So I know I'm not the first one to note this - but - it seems like whenever Bush starts publically coming to someone's defense that is in his cabinet, or praising them - the clock starts ticking.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/21/bush.gonzales.ap/index.html

Story Highlights

• President Bush Monday said that Attorney General Gonzales has his support
• The president says the Gonzales "has done nothing wrong"

All we need to hear is that he's doing a heckuva job and he's toast.

Frankly, I am all spent on how I feel about Gonzalez, so I don't care which way it goes. But this tactic that Bush does, smacks of his other cronies and their ill-fated tenures.

I'm actually kind of hoping for the no confidence vote to go through. The guy needs a black mark on his record after all he's done, even if he never resigns (who cares? let Bush limp along til Jan 20 2009 with the Gonzales ball-and-chain around his neck). I relish the thought of Arlan Specter and Chuck Hagel voting YES on it - so much for DEMOCRATS wanting to oust Gonzales, eh?

Andrew

"...it seems like whenever Bush starts publically coming to someone's defense that is in his cabinet, or praising them - the clock starts ticking."

Oh really? That's small potatoes compared to when "Clinton" has talked about making abortions safe legal and rare. That's because while he talked a good game, he vetoed the partial birth abortion act, essentially signing death warrants of countless unborn babies. Yeah, compared to one who authorized the slaughter of the defenseless, "Bush" is really a bad guy.

http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_abort.html

Herb

Oh really? That's small potatoes compared to when "Clinton" has talked about making abortions safe legal and rare.

Not talked about - did something about:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm

Under Clinton, the number of abortions per year declined from 1.2M to 850K.

That's because while he talked a good game, he vetoed the partial birth abortion act, essentially signing death warrants of countless unborn babies. Yeah, compared to one who authorized the slaughter of the defenseless, "Bush" is really a bad guy.

Clinton wanted to sign the ban on late term abortions but there was no provision in that law for exceptions for the health of the mother. That's why he vetoed it. Anyway, unlike the huge decline in abortions during Clinton's presidency (which you fail to give him credit for), late term abortion is an extremely rare procedure anyway. It's mostly an academic issue, a battle in the war on abortion rights. The phrase "countless unborn babies" is pretty much right on, I'd say, but not in the way you intended.

Andrew

Herb, just this once, can you stay focused in this CURRENT situation? I never implied ANYthing about Clinton's lacking, of which there was TONS - quit trying to steer EVERY SINGLE THREAD into " Oh yeah? Well he started it! " For cryin' out loud, Herb. This has nothing to do with Clinton or abortions or Nixon.

See a thread that makes you feel shame for Bush - quickly divert attention away from it. Hijack it to be about abortion. Would that tactic work with you? no. Then WHY do you do it so often around here?

And if the rest of you don't quit falling for that shit - I'm going to tell mom on you...Andrew ;)

Ok. I sense your frustration. Hear me out, please.

"Clinton wanted to sign the ban on late term abortions but there was no provision in that law for exceptions for the health of the mother."

That is actually bogus, because Mr. Clinton knew as an attorney that by demanding a 'health of the mother' exemption, he could give lip service to pro-lifers whilst effectively eliminating the bill. That's because any doctor could claim a 'health' exemption, on the flimsiest basis. Have a headache? Maybe you're depressed? No problem.

"See a thread that makes you feel shame for Bush - quickly divert attention away from it."

I plead guilty on that for one simple reason. I liken abortion to slavery, or even worse if that's possible. It's such an important issue that when I sense such a type of moral anesthesia, I begin to understand what those opposed to the indecency of slavery might have felt.

On a scale from one to ten, I cannot fathom faulting Mr. Bush when so many more important things in the big picture have occured during other presidents' terms.

That's how I feel. I'll have to check on the number of abortions going down on Mr. Clinton's watch. That would be some comfort. However, if late term abortions went up, talk about a hollow victory.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Herb

Herb writes:
That is actually bogus, because Mr. Clinton knew as an attorney that by demanding a 'health of the mother' exemption, he could give lip service to pro-lifers whilst effectively eliminating the bill. That's because any doctor could claim a 'health' exemption, on the flimsiest basis. Have a headache? Maybe you're depressed? No problem.

Wrong. A doctor risks having his or her license revoked if they make bogus diagnoses like that. It's too bad that you don't give a damn about the health of the mother, though, and are content to let politicians in Washington make health decisions about her pregnancy instead of her and her doctor.

Andrew

Approximately 96% of all abortions are performed for social or convenience reasons. [Wisconsin Right to Life].

At least the woman gets to live. Her baby doesn't have a choice.

Herb

Cry me a river...

And this is relevant because...?

Andrew

Herb....I walk both sides on this but would you rather have some woman bring a crack baby into the world that will wind up busting a cap in your ass for $20 in order to get a fix or have the woman abort it? What about voluntary sterilization programs that would prevent this in the first place?

"And this is relevant because...?"

It's not. There is no other reason to divert attention from the Gonzales story to abortion other than to divert attention to abortion.

