George W. Bush Says Keystone Pipeline Is a 'No-Brainer’

Newsmax ^ | 3-13-12

[STARWISE]

TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from landlocked Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast, is a “no-brainer” that would create jobs and bolster the economy, former President George W. Bush said on Tuesday.

The $7.6 billion Keystone XL line would generate private-sector employment and government revenue, he said at an American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers conference in San Diego. The U.S. government’s budget deficit is unsustainable and must be reduced by supporting industry, Bush said.

“The clear goal ought to be how to get the private sector to grow,” said Bush, who spoke during a luncheon at the conference. “If you say that, then an issue like the Keystone pipeline becomes an easy issue.”

[ohioWfan]

he just didn't measure up in your imperious estimation, so you whine because he just didn't please YOU totally.

You nailed it here, STARWISE.

It's all about THEM. It's all about their self-admitted 'visceral' anger. It's about being able to pontificate and bloviate on the internet without having to do ONE BLASTED THING to keep America safe from enemy attack.

I believe Bush hatred, at its core, is cowardice. It is weakness. It is immaturity. It is self-centeredness. It is arrogance. And it inwardly destroys the people who so tenaciously hang on to their emotionally driven, irrational frenzy.

And every time I see some internet coward say that Bush is stupid (upthread), or that he should go back to his 'wormhole' (also upthread), or one like nathan who admits visceral anger and then bloviates endlessly while, again, having no responsibility to actually DO anything, I realize that my respect for President Bush, and his ability to ignore such nonsense and do what he believed was RIGHT, and best for the country he LOVES, should become greater, not less.

So, in a way, poor nathan and his fellow haters do President Bush a service by showing us the antithesis of the courage it took to lead this nation in one of its darkest hours.

Shall we thank them for using a negative to prove a positive?? :)

[samtheman]

I respect your posts, ohioWfan, and there are many things I am grateful for from the Bush years. But I’m sorry, I must put myself in the “hater” group.

The very fact that Bush (and the entire Bush family) know right from wrong, and yet consistently, repeatedly and maddeningly refused to stand up for Right in a forceful and aggressive manner (while all around him the media were blaring their lies, not just about America but about him, too), and the very fact that Bush (and the entire Bush family) consistently made obsequious friendships with the worst of the worst, the most horrid of the horrid... this makes me hate him.

Obama is the enemy, that we all understand. But what was Bush? Was he our friend? Really? Many of us do NOT understand a clear answer to that question.

But keep up the good work. Like I say, I respect you for what you do here.

[samtheman]

Your post #77 is so good that I want to reserve the right to go back later and comment on it. I don’t have time now.

Right now I just want to comment on your opening statement, that Bush “is not a movement conservative, in fact he is not a conservative at all but rather he is a patrician with loyalties to family, friends, and country. His politics are animated not by conservative ideology but by a noblisse oblige which, as a substitute for political philosophy, move him to act from loyalty and love of country.”

That is so obviously and demonstrably true that it practically goes without saying. It’s virtually axiomatic.

[woofie]

Your next candidate (Gingrich, Palin, or whoever) gets elected.

In 4 or 8 years you will be similarly discouraged and disappointed...
He /she will have not measured up to what you expected.

This explains 90% of BDS. It is human nature.

The other 10% has to do with the zeitgeist

If at this moment the consensus on the right was that Ronald Reagan was a witty wonderful funny old man who got taken to the cleaners by the left
You and others would feel ambivalent about him.

The left has been forced into submission about him. They still regard him as a fake who suckered the American people...(hence Obama wants to smile and emulate him) so they (the left) do not form the zeitgeist,

In Bush’s case the zeitgeist has been formed by the left and you and others who dislike Bush are being swayed by it.

The zeitgeist is changing and will change....
I watched it change after Reagan was out of office.
GW Bush will someday be regarded as Reagan is....
The left will always hate him.... but they will soon have to shut up because of the disaster Obama is bringing them.

[samtheman]

GW Bush will someday be regarded as Reagan is....

Ahhhhh... NOT!

