Posted on 08/29/2002 1:00:30 PM PDT by feelin_poorly
Shortly after 9-11, TV talk-show host Sean Hannity said, "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"
And when you think about it, a great deal of what you might believe about the so-called War on Terrorism is based on statements from George W. Bush. You have only his word, or that of someone in his administration:
Since America is endangered by the "you're either with me or against me" tactics of the Bush administration, it becomes vital to know whether we can trust the man in charge of our government.
The record
So does George Bush's record inspire confidence in his honesty?
Unfortunately, this is the same man who has referred to trillions of dollars in budget surpluses – even though the federal government hasn't had a budget surplus since 1956. (The appearance of any "surpluses" was created by taking excess receipts from Social Security and applying them to the general budget, even as the politicians swore they were protecting Social Security.)
Mr. Bush even has the chutzpah to refer with a straight face (well not exactly a straight face, he loves to smirk) to corporate executives "cooking the books." He neglects to mention that many of the corporate bookkeeping methods the politicians are so incensed about today were motivated by rules imposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
And George Bush is the same man who in 2000 said he believed in "limited government." Most people assumed he meant a government limited by the Constitution. In fact, he took an oath in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.
But he's violated virtually every one of the first 10 Amendments – especially the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which are meant to impose precise limits on his power.
So his belief in "limited government" apparently means government limited to what he wants to do.
George Bush is the same man who in one breath tries to ingratiate himself with you by saying, "It's your money, not the politicians' money" – but in the next breath, he says he's entitled to one third of "your money."
George Bush is the same man who said he has learned more about political philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth than from anyone else. But he's proven by his actions that he doesn't really believe such things as "Blessed are the peacemakers." And "the meek" who Jesus said would inherit the earth are in Mr. Bush's eyes really just "collateral damage" in his plans to tell the world how it must live.
Is honesty important?
In these and in so many other ways, George Bush has proven that he's not an honest man – and that we shouldn't trust him with the safety of America.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson understood that we shouldn't put our trust in any politician. He said we should bind them down from mischief "by the chains of the Constitution." And a truly honest man wouldn't even ask you to trust him.
Contrary to what you might have thought, this isn't an article about George Bush. It's an article about you. Are you going to demean yourself by putting your faith in a man who has done so much to demonstrate the folly of such faith?
Are you going to let politicians stampede you into throwing away the Bill of Rights, based on "evidence" you never see, reassured by politicians who have proven that the truth is secondary to their own ambitions?
Don't you have enough respect for your own mind to make your own decisions, refuse to accept conclusions without evidence, and be something better than a cheerleader for a politician or a political party?
And it had nothing to do with France's enemy named England, who they'd been fighting for centuries?
I don't see how anyone who paid attention could have thought Bush was nearly the most conservative candidate running. For starters, his ideas of increasing federal involvement in education were a bit tip-off.
Have you seen the polls that say the majority of Americans think the government should be involved in a prescription drug program?
That's it right there...It has already been confirmed by the DoD and indiginous forces that Al Qaeda is in Northern Iraq.
End of Discussion.
Now there's a thought.
Yes I think he will do this also and I think he'll have all the evidence to shut Congress' whining up big time ..
Just think we need to get rid of the trouble makers
Isn't this akin to locking someone up because they were 'thinking' about committing a crime? What gives us the right to insist on over-flying other soverign nations when we would not tolerate the same. According to our way of thinking, Sadam is a madman. According to the thinking in the middle east, we are the mad man and are bent on world conquest. There are two sides to every issue and I have yet to hear anything other than commentaries and editorials from talking heads to make me believe that Sadam is actually planning to attack the US. Yes, he attacked Kuwait and yes, the Saudis helped finance the mission that drove his troops back. That is not, however, proof that he is plotting to destroy anything on our shores. The middle east has been one of the most turbulent places on earth for as long as there has been history. What makes us so bent on empire building that we think it is up to us to decide who rules and what form of government other countries have when we would not tolerate the same from others?
Well, too bad. They won't improve if conservatives don't get involved. And think of all the fun you're missing, arguing with the liberals! (You might even make a few converts.)
Isn't this akin to locking someone up because they were 'thinking' about committing a crime? What gives us the right to insist on over-flying other soverign nations when we would not tolerate the same. According to our way of thinking, Sadam is a madman. According to the thinking in the middle east, we are the mad man and are bent on world conquest. There are two sides to every issue and I have yet to hear anything other than commentaries and editorials from talking heads to make me believe that Sadam is actually planning to attack the US. Yes, he attacked Kuwait and yes, the Saudis helped finance the mission that drove his troops back. That is not, however, proof that he is plotting to destroy anything on our shores. The middle east has been one of the most turbulent places on earth for as long as there has been history. What makes us so bent on empire building that we think it is up to us to decide who rules and what form of government other countries have when we would not tolerate the same from others?
No, that is good. The less conservatives are involved, the quicker it will crumble. Then, it can be rebuilt maybe. Just a thought.
Fortunately the Nation isnt full of the type of drips found on this thread and the majority of American people already favor going after Saddam.
GW will put it in Congress' face and they'll swallow it whole.
Then it's on.
Late October or early January.
Trying to predict who can or cannot win an election is a losing proposition. History does tell us though that over the last 20 years, extremely conservative candidates do very well come election time.
If you recall, most people thought that Bush Sr. would win in a landslide in 1992. Even the "experts" in the democratic party believed it. How many people believed that a corrupt, draft dodging southern governor would have defeated an incumbent President who had a 90% approval rating 18 months before the election?
How many people predicted that Reagan would win in 1980 (in a landslide, no less)? Not very many. The elites told us he was unelectable. Same thing with Gingrich in 1994. We were told he didn't have a broad appeal, and he certainly wasn't referred to as "dreamy" by anyone (not even among the millions of us who supported him).
I could go on all day with examples of the underdog winning. Rather than pick who has the best chance of winning (considering the evidence that trying to do so is foolish), I think it's best to support the best man or woman for the job and get behind them 100%.
And it's damn insulting to the other posters on FR; we KNEW who we were voting for and did so gladly.
I thought I knew who I was voting for, but I have been proven wrong. I won't be suckered again.
Tell me this: did you vote for the candidate who supported vouchers, or the one who increased the Education budget by 27%?
The one who promised fiscal responsibilty or the one who is increasing federal spending at an incredible rate?
The one who promised to veto the CFR bill, or the one who signed it into law?
The one who promised he was serious about enforcing the laws, or the one who refuses to enforce our border laws?
Bush has certianly done things that I agree with, but he is still taking the country in the wrong direction of an expansionist federal government.
And I will oppose that, regardless of who is in office, or what party they are affiliated with.
Unless she thought of it first, KW thinks everything is illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.