Comments on Bush: Flip Flopper & Belly Whopper!

Go to Rightwing Diseases - Add a comment - Go to Bush: Flip Flopper & Belly Whopper!

mj's pathetic excuses for Bush flip flops.

Let's face it mj, Bush could say that his National Security Advisor will not appear, under oath before the 9/11 Commission and flip flop on it a week later and you wouldn't consider it a "flip flop."

All of your pathetic excuses for all of the flip flops I identified demonstrate that you are more concerned about portraying Bush as being steady and reliable, even though all the facts demonstrate otherwise.

I won't go into all of your sorry explanations of Bush's flip flops, but when you ask where is Bush going to get the money to insure that "no child is left behind" or anything else that requires money, I would say look at the trillions in tax cuts he has given to the rich and which he wants to be made PERMANENT in the tax code!

It's alright in Bush's perverted mind for young men and women from the middleclass to lose their lives or their limbs in Iraq and make this huge sacrifice for their country, but this same fraud then issues a $140,000 tax cut to each millionaire this year and wants them to get a similar tax cut every year for the rest of their lives!

Where are the "sacrifices" of the rich?????????

posted by spyinthesky on March 31, 2004 at 5:28 AM | link to this | reply

1. No nation building! . . . be honest with yourself, Spy . . . has not the world changed quite a bit since President Bush made the "no nation-building" comment . . . long before we lost three thousand innocent American lives on September 11, 2001? Sure, Iraq is an example of nation-building . . . but with good reason. Iraq has long graced the State Department's list of "rogue nations" (nations against which we have sanctions because of either support for terrorism, or robust weapons proliferation programs . . . Iraq has a history of both). Thus, it was a perfectly legitimate target in the War on Terror. Our own intelligence agreed with a large number of other intelligence organizations (including that of the UN) that Saddam's regime did pose a "threat." The only disagreements were on the immediacy of that threat, and on the best way of dealing with it. This isn't a flip flop, it's a changed world out there, pal.

2. I will leave no child behind! Given the fact that we're spending a whole lot of money trying to prevent another 9/11, where would you suggest this money come from? Should we pull out of Iraq altogether tomorrow, and let the country descend into chaos?

3. I will reduce Greenhouse gases! Here, I'm afraid you're misinformed. Bush had serious, serious problems with the Kyoto Protocol well before he was ever elected (with very good reason, as following through with our committments under the protocol would force us to cut our economy by roughly 70% according to the National Academy of Sciences.) He promised to attempt to find ways to reduce greenhouse gasses without harming our economy, but such processes take a long time. Saying that we could solve all our problems by converting to alternative energy sources is incredibly naive, as not a single one of these sources could even come close to the efficiency of gasoline. Furthermore, While our dependence on foreign oil has gone up slightly, President Bush did commit to ensuring that these foreign sources were more secure than they were under his predecessor . . . and he has. Our two largest suppliers are currently Canada and Mexico - while numbers three and four are Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. From these four alone, we get well over half of our petroleum. Under Clinton, Canada was number one, but Mexico was only number four, and the insecure suppliers of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela looked like peaceful havens of rest compared to our other top ten suppliers. There was Columbia, where our pipeline was bombed roughly 70 times per year. There was Nigeria, who was embroiled in civil war. Now, the amounts provided by these other, far less secure suppliers are miniscule compared to the supplies we get from here on our own continent, from our closest neighbors. The promise to make our oil supply more secure has been fulfilled.

4. The Tax cuts for the rich have a sunset provision! Sure, Bush said this, because it is true . . . that doesn't mean he believes that they should necessarily be done away with. . . . and they shouldn't. Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both proved that tax cuts are a way to spur growth. Their observations have been followed by a host of smaller European countries, with breathtaking results. Even the most influential economist in the country, Alan Greenspan, has advocated making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

5. We will fully support the 9/11 Commission and it's efforts to get to the bottom of this tragedy! It is inevitable that an investigating commission will come in conflict with the administration it's investingating. Sure, Bush is hesitant to provide information to the commission, for fear it might be used against him in a political setting. That's not the commission's job, but in this very politically-charged time for our country, it's a very, very legitimate fear, especially since Bush was forced to populate the commission with people he knew to be his own political adversaries, for fear of seeming "politically motivated" himself.

Finally, Wilson was a political opponent with an axe to grind. O'Neil was a disgruntled former-employee, and Clarke was a hostile holdover from a previous administration. All have been proven to have political motives for discrediting the Bush administration . . . and all have somehow managed to get fat book deals for their "pains."

And last but hardly least . . . Bush was, for the last time, NOT appointed by anybody on the Supreme Court . . . Frauds or otherwise. Those five did their best to prevent the overwhelmingly Democratic Florida Supreme Court from blatantly rewriting the election laws to hand Al Gore the election. The fault lies with the four who opined that a State Supreme Court can re-vamp election laws in the middle of a Presidential race. . . . it just so happens that this time, those four weren't enough to steal the election for Gore.

So in closing, I'd have to ask, like my fellow conservatives have in previous comments . . . "What flip-flops??"

posted by mjdaniels on March 30, 2004 at 3:52 PM | link to this | reply

Uh .... are you in contact with reality?