[woofie]

You just dont remember when Reagan was not Reagan

[Mr. Jeeves]

He has an amazing an frightening ability to be absolutely oblivious to the truth.

Or he was simply carrying out the imperatives of people we know nothing about. Just like his successor.

[ohioWfan]

Obama is the enemy, that we all understand. But what was Bush? Was he our friend? Really? Many of us do NOT understand a clear answer to that question.

I'm sorry that you weren't paying close enough attention to know the answer to that question, sam. The advantage some of us have over the rest of you, is that we were paying attention.....and still are.

IF you are a 'hater'.....(and I doubt that you are), then you, like nathanbedford, are thinking with your loins and not your brains.

It is a visceral response and not an intellectual, rational one, where you define 'right' as what you want politically, what you feel is best, what you personally desire, how easily you are persuaded by the emotional drivel around you (left or pseudo-con).....and, in time, if you are a thoughtful person (which I believe you are), you will develop a more accurate perspective on what President Bush really did, and why.

As I said, I would not describe you as a 'hater.' You clearly think too well for that, and eventually thinking brings one out of the emotional groupthink so pervasive around here.....the thing that makes so many FReepers fearful of admitting the very real respect the majority of us have for President Bush, in spite of a few political differences.....or even a lot of differences.

(Only pinging nathan because I was referring to his loins, not because I want to be the victim of another one of his bloviations.... :)

[ohioWfan]

Amen! How many have forgotten the 'visceral' negatives given to Reagan by these same ubercons.

Reagan even spoke of it, and how he would never satisfy this group.

This is the SAME GROUP we are dealing with here, woofie. They were the Reagan haters of the 80's while we were the Reagan respecters. If there had been an internet forum at that time, it would be you and I defending Reagan against the same gripers.

[ohioWfan]

Or he was simply carrying out the imperatives of people we know nothing about. Just like his successor.

Cue Twilight Zone theme.....

(Can't believe anyone actually admits to that kind of left-like conspiracy theory 'thinking' in public! Wow. Scary.)

[samtheman]

I thank you for your vote of confidence in me and I repeat again my respect for you and your posts, even if I don’t agree with everything you say.

You are an excellent spokesperson for your point of view and Bush should be glad to have someone of your caliber speaking up for him in a forum like this.

[nathanbedford]

Despite pleas in previous posts pleading that FReepers on this thread avoid the ad hominem, you have undertaken quite gratuitously to disparage two conservatives in at least two posts which are all the more remarkable not just because you commit the very sins which you falsely accuse us of but because your posts which are addressed to me are utterly unadorned by any relevant fact whatsoever.

I will let the reader judge who was "bloviating", slandering, and demagoging and who is engaging in reasoned and temperate conservative analysis.

[ohioWfan]

What ad hominem?

That your self-admission of a 'visceral' response to even the most inoffensive words by President Bush is not evidence for thoughtful, temperate conservative analysis? Or that such a response, made safely on an internet forum is not a sign of courage, whereas President Bush's defense of this nation at his own expense, and at great risk, is very much a sign of courageous patriotism?

(Did you risk your life to protect America every single day between 2001 and 2009 as he did or did you sit at home criticizing him? - No need to answer that.)

You said the word 'visceral' yourself, nathan. I don't think my referring to your own words can be referred to as 'slander,' your protestations nothwithstanding.

You have condemned yourself, sir, and before I arrived on the scene to make the observation.

[ohioWfan]

I respect you as well, sam. We agree on far, far more issues than we disagree.

Thanks for the thoughtful conversation.

[woofie]

I for one thought you won the “bloviating”contest hands down

[samtheman]

ohioWfan, I do think you were wrong for your casual dismissal of natanbedford’s posts.

I suggest you click on his “in forum” link and familiarize youself with one of the truly great writers on this forum.

[nathanbedford]

Distortion by selectively quoting is a tactic of argumentation which is despicable and is evidence of a small mind and a weak argument. Why don't you quote all that I said:

Everything George Bush said is true so why do I have a visceral, irrational angry reaction when I read his words? Why is my anger not directed at Barack Obama?

