Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conservative wants 10 examples of W "not governing effectively"...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
phillybri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:39 PM
Original message
Conservative wants 10 examples of W "not governing effectively"...
Let's get them together here and now so I can give him about 50...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Frodo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Jan 21-30 2001.
The next ten days would make 20 if that isn't enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. I was just going to say...
...just TEN? Is that all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark414 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. UN?
could alienating our allies be one? this guy probably hates the UN, so maybe that one won't work...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here are 3000
9-11-01
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
51. What about the troops that died because of Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here's one: September 11, 2001
I hope no Republicans will say that what Bush did was "effective".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kamika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. well 4
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 01:47 PM by Kamika
Our deficit

our unemployed

our huge outsourcing

Oh and bring up his suggestion of making all illegals americans or something.. republicans hate that one..

I don't remember much details about it but I think it was to make a bunch of illegal mexicans or something, giving them amnesty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. here's the one that should put Bushco in jail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Cutting veteran's benefits.
Unfunded mandates such as No Child Left Behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigBigBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. Shifting resources away from Bin Laden hunt
to look for WMD in Iraq that they KNEW weren't there - and anyway, once we controlled the country, what purpose does actively searching for the weapons serve anyway, since even if they WERE there, no one could use them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think we will be hard pressed to find 10.
Seriously.

It will be very easy to instances where we think he screwed up, and that we don't agree with him. However it might be difficult to fond 10 where he failed or didn't govern effectively.

The ony one I get off the top of my head is in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. At first he continued to read to the children, then ran off to jump from hidey hole to hidey hole like a scared rabbit. Not what I would call confidance insiring leadership.

Well, make it two. His comments and acctions during the Eastern Blackout I would classify as a failure too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Don't forget the Western Brownouts as well.

He not only did nothing to help California, his Justice Department actually interfered with the state's prosecution claiming jurisdiction. After winning jurisdiction ... they did nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Not a topic I'm as well informed on.
That would be a good one too, if it is comperable to his "it's just a local issue that dosen't require Federal attention" comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
distortionmarshall Donating Member (166 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. that's asinine.....
damn relativist democrats.... "he's not wrong, he's just wrong-for- you"...

screw that - he told the EPA to tell the country that new york air was perfectly safe, when they knew damn well it wasn't...

"that's not a crime, that's just a crime-for-me"

christ.

there's been plenty of scientific docs that have been cooked cuz bush didn't like the findings....

"that's not ineffective governing, I just disagree with him"...

rofl

a buncha nobel lauretes collaborated on a report to this effect....

"that's just a bunch of subjective opinions"

christ - whatever.... none so blind as those who refuse to see....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. So you've come up with another one.
That makes 3 - 4 by my count.

Never forget what Ben taught us. The "truths" we cling to are all relative and depend on our point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
53. perhaps we have done better than you predicted
numerous issues/examples pointed out fall more into the failure or failure of leadership category rather than the difference of opinion category.

For example - difference of opinion is invading Iraq (which for many is also failure)... BUT the lack of contigency planning and post war planning prior to the invasion - when they had been planning the war for a long time... that is a failure. It was the acceptance of a single ideological view as fact rather than allowing policy dicusssions that critiqued that view and allowed for contingency planning based upon those critiques. I forget the source, but I believe that a recently retired Pentagon planner blasted that admin shortly after leaving on this point specifically - that they (the admin and bush) would NOT allow divergent thought and thus would NOT engage in contingency planning (as the potential different scenarios were perceived to be the sign of faulty thinking).. and that it was nearly unprecedented that military campaign planning did not include contingency planning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Not being open to divergent opinion while stupid...
...isn't a failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. no but when it results in bad policy (like no post invasion/occupation
planning) it is very much a failure. Remember we secured oil fields... but not weapon plants or nuclear facilities... many other similar problems all directly due to poor planning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. Note that there were no weapons at the plants.
No need to secure them. We also didn't secure the Universities, Hospitals, et. al. Why? No need to. It wasn't what we were there for anyway. We secured the most important, to us, objective. The oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. ah - so all of the concerns voiced by Senator Lugar, Hagel
etc. about the lack of post-invasion planning - and some of its early consequences... those were not real concerns (ala - no planning because those in charge refused to acknowledge any scenario except quick surrender and cooperation of the recently liberated iraqis)... Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Isn't it though.
We will once again point out that the actuall invasion went quite well and very quickly. I's been the post war portion that is a quagmire not planned for. I have already said that one makes the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. lol... well then
we are in complete agreement - as that was my point ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. It took us long enough to get there. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. How about
pledging billions to Turkey and then having the Turks spit in our eye...

How about freedom fries?