Fine. You win, Herb.

Now what are you going to do with your victory? You hijacked a thread about Bush's terrible judgement and made it about Clinton the baby killer. Neat.

This is exactly why you get labeled, Herb. This is a tactic used by your side ALL the time; Shift the focus away from things that make you look bad by pointing to your own personal Hitlers.

I'm not saying this as a threat or anything Herb. But I do not to be played. You are stoking fires when you pull this shit.

So you can have this thread ALL to yourself and the baby killers.

What CJ said.

That kind of trolling accomplishes nothing except to hurt one's cause.

Well I guess I had to be a victim of a troll before I could see it for what it is. That was a first.

Herb, you can never deny that you are a troll now. It was textbook.

Yep, a troll. A CROW-eating troll. The troll once said that if we wanted him to leave, he would. I've made this request numerous times. Let me try again: get lost.

Back on topic . . .

I have to admit that it has been quite stunning for me in watching this president slowly impale his head on a stick over the last 6+ years.

Never again in my lifetime will I ever see such a historic and very public spectacle.

Geez, can't the man do one damn thing right?

You guys want to bash Mr. Bush without any perspective of what his opponents are doing, that's your call. But I see your point, for if I were a supporter of Mr. Bush's opponents, I wouldn't wish to tolerate anyone pointing out my own party's deficiencies, either.

When it comes to our sitting president, I'm probably one of the more objective contributors here, for I did not vote for Mr. Bush in the primary election, nor is he my ideal candidate. However, given the relentless name-calling here, it seems fair to air both sides.

But now the truth comes out. It's simply not enough to pile on a lame duck president all day long. Using the same old political tactics you decry, you guys insist on Bush-bashing UNCHALLENGED. And Mr. Bush is the power hungry one?

Bash on.

Herb

Oh, I see, so you were looking for a way to challenge Bush's ganeral lacking of ability to choose a decent cabinet - and how he tips his hand that someone is not looking good by giving them praise - and your way to challenge that is not to talk about that - but to talk about something else that is equally upsetting.

I will give you credit for giving the whole thing proper weight - if not misdirected.
Yes, Herb. I agree with you and your reasoning: What Bush does so regularly is just like an abortion. It's a decision that costs innocent lives and there is never a good enough reason for him to do it.

Got it.

I've stated plenty of times that Mr. Bush has made many mistakes. If I'd had my way, Alan Keyes would be our president.

But to many, when it comes to our current president, what matters is a sense of proportionality: Ask yourselves who has damaged our country's security more? Mr. Bush and what some call his wrong-headed forays into a country like Iraq, or Mr. Clinton who stripped the military of parts and funding while de-classifying secret missile technology to arm the communist Chinese?

And as part of the security issue, if one agrees that great empires rot from within before they fall, which is the greater threat: those who seek an 'anything goes' morality vs. conservatives who, while they fall short, at least try to set a higher standard?

That's the way I see it. You guys judge for yourselves.
Herb

9-11 happened on Bush Jr.'s watch, not Clinton's. Bush ignored the warnings of the folks Bill left behind and this country paid the price for his pride.

A vague, one liner on a PDM, that stated there were rumers terrorists were going to use airplanes as a weapon. and the intel specialists thought they were talking about overseas.

Based on that, what are you going to do?


However a legacy of Clinton was that the FBI couldnt open a laptop seized from a terrorist suspect, and pass the info over to local authorities.

A vague, one liner on a PDM, that stated there were rumers terrorists were going to use airplanes as a weapon. and the intel specialists thought they were talking about overseas.

Based on that, what are you going to do?


However a legacy of Clinton was that the FBI couldnt open a laptop seized from a terrorist suspect, and pass the info over to local authorities.

Nwokie writes:
A vague, one liner on a PDM, that stated there were rumers terrorists were going to use airplanes as a weapon. and the intel specialists thought they were talking about overseas.

George Tenet was so upset about an imminent terrorist attack in July of 2001 that he called an emergency meeting with Condi Rice at the White House urging immediate action against al Qaeda. For whatever reason, a Principals Committee meeting could not be held on al Qaeda until September 2001. But, that was probably Clinton's fault, too.

However a legacy of Clinton was that the FBI couldnt open a laptop seized from a terrorist suspect, and pass the info over to local authorities.

It happened on George W. Bush's watch. For some reason, though, you blame Clinton, not Bush Jr. - or Bush Sr. or Reagan, etc. Wonder why that is?

Why do Republicans always blame someone else?

Andrew

Nwokie: "Based on that, what are you going to do?"

Answer - Cover your ass when it happens as predicted:

From Condoleezza Rice on May 16, 2002: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

"Why do Republicans always blame someone else?"

Just like everything Bush does is by definition within the law, every plan the neocons conceive of is flawlessly designed and perfectly executed. Mistakes cannot be blamed on such perfection - that makes no sense! It *must* be the fault of something or someone else. It's simple logic Andrew - why do you have such a hard time grasping it?

( )