The world has seen more terrorist attacks since 9/11 than before 9/11 despite Bush's specious claims that the war on Iraq has "reduced" terrorism. To win the war against terrorism (which Bush continues to claim is his goal), we need the cooperation and support of countries all over the world. It has recently been reported that where the US had support in many Arab countries (Tunisia and Morocco), now 90% of those polled by the Pew Research group say they hate America.

The war in Iraq has killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqis and nearly 600 American kids. Call it what you will, but none of those deaths would have occurred if not for Bush's inane, irresponsible and long premeditated attack on Iraq.

Bush has made things far worse and clearly hasn't a clue about what he is doing.

 

posted by spyinthesky on March 30, 2004 at 5:35 AM | link to this | reply

Uh I

was just wondering who has pres Bush murdered? And what kind of dope are you people smoking? and what part of ' the world doesn't view us as a bunch of weak appeasment pussies anymore because of our agrresive actions in the face of homicidal terroists and we now command some respect amoung  these dogs thus providing national security because thet are now a little more THOUGHTFUL about brazenly attacking us' dont you freakin understand.

posted by cantey on March 29, 2004 at 9:50 PM | link to this | reply

Yes Kat, Bush should be impeached!

There are many responsible Americans who are calling for the impeachment of this most irresponsible and dishonorable president's we have ever had.

Gloria Steinem is calling for it, especially since women are particular targets of Bush and his religiious right fanatics.

posted by spyinthesky on March 29, 2004 at 9:44 AM | link to this | reply

Honest, factual post Spy!!

I find it incredible (probably shouldn't) that there hasn't been a huge "impeachment" outcry. This man has literally gotten away with murder and continues of this second to commit it!!!

posted by PoetRaye on March 29, 2004 at 6:48 AM | link to this | reply

Can Steelerman do basic arithmetic?

I suggested two books (there are several more) that document the dates and places of egregious Bush lies. If you really want to know what his lies are you could check them out. Somehow I doubt you will do that because then you would have to admit to yourself that Bush is a fraud and flagrent liar.

And about that whopping ($300) tax cut you received from "W", I don't know where you live but most states have had to raise the state income tax to make up for help they used to get from the Feds. Many areas (perhaps even yours) have had to let police, firefighters and teachers go because they Feds have stopped helping in those areas. And then of course there is "W's" love of the fossil fuel lobby which has allowed Americans to become more dependent on foreign oil rather than less since he took office, even though renewable energy sources could be developed at a much faster rate.

I guess you like the record high gasoline prices or the record deficits or the record trade imbalances! I hate to tell you this, but Bush has cost you far more than $300 because of his greed, incompetence and stupidity.

posted by spyinthesky on March 29, 2004 at 5:40 AM | link to this | reply

Bush Lies?

Please enough with your unfounded biased lies and falsehoods. As far as the tax cuts for the rich, I had never received a tax cut from any President until "W" gave me one and believe me pal I am far from rich. Please, enough with the liberal whining. 

posted by RedStatesMan on March 28, 2004 at 9:07 PM | link to this | reply

Bush: Flip Flops abound!

Your argument is fallacious regarding Bush's lie in his 2002 SOTU. If Bush actually believed that Saddam had negotiated for "yellowcake" with Nigeria, why did he preface his claim with "British Intelligence has said..." instead of saying the CIA or "our intelligence sources have said?" He didn't because Tenet of the CIA had told the WH that the CIA could not confirm any such evidence. Yet, he went before the American people and the world and made charges that he knew his own intelligence apparatus would not approve! And don't blame John Kerry for giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. If a President tells you that there is an "imminent danger" you expect that on such a serious matter, he is telling the truth. Obviously Bush is not to be trusted.

You then mischaracterize my specific examples of Bush's flip flops as "conjecture!" Bush said that he would reduce greenhouse gases and reversed himself on the goal his first week in the WH. There is no conjecture about what he said he would do before the election and what he decided to do after it. A definite flip flop.

Ditto for "no child left behind." He pledged to Senator Kennedy that he would fund this educational effort and subsequently did not. Flip flop again.

He told us when he proposed the deficit exploding tax cuts for the rich that they would all have a "sunset" provision or expiration date for them and that the tax code would go back to what it was previously. Now he is demanding that the sunset provisions be set aside and that these ruinous tax cuts be made permanent!!!

Exactly what is it you don't understand about the term "FLIP FLOP????" Because everything Bush says and does fits that paradigm (which is probably why you won't admit it to begin with).

posted by spyinthesky on March 28, 2004 at 10:21 AM | link to this | reply

Spy,

I thought I would read the post because of the title and see just what Bush had flip-flopped on.

But what I got from your post was conjecture.

And do you really believe Bush lied knowing his lie would be revealed to the entire world as a lie?

If he were to lie, he should have tried to cover the lie with, say, 'planting' WMD out in the Iraqi desert somewhere so the inspectors could 'discover' the weapons and say, "HERE THEY ARE."

But you want people to believe that Bush would lie and only appoint people as inspectors who would only tell the truth.

It seems more reasonable that Bush went on the data [ie, intelligence] that was available to him and went to war based on the data.  Didn't John Kerry do the same?  Kerry evaluated the SAME intelligence Bush did and then voted for the war in Iraq.

If Bush flip-flopped then give examples of Bush saying one thing and then clearly doing another.

posted by itisdone on March 28, 2004 at 7:16 AM | link to this | reply