How about the effort to pretend there is a coalition...or to pretend that France and Germany aren't major countries, but Latvia and Papua are?

How about the on and off waffling over the arsenic in drinking water?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcuno Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. 1. Sending our troops into a war without the proper gear.
Or in Rumsfeld's world, running a war on the cheap. They knew darn well from CIA reports that it was highly unlikely that the Americans would be greeted as "liberators." And yet, they sent at least 30,000 of our troops over there with two-bit body armor and unarmored humvees.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we thought Iraq had WMD's and was a threat to the US and then NOT adequately arm the troops.

2. Sitting for 20 minutes in a school room after being told that the 2nd plane had hit the trade towers. Didn't Andy Card say that his words were, "America is under attack."

3. How about the "hands off" Israeli/Palestinian policy from the first year of the administration. Yeah that really worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phillybri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. How about "Bring 'em on"?
It's not horribly effective to invite attacks on your own troops when you're responsible for them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicoleM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
43. Not that it mattered but
they also sent tens of thousands of troops in with chem/bio suits that they knew were defective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. flip-flopping on steel tariffs
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. That was forced
Europe would have spanked us economically if we kept them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. But it was obvious the WTO would rule against him
no-one expected anything else. Doing something you know will get sanctions imposed against you, and you'll have to reverse, is a failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. yup
Still ineffective leadership though...he knew he was going to get sanctioned but he did it any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. OK, I'll give you that
Good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
central scrutinizer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. aiding and abetting Enron
Remember early 2001, when Enron was purposely shutting down energy plants to cause a panic and raise energy prices to outrageous, speculative levels? Bushco actively aided and abetted this ripoff by refusing to intervene on behalf of the people and in fact fueled the panic with comments like Cheney's "we could build a new generating plant every month for years and still be short of energy" and "blackouts will likely spread to other states" (I don't have the exact quotes) and saying that the problem wasn't the deregulation, but that there wasn't enough deregulation. Of course, California was a blue state, so they needed to be punished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. Excellent well sourced article on how bushetal DID try to bail out enron
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/052902a.html

Since Enron Corp. plunged into bankruptcy six months ago, George Bush's defenders have said the administration's refusal to bail out the sinking energy trader is proof of Bush's integrity, given that Enron's Chairman Kenneth Lay was one of Bush's top financial backers.

The story line has been that all of Ken Lay’s millions couldn’t buy George W. Bush. For that reason, Enron has been called a financial scandal, not a political scandal.

Growing evidence, however, shows that this Bush-can’t-be-bought story line isn’t true.

It is now clear that prior to Nov. 8, when the Securities and Exchange Commission delivered subpoenas to Enron, the Bush administration did what it could to help Enron replenish its coffers with billions of dollars. Enron desperately needed that money to prevent the exposure of mounting losses hidden in off-the-books partnerships, a bookkeeping black hole that was sucking Enron toward bankruptcy.

As Enron’s crisis worsened through the first nine months of the Bush presidency, Ken Lay got Bush’s help in three principal ways:

--Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity in California at a time when Enron was artificially driving up the price of electricity by manipulating supply. Bush’s rear-guard action against price caps bought Enron and other energy traders extra time to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars from California’s consumers.

--Bush granted Lay broad influence over the administration’s energy policies, including the choice of key regulators to oversee Enron’s businesses. The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was suddenly replaced in 2001 after he began to delve into Enron’s complex derivative-financing schemes.

--Bush had his National Security Council staff organize an administration-wide campaign to pressure the Indian government to accommodate Enron, which wanted to sell its generating plant in Dabhol, India, for $2.3 billion. Bush administration pressure on India over the Dabhol plant continued even after Sept. 11, when India’s support was needed for the war on terrorism. The administration’s threats against India on Enron’s behalf didn’t stop until Nov. 8.

much ... much more... http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/052902a.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. How about his loud, public homilies about supporting No Child Left Behind
AND the fight against AIDS in Africa, and then, after the cameras and mikes and reporters and lookey-loos all go home, he turns around behind everybody's backs and cuts the funding to those very programs?

AND, how about all the blathering he's done about making us safer and strengthening our national security and setting up the Department of Homeland Security - which has STILL NOT BEEN FULLY FUNDED?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humble truth Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. This one always eats up conservatives
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 02:24 PM by humble truth
The president promised to cap discretionary spending growth at 4% annually, but for the fiscal year ending in 9/03 it stood at 12.5%. Republicans claim to hate that, yet they control the White House and Congress, so try as they may, they can't blame this on us.

Now, your conservative friend is likely to respond that spending had to increase in a time of war or that 9/11 related spending contributed, etc. That's when you get to hit them with this:

"Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion."

and

"White House officials have said the president's 4 percent annual growth cap was never supposed to curtail "one-time" spending requests, such as natural disaster aid or wars. But even if such emergency spending measures are removed, spending jumped last year by 7.9 percent, Hoagland said."

