When Bush Lies, People Die

Good morning!
I just wanted to comment on your post.
I was a little concerned that you may be taking things a little too seriously with politics in that you are really going to lose sleep over the Bush administration? I realize Bush runs the free world in some aspects, but he doesn't run this household and certainly doesn't affect my stress levels directly. Yes I voted for Bush, and he helped our small business greatly in his agenda, so I am probably biased.
The media is generally left-wing, which is not a bad thing I suppose, but even still, I try and get my news from FoxNews which says it tries it's best to report the facts with no right or left twist. I would like to believe that, but I am a cautious person, so there is no sure thing. What you may have heard in the news about the scandals concerning the Bush administration could possibly have a twist on it, making it more flaming than the facts really are, and if you don't admit that possibility, you have blinders on. I listen to talk radio and find that it gets my anxiety levels up about how many crazy ppl there are out there, so I just turn it off. Is this passive? Sure, thank you very much. I vote with what I believe is enough info to make a valid choice, but maybe I'm really just 'not paying enough attention'. To me, there are much more important things than politics and all the little intricacies and scandals. Things like starting a family, raising well-adjusted children, living life to the fullest on my terms. I truly truly do not believe that my family's happiness will be in jeopardy if Bush is re-elected.
The title of your post is worded very passionately, that's why I ask, is this a flame to draw out responses so you can read them and argue against them?
Thank you for reading, no harmful intentions were meant in this post.

I don't see how Kerry, who is deep in the pocket of special interests, would be much of an improvement for Democrats. And Bush has gone hog-wild on domestic spending...you'd think that would please liberals. It has puzzled his supporters, at best.

Nevertheless, getting rid of Saddam was the best thing we could have done. We have removed a major source of funding for terrorism, eliminated a serious possiblity for some very ugly weapons to get into the hands of people who have no compunctions about using them, established a foothold for freedom in the Middle East, vastly improved the lives of the Iraqi people, and shown our enemies that there are consequences for attacking the U.S. and that we have the courage not to back down in the face of terror.

What puzzles me most is why our Congressional leaders on both sides are not more openly concerned about what happened to those weapons? We know they were there and it behooves us to solve the mystery of what happened to them, not just sit around and conjecture. If even a small number of them are floating around the Middle East, we have reason to be very, very concerned indeed. But that is OT.

Unfortunately, this campaign will be more about a battle for control and power than about principle, conservative or liberal. The negativity, hate, and smear-mongering issuing forth from the Democratic Party shows their sense of desperation at the prospect of losing power, nothing more, nothing less. Kerry says we can't even look at his voting record in the Senate to decide if he'd be a good President! What are we supposed to make of that? The one virtue of Howard Dean was that at least he said what he thought. You knew where he was coming from, even if most of his platform was execrable. Kerry is indeed an "empty suit" as one pundit put it.

...a candidate, I can only vote for one. It was that or something similar to it, a friend of mine told me prior to the elections years ago. As long as the Democrats have an acceptable candidate to offer, I think that Bush will have a difficult time getting re-elected. He barely got voted in to begin with. Way too many people are unhappy right now. Unemployment is sky high, property values are about to nose dive (in our area), and the gasoline prices are expected to reach the $2/gallon range this summer. The more people get affected by the misery, the worse Bush's chance of getting re-elected. I may be dead wrong but I believe that unless Bush can keep the gasoline prices under $2 this year, he won't be serving a second term.

"...unless Bush can keep the gasoline prices under $2 this year, he won't be serving a second term."

I'm wondering...are people really this shallow? They vote over gasoline prices?

Anyhow, what ever happened to OPEC?

To me personally, the whole thing is a contest of ideas. The person that best represents and furthers the right ideas is the one for me. He or she may not be the perfect representation, but close enough to keep us from going off the cliff.

...the average citizen is intelligent enough to understand the difference between what is in a president's power to affect and what he can't control. Gas prices aren't the administration's fault any more than the oil crisis was Carter's fault. Presidents have only a few policy options at their disposal to affect economic change, and even then their policies can take years to reach full effect. Over the long haul, it's pretty obvious that conservative policies do more to stimulate the economy that liberal ones do. Protectionism, high wage laws and the like hurt our nation's prosperity and lead to higher unemployment and the like.

By the way, I wanted to correct the misconception that unemployment is "sky high." It's at 5.6%, down from 6.4% last year...which is higher than we in the U.S. like, but lower than in the 70s, 80s *and* 90s, and far lower than the rates in countries with more liberal economic policies and whopping welfare benefits. Germany, for example, frequently has unemployment in the double digits. The reason is that it's too dang expensive for employers to hire anyone new! There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, as we conservatives try to get through to people over and over and over.

Also, the Labor Department uses two different surveys to establish the rate of job growth or loss, which often report widely varied results. That's because one survey does not cover startup companies & new businesses. The other surveys households to see how many are employed. The latter indicates a gain of 2 millions jobs over the last year; the other indicates a loss of 62,000 jobs. Of course, political opponents sieze on the loss indicator. But that survey covers only the payrolls of established businesses, not who is actually employed.

