Back in February when Bush had his one on one interview with Tim Russert(which I closely watched] early in the interview he made that very statement.

From the official whitehouse website

The attacks of September 11th changed America - and in President Bush's words, "in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment." President Bush declared war against terror and has made victory in the war on terrorism and the advance of human freedom the priorities of his Administration. Already, the United States military and a great coalition of nations have liberated the people of Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban regime and denied al Qaeda its safe haven of operations. Thousands of terrorists have been captured or killed and operations have been disrupted in many countries around the world. In the President's words, "our Nation - this generation - will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)



Some research into his 'foreign policy' revealed some disturbing ( to me) facts. I won;t enumerate those at this time but if you are curious just type in Bush foreign policy or Vulcan Bush and draw your own conclusions.



This morning my attention was directed to the following three articles

Missteps on Economy Worry Bush Supporters

By Jonathan Weisman and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 13, 2004; Page A01


A string of glaring missteps by President Bush's economic team has raised alarm among the president's supporters that his economic policymakers may have lost the most basic ability to formulate a persuasive message or anticipate the political consequences of their actions.
Full Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54446-2004Mar12.html)



Official Says He Was Told to Withhold Medicare Data
Sat Mar 13,12:54 AM ET Add Politics - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!


By Amy Goldstein, Washington Post Staff Writer

The government's longtime chief analyst of Medicare costs said yesterday that Bush administration officials threatened to fire him last year if he disclosed to Congress that he believed the prescription drug legislation favored by the White House would prove far more expensive than lawmakers had been told.

ARTICLE (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=1&u=/washpost/20040313/pl_washpost/a54524_2004mar12)



Dems Maintain Pressure on Medicare Law
Fri Mar 12, 6:46 PM ET Add U.S. Government - AP to My Yahoo!


WASHINGTON - Democratic lawmakers on Friday called for an investigation into whether the Bush administration's Medicare chief pressured a subordinate to withhold estimates of the cost of last year's Medicare legislation.



During months of writing the Medicare prescription drug benefit and other changes to the government-run health program for older and disabled Americans, the administration refused to provide estimates of the legislation.


Another article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=513&e=1&u=/ap/20040312/ap_on_go_ot/medicare_costs)


So despite some progress in the economic recovery, many economists ( don't ask for sources you can find as many saying good things as bad things) are reluctant to say the recovery is sustainable. That coupled with the slow job growth has many people ( ordinary types like me) wondering.


So my question is this

If GW is indeed 'the war president' is that enough to ensure his reelection?

Wow I figured the Bushies would be climbing all over themselves to denounce Kerry.

I figured the Ketchup supporters would be slamming Bush.

Guess I figured wrong.

Won't be the last time.

DD is looking better and better.

Now THERE is a president!!

http://www.mindspring.com/~indguard/bushflightsuit.gif

Surely you jest.

That picture symbolizes what a president is for you?

Spending thousands of taxpayer dollars to take a short flight dressed in a flight suit to deliver a speech in front of a banner saying Mission Acomplished ( yeah right) is not my idea of a real president.

Well to each his own.

Weak, Simone, VERY weak criticism.

Originally posted by ColWTH
Now THERE is a president!!

http://www.mindspring.com/~indguard/bushflightsuit.gif


LOL!

Dude, how much does the GOP pay you to spread this horsecrap??

ColWTH

I had high hopes for Bush as president when I voted for him in 2000. I am conservative by nature but his 'compassionate conservative' campaigning attracted me thoroughly cuz I have a softy streak( probably the womanly side of me kicking in).

I started becoming disenchanted with him when he proposed GOVERNMENT FUNDING of faith-based charities.

The DHS creation was the next thing - my reaction OH NO ANOTHER GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY

I often listen to his radio addresses. He talked often about spending restraint yet his actual record does not support those words.

I personally deplore war but I BELIEVED HIM when he said we were in grave and growing danger. I don't believe him so much now.


Now if you want to 'brag' about him getting the partial birth abortion law passed I can go for that.

Now if you want to 'brag' about the tax cuts - well I did see a smalll increase. I think around 10 per week.

There have been other things that are in his favor.

But I just thought that picture you posted was NOT one of his better defining moments.


But then to each his own.

I agree totally about the spending. I am NOT behind him there.

However, I feel his war efforts have ALL been spot on. I do NOT subscribe to the ridiculous "He lied" theory that is easily disproven simply by looking at what he SAID!

I am voting for him SOLELY on his war efforts. His efforts against terrorism and his work in the Middle East. I am not happy at all with his domestic agenda but do have some small hopes he will moderate the spending in the second term from some sources I have seen. (By the way, I see nothing what so ever wrong with the Faith Based program per se)

But, mostly I just put that pic up to steam the wacko leftists.

... Oh, and I disagree with the photo not being a good moment, too.

That was a GREAT moment. That horror, Clinton, could never have done such a great little thing as that landing. Neither could Gore ... though I am sure he would have claimed he invented Aircraft Carriers.