Both from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28252-2003Nov11?language=printer

So even if you take away all military spending increases and all disaster and war related increases, spending still increased by 7.9%, or almost double what the president promised.

Oh, and you might want to add these spending increases were funded with a tax cut.

How's that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
36. Add to that his current contradictory lines:
1) We will cut the budget deficit in half in five years.
but he doesn't mention that these numbers are calculated by allowing the tax cuts to expire... if they stay in place, the deficit continues to explode.

and

2) Congress must act now to make the tax cuts permanent.
which of course would make his first statement false.

If he is a good leader, why isn't he hones with the public about these two contradictory statements. Why doesn't he convince us either that we need to cut the record high deficits *and let the taxcuts elapse*, or that huge deficits do not matter? His simple one liners are deceptive - and try to coerce the public into following him into very, very shaky public policy/fiscal policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humble truth Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Good one. We can keep going:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that Bush's budget proposals will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt. This is complete contradictory to Bushco's claims. (The $1 trillion figure does not include costs related to the Iraq, either.)

In case the integrity of the budget office is called into question, its director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, was an economist for Bush until last year. Bush is misleading us about his budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPisEvil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
19. Hit 'em with the credibility gap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
20. Why? Is he not going to vote for Bush if we do?
WIFM? What's with all this demanding from Repugs as if we're their dogs going to fetch them papers? God put two legs under his ass for a reason. Tell him to walk to the library and do his own homework!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phillybri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. A good point...it would be a nice little F U, though....
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
21. Hiring local warlords at Tora Bora.

Our guys chased bin Laden to Tora Bora. When it looked like there would be a lot of casualties going in after him, Bush ordered our boys back to let the locals absorb the loss only to see bin Laden slip away.


On a related note and in an example of extremely poor governing he refused offers of assistance from around the world in going into Afghanistan in the first place.


He overruled the military commanders who wanted more time and personnel before invading Iraq.


He overruled the military commanders who wanted a plan in place for governing Iraq after the war.


His timetable and plans for Iraq left the nuclear power plants unguarded after our invasion as a result of which they were extensively looted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
24. Altering EPA air quality reports for NYC in the days following 9-11
Good governments don't do shit like that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
25. How About Invading and Conquering A Nation That Hadn't
attacked us nor had any weapons of mass destruction. That's enough for an impeachment. How about record deficits and record national debts. How about not one net new job created even though his tax cuts were sold to us as job creation programs. How about extending and stretching our fighting forces to their limits over Iraq.

Given what he was given when he took over, Bush has been the worst president of my lifetime. Every one says Carter, but Carter was given a crappy economy from Nixon/Ford. Everyone forgets the gas lines and hyper-inflation under Ford.

Bush was given a huge surplus, a growing economy, and peace. After four years, he's given us back, record deficits, a jobloss economy, and never-ending wars. I cannot believe that people would ever want four more years of this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. Send him a mp3 of Malloy's "Tell Me Lies" with Fleetwood Mac
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 03:01 PM by Bozita
available at www.mikemalloy.com

It called WarGate ... on the Gallery page. Scroll down. Link:

http://www.mikemalloy.com/gallery.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
28. Talking bollocks in the State of the Union
about the Niger uranium - which meant ignoring advice from Wilson, or presiding over an administration that kept information from him on purpose.

Also, saying he wants to get to the bottom of the Plame naming scandal, and then not telling his staff to sign waivers allowing the journalists to say who told them what.

Saying "Bring them on".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. Kerry's Online Ad Says It All
have him take a look at Kerry's online ad ...

he gets to hear bush "in his own words" talking about all the things he planned to achieve ... needless to say, it will be more than clear to your conservative friend that bush achieved none of these things ...

his "ineffective governing" is there for all to see ...

here's a direct link to the ad which is incredibly powerful:

http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/player.php?video=022704_word
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
44. Great Ad
I hope a lot of people see it. It would be a good one for the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
32. Don't waste your time.. They will never believe you anyway
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 02:50 PM by SoCalDem
Just tell them to google Bush + lies, and follow the links.. There are enough reputable links to keep them busy til at least 2006 :)

They "ask" for this kind of "proof" just to keep you occupied.. They have no intention of paying attention to what you find.. Anyone with an open mind already knows the truth :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
34. My favorites are . . .

1. Blaming 'Clinton's recession' for the sad state of the economy.

2. Blaming Clinton-era intelligence 'failures' for not preventing 9/11.

3. Exploding deficits.

4. Ignoring sound science in favor of religious nonsense--i.e., the climate change report that just came out of the Pentagon.

5. Ashcroft's mission to abrogate citizen's civil rights.

Everything is political expedience with these people. There is only politics in the White House, not policy. (Suskind's book is a good place to start.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
37. It's all here in black & white tell this "conservative"

to put on multiple pots of coffee now & start reading the idiot sons score card of evil.

http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
38. I think the question back to him should be...
"Can you name ONE thing that bush has done that has benefited the nation"?

There will be a great deal of "Harrumphing", but there will be no answer forthcoming. Everything this man has done has been a disaster. Even the much heralded tax cut, turned out to cost many people more money, and most got about $100 more.

There is nothing that can be seen as an accomplishment, the man is a failure.

O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #38
70. At first I think bond holders liked it, about now I think they might be..
getting a bit skittish. I still can't figure out how they can claim the badge of conservative. Will the real conservatives please stand up!

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_2939.shtml
From Capitol Hill Blue

Washington
Increasing federal spending deepens deficit
By DAVID WESTPHAL
McClatchy Newspapers
Sep 2, 2003, 05:38

In the Washington blame game over who's responsible for ever-worsening federal deficit projections, Republicans and Democrats offer predictably different explanations. Republicans say a lousy economy is largely at fault; Democrats point the finger at President Bush's tax cuts.

But neither side talks much about a third factor that's just as important as the other two: Federal spending once again is going through the roof.

After a decade in which penny-pinching by both parties limited spending increases to about 3 percent a year, federal outlays are again heading upward quickly.

In the last four years, annual spending increases have shot up an average 6 percent, double the rate of inflation. Last year, the federal budget grew by 7.9 percent, highest in a dozen years, and the Bush administration is projecting even higher increases this year, with spending nearing $2.2 trillion.

"The political consensus for restraining spending is just gone," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the budget watchdog Concord Coalition.

The surge in federal spending is tied largely to the government's ramped-up military and homeland security fight against terrorism. But it's hardly the only factor. In the last two years, for example, Medicaid spending has shot up 26 percent while Medicare costs have gone up 17 percent.

In some respects, the spending story is worse than it appears because lower interest rates have counter-balanced some of the growth. Last year, for example, government costs would have grown nearly 10 percent but for a $35 billion drop in interest payments.

The upshot is that Bush and Congress have set an aggressive spending course that is significantly deepening the government's swing toward annual deficits. The Congressional Budget Office last week projected a record $401 billion deficit this year, and warned that the red ink could reach $480 billion in 2004.

Less than three years ago, the budget office had projected a decade-long era of surpluses that, cumulatively, would exceed $5 trillion.

Many budget-watchers say that even the newly stark projections are too rosy.

A report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that if Congress approves a prescription drug benefit for seniors and extends current tax policies, as most observers expect, annual deficits could reach $650 billion by 2013.

"Running deficits of this magnitude after the economy recovers," said Robert Greenstein, the group's executive director, "is a prescription for severe fiscal distress in the decades ahead."
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. Ah, but the point is, bondholders are the ones who got to...
reap the benefits of those 'Tax Cuts'!

So the tax cut $ goes into buying more T-Bonds, which further depletes the Treasury in the long run. As those bonds come due, it is the taxpayer, (read middle/lower class), that will get stuck paying those bonds off. Those that can afford to purchase the bonds will be getting our tax money in duplicate.

It is all a ridiculous charade, and in the end, the whole thing will collapse, if congress doesn't grow a spine.

O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
39. If You Can't Come Up with 10
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 03:19 PM by Crisco
Remind your friend that Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Oh and PS - I hope you realize that by falling into the "governing effectively" argument, you'll allowing the conservative to frame the debate.

Governing effectively simply means getting shit done. Few people would argue that Bush hasn't been effective. It's what he's been effective at driving us towards where the crux is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. Bingo!
I couldn't have said it better.

Bush has gotten loads of stuff done. It's just been all the wrong stuff. In Bizarro world, there's a Bizarro-Bush, who does the opposite of Dubya, and everything is great!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catzies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
74. Yes, that question "framing the debate" set off my BS detector.
Good job Crisco!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonBerry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
45. Only 10??
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 03:58 PM by JasonBerry
We should be able to compile a list of hundreds of reasons as to why Bush and co. are not leaders in any sense of the word. His response (or lack of) to Andy Card in that schoolroom on 9-11-01 says it all as far as I'm concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
46. I got a good one--housing and homelessness
The Bush Admin has an initiative going on now to end "chronic" homelessness by 2012--that's people who never get sheltered and have disabilities, such as drug addictions or mental illness. AND YET, the current budget proposes to slash the Section 8 housing program, which will put a couple of hundred thousand people on the street. