Should we trust George W. Bush?

World Net Daily ^ | 8/29/02 | Harry Browne

[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:

• that Iraq, which George Bush is dying to invade, still has "weapons of mass destruction" that threaten Americans directly;

• that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9-11 attacks (the infamous videotape demonstrated his joy at the success of the attacks, not his participation);

• that the people being imprisoned as terrorists really are terrorists – even though they've received no public trial (whether you believe terrorists deserve to be protected by the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. You don't even know that they are terrorists until they receive a fair trial under the Bill of Rights);

• that the Bush administration won't misuse the private information it's acquiring through its massive violations of civil liberties.

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.

• He's willing to give your tax money to foreign dictators who claim they "need" it (meaning they've gone too deeply in debt by spending money on palaces and other forms of self-aggrandizement);

• He wants to escalate the spending of your tax money on farm subsidies, health care, welfare, government schools, the War on Drugs, propaganda and other programs – none of which are authorized in the Constitution;

• He believes we should trust him and his minions when they tell us the unnamed people they've locked up are not entitled to the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

• He claims he can attack Iraq without a congressional declaration of war – even though the Constitution clearly gives such authority exclusively to Congress.

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?

[MJY1288]

ROFLMAO, Stop you're scaring them

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Sure some of might be classified briefings, but of course all that will leak anyway, unless limited to a very few in Congress."

I believe that it will be limited to a very few in Congress, especially given the leaks they have had problems with as of late.

I still believe that the only stuff we will be hearing is official statements from both the Bush Administration and certain members of Congress, being as vague as possible.

[ravingnutter]

Oops. Got in a hurry and left out a word. I'm not the one who posted the revisionist history. What I was referring to was written during the 1700s. What was posted back to me was written in either the late 1800s or early 1900s. I forget now and don't want to take the time to go back and re-run the google search.Excuse me...what did I post from the 1800's or 1900's...you apparently are thinking of someone else. Both sources in my post were written THIS year on 07/29/02. Actually, it shocked me when I realized they were both written on the same date, believe me, I checked, I wanted to make sure I was not the insane one.

[MJY1288]

Yup, but it's the only thing they can do, name calling and generalizations is why they're where they are. It's called the "Abyss"

[KentuckyWoman]

So America is no different then Saddem???

Guess that depend entirely on one's point of view. I would have to say HUGE difference but folks on the other side an ocean or two might disagree.

[Howlin]

You know how much I care what YOUR OPINION is, don't you?

[justshe]

Oh FINE! I gave up on the wine. And ground some beans. I am GOING to send you the doctor bill from my Ear,Nose,and Throat doc! Fresh ground espresso deluxe w/half and half is NOT fun when it goes UP!

I wonder if KW followed the Bilderburger zen of your post?

[rintense]

The days of thinking the unthinkable will never happen are over. 9-11 is proof of that. Take out Saddam now!

[MJY1288]

"I prefer that my friends help me in personal matters."

Maybe Saddam will pray for you

[Texasforever]

LOL.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Can you REALLY be so naive as to believe that ANY of these madmen are enough of an idiot to hijack 4 jets and use them as guided missles to attack the US? You have GOT to be kidding!!"

In all fairness, Hussein is to a great degree, different than the hijackers. Hussein is not a religious zealot and has a lot more to lose than the hijackers ever had. Sure, Hussein goes through the motions of being a good Muslim, but he doesn't strike me as being too sincere.

Hussein is a crack-pot, but still has a calculating brain and is very protective of his image right now. He dyes his hair and excercies a lot, desperately trying to ward off the inevitable signs of aging. He doesn't want to appear to be the "sick-man" of Iraq and is probably starting to feel very insecure. So insecure in fact, that he never sleeps at the same place twice and moves around in the cover of darkness. Also, he is so paranoid that he has several convincing body doubles.

Yes, Hussein is becoming insecure in his power and does not want to appear to be the aging dictator that he is.

[WRhine]

I think our culture is way more resilient and attractive and effective of assimiliation than you do.

You mean like the assimilation going on in CA and much of the southwest. Yes, I think we are assimilating to them very well. Maybe one of these days the GOP can re-take CA if we offer them enough.

[justshe]

VERY frightening!

Seriously!

One starts to wonder if the 'facility' knows there has been an escape!

[rintense]

Lord, the complacency is already setting in. This is exactly what got us into trouble in the first place. The 90s was an illusion of false security and safety. And we paid for it BIG TIME. Now, some want to go back to thinking it won't happen again. *SIGH*

[Mo1]

Guess that depend entirely on one's point of view. I would have to say HUGE difference but folks on the other side an ocean or two might disagree.

OK .. so why are you so worried about what other people think of us

Why don't we worry about US and protect US and stop Saddem in hurting US

As for the nit wits in the mid east .. I could less if the want to live in a cave just as long as they pose no threat to US and our neighbors

They threw the first swing and we punched back

[justshe]

Agreed, 100%.

And thank you God for giving us the President who can honorably lead our military!

[ravingnutter]

Oh puhleeeeze...spare me the sob stories, I left for work at 5:30 this morning,drove the 52 miles to work, did my job handling payroll which was due early because of the holiday, HR duties, contract administration, purchasing, receiving, accounts payable and receivables, covered things for my boss who is out of town, freeped on my breaks, stayed after work for 30 minutes so hubby could have some time to unwind before I got home, left at 5:15, drove the hour home, cooked dinner, did the dishes, called my kids, tucked hubby in bed, and made coffee for in the morning. Oh, yeah...and I fed the cat. You apparently think you are the only one with a life. Wait a minute...this is a life? What am I thinking...well, the fact remains...I was right.

[KentuckyWoman]

You are simply offensive in your stupid assumptions. We should NOT have been involved in WWII and most of the American public KNEW it. That is why Pearl Harbor was ALLOWED to happen. DC knew about the attack BEFORE it happened and chose not to warn our servicemen and women in the Pacific. The USA was NOT founded to be the police of the entire world. Period. Our government should not be in the business of playing chess with the lives of our armed forces who signed on to protect THEIR Country, not everyone else's. Our founders CLEARLY tried to warn us about foreign entanglements but just since the 1950s has the public forgotten the lessons because they can't remember things being any different. People like you who scream for war without regard to what you will, no doubt, consider 'collateral damage' turn my stomach. There are innocents that will die on both sides unless these asinine police-state powers are curtailed and stopped.

Go ahead - scream for war - just don't come whinning when it's your father, brothers, cousins, son, daughters and others that hold dear wind up being sacrificed on the alter of the nanny-state.

[justshe]

Becky, you missed my point to Kentucky Woman. The point being that in HER view of reality, people don't do bad things to the United States. They wouldn't be so foolish!

[Texasforever]

You are simply offensive in your stupid assumptions. We should NOT have been involved in WWII and most of the American public KNEW it. That is why Pearl Harbor was ALLOWED to happen.

You have just spit on the United States.