In fact, I think if we vote any one other than Bush in this year it will be the biggest disaster for our national security and the world's we ever made.

So you think it okay that MY tax dollars should fund YOUR "faith based" charity?

What's the difference between that and Social Security or welfare? Or the many other redistributions of money programs?

Why because it is "faith based" is it now okay?

I want rhe government to get out of the social services business as much as possible. Including faith based charities is NOT the way to do that.



SO you think spending thousands of dollars to fly offshore to make an announcement is admirable? ( Shakes head in bewilderment-maybe its a man thing)

Originally posted by ColWTH
... Oh, and I disagree with the photo not being a good moment, too.

That was a GREAT moment. That horror, Clinton, could never have done such a great little thing as that landing. Neither could Gore ... though I am sure he would have claimed he invented Aircraft Carriers.


Yup, wasting our tax money for his little photo-op to declare an end to his BS war in Iraq that he should be impeached and jailed over was a great thing.. :rolleyes:

The worst president of all time is the best in your eyes, I guess that explains a lot..

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily



SO you think spending thousands of dollars to fly offshore to make an announcement is admirable? ( Shakes head in bewilderment-maybe its a man thing)


Nope, not a man thing, it must be something among the clueless..

A little something to add to the thread..


White House Intimidation: A Brief History of Threats and Defamation



A look at the historical record shows that the Bush Administration has summarily fired, threatened, intimidated and defamed anyone who has had the courage to tell the truth about major policies facing America.

MEDICARE ACTUARY THREATENED WITH FIRING IF HE TOLD TRUTH TO CONGRESS: "The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan. Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told colleagues last June that he would be fired if he revealed numbers relating to the higher estimate to lawmakers." [Source: Knight-Ridder, 3/11/04 (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8164060.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)]

FMR. TREASURY SECRETARY THREATENED WITH INVESTIGATION AFTER TELLING TRUTH: Three days after Paul O'Neill criticized the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, the Administration "began an investigation into whether any laws or regulations had been violated by O'Neill." The probe came despite O'Neill having specifically "cleared all of the documents with the Treasury general counsel's office." The probe ended up fully absolving O'Neill. [Source: AP, 1/13/04 (http://truthout.org/docs_04/011404F.shtml); Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/14/04 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04014/261272.stm); CNN, 2/6/04 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/06/oneill.cleared/)]

LINDSEY FIRED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT COSTS: "Top White House adviser Larry Lindsey [was fired] when he told a newspaper that an Iraq war could cost $200 billion." [Source: Christian Science Monitor, 12/17/02 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1217/p08s03-comv.html)]

ZINNI FIRED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY: "General Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine general who was Bush's Middle East mediator, angered the White House when he told a foreign policy forum in October that Bush had far more pressing foreign policy priorities than Iraq and suggested there could be a prolonged, difficult aftermath to a war. He was not reappointed as Mideast envoy." [Source: AP, 7/27/03]

TROOPS THREATENED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT COMBAT IN IRAQ: After soldiers in Iraq raised questions about the Bush Administration's deceptive WMD comments, Gen. John Abizaid said no soldiers "are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States. Whatever action may be taken, whether it's a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, is up to the commanders on the scene." [Source: ABC News, 7/16/03 (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030716_Abizaid.html)]

REPORTER DEFAMED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT TROOPS: "A White House operative alerted cyber-gossip Matt Drudge to the fact that [ABC News correspondent Jeffrey] Kofman is not only openly gay, he's Canadian. Drudge said he was unaware of the ABC story until 'someone from the White House communications shop tipped me to it'…White House press secretary Scott McClellan tried to be nonchalant, indicating that he wasn't planning an investigation of the incident." [Source: Washington Post, 7/18/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8158-2003Jul17?language=printer) and 7/20/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17303-2003Jul19&notFound=true)]

GENERAL DISPARAGED FOR TELLING TRUTH ABOUT TROOP LEVEL NEEDS: Despite the fact that it appears he was probably accurate, "Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require 'several hundred thousand troops.' Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate 'wildly off the mark.'" [Source: USA Today, 6/3/03 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm)]

CIA BLAMED FOR TELLING TRUTH ABOUT BOGUS IRAQ-NUCLEAR CLAIM: Despite the CIA having made advance objections to the White House about the false Iraq/nuclear claim, "President Bush and his national security adviser yesterday placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency for the inclusion in this year's State of the Union address of questionable allegations that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear weapons." [Source: Washington Post, 7/12/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45901-2003Jul11?language=printer) and 7/14/03 (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/13/1058034878151.html)]

CIA OPERATIVE EXPOSED BECAUSE HUSBAND TOLD TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ: According to government sources, "Administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Africa. 'Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,' a senior official said of the alleged leak." [Source: Washington Post, 9/28/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11208-2003Sep27.html)]


It's shameful, and where is the outrage??? Why isn't the media focusing on these things? Why does the Bush admin get a free pass????

Originally posted by ColWTH
Now THERE is a president!!

http://www.mindspring.com/~indguard/bushflightsuit.gif

geez, a kid is running the planet's only hyperpower ...
scary ...

The carrier landing was appropriate in that it reinforced his respect for the military and the job they do.

I have no problem with Faith based initiatives because they do a better job than the gov't. I wish there was no need for those services or the need for gov't interference, but it is so.

I will not vote for Bush this time around due to his piss poor record on the security of the US, along with a few other issues.

Originally posted by Bochephus

I have no problem with Faith based initiatives because they do a better job than the gov't. I wish there was no need for those services or the need for gov't interference, but it is so.



I have no problem with Faith based charities either totally agreeing that they do a better job than the government.

I have a big problem with Bush's proposal to use GOVERNMENT FUNDING for these faith based charities.

Churches and corporations need to stop looking to the GOVERNMENT for their financial needs. Eliminate the middleman(ie GOVERNMENT) who just take part of the dollars to fund their mismanagement.

Simone,

>>>So you think it okay that MY tax dollars should fund YOUR "faith based" charity? What's the difference between that and Social Security or welfare? Or the many other redistributions of money programs?

I agree with the direction of your point. In truth I don’t want the government to do ANY charity program at all! However, if there ARE charity programs run by the government there is NO reason to exclude religious organizations in the mix. That is not fair, not American and not efficacious to charity. Private, religious groups ALWAYS run charity programs BETTER than ANY other type. If your goal is REALLY charity (and not lining pockets of buddies like all the other "charities" are) then giving money to a religious organization is the best way to get that money to the people who need it.

>>>Why because it is "faith based" is it now okay?

Like I said, faith based or not makes no difference. It is not fair to exclude religious organizations.

>>>I want the government to get out of the social services business as much as possible. Including faith based charities is NOT the way to do that.

See my answer above.

>>>SO you think spending thousands of dollars to fly offshore to make an announcement is admirable?

You see, he was going there ANYWAY! It made NO DIFFERENCE HOW he got there. The money would be spent regardless. The way he went there was a stunt absolutely. But one that lifted the spirits of the men in the service and an effective one all the way around.

Did you excuse Clinton sitting on the Tarmac at an airport in Airforce 1 spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people’s money to get a haircut? Was that a better use of money by the president?

Originally posted by ColWTH
Simone,

>>>So you think it okay that MY tax dollars should fund YOUR "faith based" charity? What's the difference between that and Social Security or welfare? Or the many other redistributions of money programs?

I agree with the direction of your point. In truth I don’t want the government to do ANY charity program at all! However, if there ARE charity programs run by the government there is NO reason to exclude religious organizations in the mix. That is not fair, not American and not efficacious to charity. Private, religious groups ALWAYS run charity programs BETTER than ANY other type. If your goal is REALLY charity (and not lining pockets of buddies like all the other "charities" are) then giving money to a religious organization is the best way to get that money to the people who need it.

Glad you are getting my point.

One of the main complaints I have about Bush is centered around things like this. Although he campaigned on less government, adding this initiative would increase BUREAUCRACY for sure and would either deprive some other area where tax money is needed or we would be subject to yet another one of his increases.


>>>Why because it is "faith based" is it now okay?

Like I said, faith based or not makes no difference. It is not fair to exclude religious organizations.

Why is it not FAIR in your opinion? Is it fair that MY tax dollars have to fund a religious organization of not my choosing?


>>>SO you think spending thousands of dollars to fly offshore to make an announcement is admirable?

You see, he was going there ANYWAY! It made NO DIFFERENCE HOW he got there. The money would be spent regardless. The way he went there was a stunt absolutely. But one that lifted the spirits of the men in the service and an effective one all the way around.

I guess its all on how you look at it.

Did you excuse Clinton sitting on the Tarmac at an airport in Airforce 1 spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people’s money to get a haircut? Was that a better use of money by the president?

Absolutely not. If you have not picked up on it by this time I am totally against government waste no matter who the perpetrator.

I get cranky when I read about Bush (or any other politician) on one of his 'official' trips when I and everyone else know it is mainly politicking. Just look at his travel plans for this week. I bet the taxpayers ( all of them not just his supporters ) are footing the majority of the bill.

Simone,

>>>Why is it not FAIR in your opinion? Is it fair that MY tax dollars have to fund a religious organization of not my choosing?

Why is it "fair" that your tax dollars go to a charity you wouldn't support? There is NO difference between any of it. THAT is my point. The religion has NOTHING to do with it.

Funding a religious charity is NOT the same as funding the religion itself! Government money, to be fair, MUST go to all equally. If the government will fund charities then there is NO reason to exclude religious charities.

I don't care a whit what religion you do not "like" just as no one cares a whit what charity I like or do NOT like. The point is if they are going to do it anway they better do it fairly.

However, all that aside, I agree with you that I don't want government in ANY of that.

No education spending
No housing spending
No Welfare, social security, etc., etc., etc.