| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 778
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 4:50 pm: |     |
28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2003, the second-longest vacation of any president in US history. (Record holder Richard Nixon.)
Bush spends August in Texas. He has every year.
Here's a few notes on the President's schedule for August 2001:
August 1, 2001: Nominated six US Attorneys, two judges for affirmation by Congress. Placed phone calls to PM Blair and Ahern to discuss matters between Britain and Northern Ireland. President announces an agreement on the Patients Bill of Rights President addresses National Urban League Conference
August 2, 2001: President meets with House and Senate education leaders.
August 3, 2001: Placed six more nominations for US Attorneys. President speaks to press at meeting to discuss his first six months in office and the agenda for the future. President attends a ceremony in East Room honoring Lance Armstrong.
August 4, 2001: President's Radio Address
August 7, 2001: Press conference in Waco, TX with pool of reporters.
August 8, 2001: President helps build a home with Habitat For Humanity, then addresses the group on faith-based and community initiatives.
August 9, 2001: Addressed the nation on stem-cell research.
August 10, 2001: Announces nomination of two US Ambassadors.
August 11, 2001: President's Radio Address
August 13, 2001: Presidential Ceremony to sign the Agriculture Supplemental Bill. President holds two press conferences with traveling White House pool.
The rest of the month had just as much, if not more, activity. The President was in Texas from August 7-13 and 21-25. The rest of the month was spent traveling to New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri and then back to Washington at the end of the month. A review of the White House news archive for August 2001 shows this month to be anything but a vacation.
Now that was 2001, but 2002, and 2003 have been the same.
It is no vacation, ever if you're the president.
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 779
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks.
The White House NEVER EVER claimed that.
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 780
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
MAdden,
Population IS relevant (which is why NY gets more than Wyoming does, but not necessarily per capita). |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 186
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Bush spends August in Texas. He has every year.
That doesn't make it okay.
You left August 6th, 2001 off your rundown...why is that? Perhaps because it would read like this:
August 6, 2001: President fails to recognize the importance of a security briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States."
The rest of that rundown is pathetic. We're supposed to believe he's not slacking because some days featured a meeting or a few phone calls? A radio address?
It is no vacation, ever if you're the president.
It certainly shouldn't be, but it was for Bush. That's the whole point. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 187
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks.
The White House NEVER EVER claimed that.
What a coincidence that more than 2/3 of the country collectively got the wrong impression. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 784
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 7:37 pm: | |
Duncan...i was not responding to your post.
BTW...good luck with the film. |
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 2824
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:57 pm: | |
sylad..evidently not.
and thanks  |
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 2825
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:08 pm: | |
quote:Nope, can't dispute that one, Bush has far more grassroots supporters than Kerry does.
why is it "grass roots support" when its for Bush
and "illegal soft money" when its for Kerry?
quote:69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks. The White House NEVER EVER claimed that
These are the actual quotes
President George Bush, 1 May 2003 "The liberation of Iraq removed... an ally of al-Qa'ida."
Vice-President Cheney, 22 January 2004 "There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."
Donald Rumsfeld, 14 November 2002 "Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida."
Condoleezza Rice, 17 September 2003 "Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged."
the 9/11 commission report forced Bush to admit publicly that there was no direct connection between Sadaam Hussein and Al Queda and yet just a few days later Cheney is out there claiming that the former Iraqi leader was "a patron of terrorism [with] long-established ties with al-Qa'ida''The White House NEVER EVER claimed that
And that Michael is THE SCARIEST THING ON THE LIST. The White House also never said imminent threat, or did they? Look, no matter how smart you are or are not, you have to understand perception is reality. If I tell a lie long enough it becomes an assimilated truth and I cannot tell anymore if its real or not. The fact that 69% of the population believes the White House made those claims is in itself scary. Its semantics, and you cannot hide behind them.
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1368
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
In his acceptance speech at the RNC, Bush said he "learned the lesson of 9/11" and that's why he attacked Iraq.
Kerry ought to say something like
"Yup, he learned the lesson - when you have a problem you don't know how to solve, change the subject". |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 785
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
why is it "grass roots support" when its for Bush and "illegal soft money" when its for Kerry?
Did you READ the factoid?
$113m Amount of total hard money the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign received, a record.
$11.5m Amount of hard money raised through the Pioneer programme, the controversial fund-raising process created for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. (Participants pledged to raise at least $100,000 by bundling together cheques of up to $1,000 from friends and family. Pioneers were assigned numbers, which were included on all cheques, enabling the campaign to keep track of who raised how much.)
This was HARD money, subject to the $1000 per contributor contribution limits... Thats why. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 786
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
And there is no semantics.
Iraq under Saddam WAS an ally of Al Quaeda AND Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged (thats the middle east you know).
Nowhere could you point to anyone in the administration that said Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Your side is repeating the lies over and over. This is evidence of that. Please show me where anyone said that Saddam was involved in 9/11! You can't, but you repeat over and over "thats not what they said, but its what they wanted us to think".
What BS. They wanted us to think exactly what they said. That Saddam was a threat, that he fostered Islamic terrorists (including AQ), and he could provide terror groups (like AQ) funding, training, and weapons. That is what they said, over and over.
I don't for a second believe that 7 out of 10 people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. And the Whitehouse NEVER said it either, so that "Number" is totally bogus.
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 189
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:50 pm: | |
I don't for a second believe that 7 out of 10 people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Typical right wing logic. When facts disagree with a theory, discard the facts.
Deny, deny, deny. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 80
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:33 pm: | |
"Iraq under Saddam WAS an ally of Al Quaeda."
Of course, you're a roving reporter AND a CIA operative. If you say it, it must be true.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
Any thinking person would get the inference. Note "thinking" person.
(Please cut and paste information off some right-wing website to counter).
|
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 2828
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:42 pm: | |
Christian Science Monitor
"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks"
Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation
"Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement"
INTERVENTION MAGAZINE
"Wesley Clark, said he received a call the day of September 11th from people “around” the White House telling him he must find a way to link Iraq with the events of that day."
NEWSMAX
" Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:26 p.m. EDT
Brokaw Raps Iraqi PM for Linking Saddam to 9/11
NBC "Nightly News" anchorman Tom Brokaw was so dismayed Tuesday night when Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi linked Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks that he actually reprimanded him during his interview.
When Brokaw asked the new Iraqi leader if he could "understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States?" Dr. Allawi responded:
"We know that this is an extension to what has happened in New York. And the war [has] been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism."
Plainly miffed that Dr. Allawi hadn't accepted the U.S. media's attempt to cover-up links between Saddam, al Qaida and 9/11, Brokaw reprimanded him as cameras rolled:
"Prime minister, I’m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida."
But Dr. Allawi refused to back down, telling the top TV anchor:
"No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can’t vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists."
Is it any wonder with the above statements that the below poll results exist. Michael you are a smart man, obviously.. but you do not know it all.
Perception is reality. And the perception was clearly made that Saddam was directly linked to 9-11 despite your assertions that no one ever said he was, except some Iraqi PRIME MINISTER.
USA TODAY POLL: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link.
WASHINGTON POST POLL: 69% beleive Saddam, 9-11 link.
Gallop Poll question
""Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?"
1/29-30/04 (Was) 49 (Was Not)39 (Unsure)12
Actual Washington post question
How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?
1(was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks
very likely 32 somewhat likely 37 NET 69
2). has provided assistance to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network
Very likely 51 somewhat likely 31 NET 82
3). was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction
Very likely 62 somewhat likely 22 NET 84
4) had already developed weapons of mass destruction
Very likely 51 somewhat likely 27 NET 78
Time for bed. But these numbers all point to a public that no matter how hard you try Michael thinks that Saddam was linked to 9/11
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
The puppet serves his master well, it seems. |
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 2832
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
I serve myself. I am merely pointing out the fact that more than just a few people have the impression the the Bush administration has linked Saddam and 9-11. I just set about to document some of the other people who disagree with Mr. Janay. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 787
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
I didn't know that the Iraqi prime minister was in the Bush administration.