This is yet another case of rhetoric overshadowing reason. If you say "jobless recovery" long enough, people will believe it is a fact.

This isn't the forum, this is Lotus' journal. I'm just sayin'.

Lynn Siprelle, Editor

sorry but I've got to just say to Tamberly...we ALL must be concerened about politics because the goverment makes decisions that will affect our lives,,,,wake up

Lotus, don't worry about it! LOL! It's just politics! I'm a huge Bush supporter, even if I may not agree with everything he does. But those things aren't endangering my life or my childrens' lives, or my sleep, for that matter. Heck, I managed to survive the Clinton adm, didn't I!

There are so many things to worry about these days. Politics should be the least of them. None of the politicians are saints, but I think Bush is one of the better ones out there. But even if Kerry or some other demo-rat (hehehe) is elected, I still have a family that needs me, no matter who is in office. What I'm saying is, whoever is president isn't going to affect my parenting abilities, which is my number one priority in life. So I don't worry or lose sleep! The rest of the world can go to hell in a handbag!

And a welcome to Tamberly! I hope we see you around more! I love FoxNews, too! When I watch it. I often go weeks without watching any news except the weather (which is easier to lose sleep over than politics for this bunch of farmers in the middle of the biggest drought we've ever seen).

This was a journal post, I didn't intend to start a de facto forum. However, I will reply in the spirit of another journal entry.

First of all, Bush may not run my household, but my household is directly effected by his policies. His initatives and agenda directly affect all of us.

ALL politicians, not just Kerry, are in the pocket of special interests. Bush is owned by the oil/energy interests.

There is not and never was any evidence that Saddam supported terrorism in any major way, or was actively creating chemical weapons. Those intellegence reports were doctored or invented. People have stepped forward and (proudly) claimed responsibility for creating the false intel reports! What chemical weapons he did have were used on the Kurds, the rest were probably given to Syria.

These things ARE endangering our lives and our children's lives. Do you understand that enraging the entire community of Islamic peoples worldwide will not affect you and your family? Wake up!

If you want to hear any real sort of analysis of the news, tune into BBC, NPR, or Slate magazine. They are the only news sources besides other small independent radio stations and papers that are actually reporting on the REAL reasons Bush has attacked two islamic countries and what his agenda REALLY is.

I may sound like Fox Moulder or Jerry Fletcher, but it's true. Educate yourself.

I'm praying desperately for peace, harmony, and a different president, don't care who anymore, anyone but Bush.

This is JJ, Lynn's husband...

"There is not and never was any evidence that Saddam supported terrorism in any major way, or was actively creating chemical weapons."

Abu Nidal lived there for years. He was kicked out once in order for Iraq to curry favor with the US during the Iran/Iraq war. He came back after Desert Storm, figuring he was safe. He was killed by Saddams goons in 2002. Little reported here in the states.

Saddam *did* create chemical and low level bio-weapons (anthrax). That is not in question. he used them against the Iranians, and also against his own citizens. We cannot say he never had them, only the he may not have had them when we said he did.

just a few quick points,

JJ

With all due respect, I saw the photos and videos of the Kurds he massacred with chemical weapons, I didn't say that he never had them, I'm saying that our government had no legitimate intellegence that he was actively creating Weapons of Mass Destruction with intent to use them on the Israelis or anyone else the way they said they did.

You are correct, though, he did offer terrorist organizations safe haven and probably logistical and other support. I should have been more clear--there is no evidence linking him in any material way to 9/11. Although, I bet he wishes he had helped. Let there be no misunderstanding, I know that he is a warped, sick, deviant soul and that the world is better off without him controlling Iraq. But we were lied to and are still being lied to the whole time about the hows and whys of going to war.

"On Friday, the London Daily Telegraph and the Washington Times published the identical article, quoting Ahmed Chalabi, admitting, in effect, that his Iraqi National Congress had funneled disinformation to the United States, to induce an American invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein." Posted Feb. 22, 2004, at Executive Intellegence Review

The intellence they funneled to the CIA was made up. And the informants were paid with taxpayers' money. Our taxes paid for the misinformation that Bush's Cabal used to take us to war. Yes, he had and had used chemical weapons, but, the the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction hype was fiction.

"The Telegraph/Times article reviewed several examples of INC-provided disinformation, including the most famous case of the alleged Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs, which turned out to be mobile units producing hydrogen for weather balloons. The source of the later-discredited claims was a major in the Iraqi intelligence service, who had been made available by the INC. "U.S. officials at first found the information credible, and the defector passed a lie-detector test," the story noted. "But in later interviews it became apparent that he was stretching the truth and had been 'coached by the INC.' He failed a second polygraph test and in May 2002, intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable. But analysts missed the warning, and the mobile laboratory story remained firmly established in the catalogue of alleged Iraqi violations until months after the overthrow of Saddam."
" Same site.