third grade reading exams from 24 out of 36 to 20. In Michigan, officials lowered the percentage of students who must pass statewide tests to certify a school as making adequate yearly progress to 42% from 75% of high school students on English tests. And Colorado overhauled the grading system used on its tests, lumping students previously characterized on the basis of test scores as "partially proficient" with those called "proficient". ("States are Relaxing Education Standards to Avoid Sanctions from Federal Law," Sam Dillon, New York Times, 5/22/03)
ASSERTION: In April 2002, Bush praised Lucy Salazar, a volunteer with the Even Start literacy program: "One of the things I try to do when I go into communities is herald soldiers in the armies of compassion, those souls who have heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, and have followed through on that call; Lucy Salazar is a retired federal government worker. She teaches reading skills to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children -- incredibly important...And oftentimes, citizens such as her never get the praise they deserve. Lucy, thank you for coming and representing thousands of people like you."
TRUTH: Bush has since proposed cutting the Even Start budget by 20% (Associated Press, 2/4/2002)
HOMELAND SECURITY
ASSERTION: One program, the Container Security Initiative, which would screen cargo at foreign ports, was specifically endorsed by Bush last June. "The Customs Service," he told an audience in Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, "is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about."
TRUTH: Bush's budget provides no new funding for the program. (New Republic, March 2003)
HEALTH CARE
ASSERTION: In March 2001, Bush pledged to support children's hospitals: "This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality...There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded."
TRUTH: Bush's first budget proposed cutting grants to children's hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children's hospitals. ("Caught on Film: the Bush Credibility Gap," House Minority Appropriations Committee)
ENVIRONMENT
ASSERTION: On Earth Day, in April 2002, Bush said, "Clear Skies legislation, when passed by Congress, will significantly reduce smog and mercury emissions, as well as stop acid rain. It will put more money directly into programs to reduce pollution, so as to meet firm national air-quality goals."
TRUTH: The Clear Skies plan would "generate millions more tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and allow three times more mercury emissions than current law." And according to EPA estimates, "the plan would have the effect of raising the amount of coal burned by power companies... potentially generating 50 percent more sulfur emissions and delaying by up to 10 years major cuts in sulfur emissions required by the Clean Air Act." (League of Conservation Voters 2003 Presidential Report Card)
ASSERTION: Pres. Bush: "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon monox- carbon dioxide, within a reasonable period of time." (September 29, 2000 file footage, ABC News)
TRUTH: Ted Koppel reported that "... the original pledge [to regulate carbon dioxide] was written off as sloppy work by a campaign speechwriter. The president was persuaded to drop a line restating the pledge from his speech to Congress. Two weeks later, it was officially dead." (Nightline, April 25, 2001)
ASSERTION: President Bush: "I have sent you a healthy forest initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forests. I urge you to pass these measures for the good of both our environment and our economy." (January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address)
TRUTH: "Bush's 'Healthy Forests' initiative likewise suffers from Orwellian doublespeak, felling Western forests to save them. Disguised as a measure for curbing wildfires, the plan invites logging companies to cut healthy trees in national forests while reducing public oversight. Ironically, the probable cause of recent catastrophic fires is global warming, a problem that most Republicans deny." (By Glen Scherer for salon.com January 6, 2003)
AMERICORPS AND NATIONAL SERVICE
ASSERTION: In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush promised to expand AmeriCorps: "Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers." (State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003)
TRUTH: The funding of AmeriCorps is currently in conference as part of the emergency supplemental bill. Although the Senate has moved to restore/increase funding, the House is resisting such attempts. As it now stands, membership in AmeriCorps would be slashed by 80%. Throughout the public debate on the subject, Bush has not taken any action to persuade the House to increase or restore the funding. (David Broder House Senate Feuds end up targeting innocent victims, Chicago Tribune- 7/22/03; "AmeriCorps May Still Win Extra Funding; Associated Press,7/22/03)
ASSERTION: In January 2003, Bush praised the Boys and Girls Club: "I want to thank the Boys & Girls Clubs across the country...The Boys & Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys & Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help." ("George W. Bush Delivers Remarks on First Anniversary of the USA Freedom Corps," FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/30/02)
TRUTH: In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed cutting all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club.
ASSERTION: In January of 2002, Bush had praised Teach for America founder Wendy Kopp while visiting Booker T. Washington High School in Atlanta: Out of an idea came the desire to convince folks to teach in schools that are having trouble getting teachers. And she has succeeded way beyond what people thought a single person could do." ("Professional Educators, Politicians and Students Show Support for Teach for America Program in Atlanta," Minority Professional Network, 1/31/02)
TRUTH: On July 11, 2003, Teach for America (TFA) was notified it would not receive any funding from the Corporation for National Community Service, the agency responsible for AmeriCorps funds. TFA expected $2 million in grants and leaves TFA short 2,700 education awards for its teachers out of 3,300 corps members who will be teaching this year. ("Teach for America Shut Out of Americorps National Funding Awards," TFA web site, 7/15/03)
VETERANS AFFAIRS
ASSERTION: On January 17, 2003, Bush visited 5 soldiers injured in Afghanistan at the Walter Reed Medical Center. He praised Army doctors and said, "We should and must provide the best care for anybody who's willing to put their life in harm's way." ("Bush Visits Soldiers Mending from Afghanistan Wounds," Associated Press, 1/17/03)
TRUTH: The previous day, Bush's Department of Veterans Affairs announced it was cutting off access to its health care system for 164,000 veterans who were expected to enroll in the current fiscal year. ("VA Cuts Some Veterans Access to Health Care," Washington Post, 1/17/03)
HOUSING
ASSERTION: In June 2002, Bush visited an Atlanta housing project that used HUD's HOPE VI grants: "You know, today I went to the -- to some of the home -- met some of the homeowners in this newly built homes and all you've got to do is shake their hand and listen to their stories and watch the pride that they exhibit when they show you the kitchen and the stairs...They showed me their home. They didn't show me somebody else's home, they showed me their home. And they are so proud to own their home and I want to thank them for their hospitality, because it helps the American people really understand what it means." (Remarks by President George Bush re: Expanding Opportunities for Homeownership," Federal News Service, 6/17/02)
TRUTH: The President's 2004 budget cut all HOPE VI funding.
AGRICULTURE
ASSERTION: In April 2002, at the South Dakota Ethanol Plant, Bush said, "I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy."
TRUTH: The plant had received $602,000 in 2001 under Clinton's Bioenergy Program. Bush cut the plant's bioenergy program in his 2004 budget. ("Ag Department Biodiesel, Ethanol Program May Be Renewed," Associated Press, 4/22/02)

www.deanforamerica.com
Reborn2002

bttt
Yerusalyim

Reborn,
All you lefties keep saying Bush lied, yet...he didn't lie, and was using the same intelligence Clinton did to justify his attacks on Iraq...was Clinton lying?
The Brits still stand by the "uranium" issue.
I don't see the lie.
Badwillie,
You can be "Anti-Bush" all you want, but until the Dems come up with SOLUTIONS (of which they have none except, tax more-spend more...Like in California) they will not unseat Bush.
Yerusalyim

double clicked...what a freak I am.
Michael3000

Reborn and BadWillie, I thank you.

Hopefully, this means Bush won't get re-"elected"...

Share this