The full quote quite candidly addresses my own feelings and acknowledges them to be "visceral," that is, not cerebral and to be "irrational," that is, not to be credited to be reasonable. Indeed, the full quote makes it clear that what George Bush said was, "true."

Hardly the rhetoric of a Bush "hater."

I rhetorically asked the reader, "why is my anger not directed at Barack Obama?" to alert the reader that my reaction was open to question. For you to then seize on self-criticism which I had already stipulated to the reader and hold it up as some sort of egregious departure from decorum on my part is cynical, demagogic and cheap.

I stand behind every observation about George Bush that I made in my two longer posts and again repeat that you have not advanced a single relevant fact in rebuttal.

Let the reader judge.

I also reject every criticism you make of me for lacking "courage." By your standard no one would ever be able to analyze or criticize any political figure on these threads because they have not served in the office themselves. I remind you there are 300 million Americans and only one can serve as President at a time but every other American is constitutionally authorized to criticize his performance.

That you would so disallow fair political speech about a public official is equally absurd and contrary to American tradition. I am sure no fair-minded FReeper who has ever posted on these threads will take you seriously.

[ohioWfan]

If you are indeed, not a George Bush hater, then none of my words about Bush haters apply to you, do they? And there is no offense.

As for your accusation of 'distortion,' I reject that as a distortion in and of itself.

As for your initial (full) statement regarding your viscera, and not directing your feelings toward Obama, but rather at Bush..... that made your comment even more offensive to thoughtful conservatives, not less. Therefore, had I quoted you in full context, I would have had more to criticize, because it is, in its essence, the antithesis of conservatism to direct one's emotions at the wrong person.

As for your ad hominems about my being egregiously offensive, cynical, demagogic and cheap, I will let the readers judge. I'm sure your loyal following will agree. The more objective among us most likely will call your offenses at least equal to mine, and perhaps more 'egregious.'

At any rate, I am certain that you will continue to expound endlessly on your vast wisdom and superior intellect, as you are wont to do.

Next time, perhaps, you shouldn't admit up front that you're really doing it from the gut and not the brain.

As for the 'courage'...perhaps a diversion, but a quality in President Bush that you intellectually and emotionally deny, and one that is a character definer for those of us who hold to higher values than our personal political opinions.

As for others not taking me seriously, it is more than clear that a large number of thoughtful conservative freepers do, so your judgment to the contrary is vapid. (In other words, I don't care. :)

Last word. Obama is the enemy. Get over your emotions about Bush and do something to rid this great Republic of the Marxist terrorist.

[ohioWfan]

I will agree that nathan's writings are 'great.'

I just define the term to mean 'large' and not 'high quality.' :)

Saying things with more words and more pomposity is not the sign of greatness, in my view.

But then I clearly disagree with nathan about what greatness really is. Political opinion and wordiness is not how I define greatness. Political action is.

That's why President Bush will eventually be recognized as 'great' and nathanbedford, courageous avatar notwithstanding, will most likely not.

[ohioWfan]

btw, I kind of 'casually dismiss' anyone who only writes anonymously on an internet forum and thinks somehow that he is superior to everyone else.

There is a great risk of self-aggrandizement when one is considered to be a big fish in a small pond (even one as big as FR....it's still small), and doesn't even use his own name.

It's all about perspective. President Bush saved the country from obliteration by terrorists at his own risk. Every single day. Self-sacrificing, taking more abuse and lies directed at him than any President in my long lifetime. And never losing a bit of his honesty, integrity or class.

Nathan writes anonymous words.....lots and lots of them. Is that being great at anything? He is also uber sensitive to being criticized (as evidenced by his responses to me). Is that being great?

Most of us don't make the mistake he is making. We know we're just writing our own opinions and have no delusions of grandeur about what that means, or how important that makes us.

That's part of the reason we are humble enough to recognize what President Bush actually accomplished for this country (regardless of our differences), and how much his courage and integrity will mean to future generations.