The Whitehouse NEVER said it.
Plenty of others have, and I'd give weight to Allawi's opinion (especially over Tom Brokaws). After reading Allawi's viewpoint, I may be one of the 7 out of 10. They may be right or wrong, but the fact is that the Whitehouse never said it, and all of your semantic contortions will never make it true that they did say it.
PErception doesn't change the facts, and the fact is that The Bush administration NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 788
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
OK, that's another point of view. But your partisan cut-n-pasting hasn't disproved even one the four facts you selected:
1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).
Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.
All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements.
600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.
0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.
While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say.
Seems to disprove it completely, didn't you read? |
bobk
Citizen
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6077
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
The F-102 was an interceptor, not a fighter. Its primary roll was to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. It was the United State's first all weather (meaning night and instrument conditions) jet interceptor. It was obsolete by the time it was assigned to the Air National Guard.
According to recently released and found records Bush had a total of around 350 flight hours in his six years of service. This is about one hour a week on average.
Fact Boy |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 191
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say.
Seems to disprove it completely, didn't you read?
I did read, and you've disproved exactly nothing. Harmon and Campenni were in Bush's squadron in Texas, not Alabama. Nobody denies that Bush showed up in Texas. It was after he requested the transfer to Alabama that things get a tad hazy.
Which is where you're hanging your hat on Calhoun, who "remembers" seeing Bush in Alabama in summer of '72, though Bush's transfer wasn't approved until September of that year.
Calhoun is LYING.
And that idea that there are scads of credible witnesses to Bush's service that the White House just doesn't feel like calling back is LAUGHABLE. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 193
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 5:08 pm: | |
Amazing what you can discover when you take a step beyond cutting and pasting from FreeRepublic.com. |
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 2839
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
Should read todays Boston Globe. Some more interesting things for Bush to refute. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 7:16 pm: | |
I wasn't referring to you, Duncan. |
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 2840
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
oh, ok. hard to tell by the proximity |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2336
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
All this hoo-hah about Bush's National Guard service won't cost him a thing with his base and the military vote. However, Kerry's dubious recollections about his Viet Nam exploits will cost him with patriotic conservative democrats who have been effectively given the "OK" to vote against Kerry. They've been waiting for an excuse to dump that loser, and they have one, in addition to his evolving, nuanced and non-sensical positions on the war. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:20 pm: | |
My fellow lefties, I think cjc is right that this National Guard thing is not a big issue with most Americans. Amazingly, neither is the concept that W is clearly not smart enough to be POTUS, as evidenced by hundreds of incredibly stupid things he has said over the years.
The neocon political strategy of "keep 'em AFRAID" is terribly effective... the Kerry team has got to find a better way to deal with it.
I just hope Kerry gives W a proper thrashing in the debates. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 201
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:55 pm: | |
Notehead...looks like Kerry might be thrashing an empty podium:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040905/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_debates _040905205035
Admittedly, not a huge difference intellectually from Bush, but you get the point.
Of course, this debate dodging is no more than a desperate ploy by the Bush team to do the one thing that has won them debates and elections time and time again...lower expectations. Bush will eventually agree to this debate, and if he shows up and doesn't soil himself, the pundits will score it as a win for him. I can only hope the voters see through this pathetic strategy. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Interesting... I'm betting that the Bush campaign is having trouble finding a debating coach willing to work for them. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2357
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Bush is stupid, but Kerry is smart. He's so smart he can't make any sense on the issue of our time -- the war. He's so smart that he overlooked the animous that Viet Nam vets have held for him for 30 years without even trying to mollify it. He's so smart that he picked Edwards for his southern strategy -- a man who couldn't win reelection in his own state of NC.
Bush is agreeing to the same amount of debates that the brilliant Clinton did in 1996. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page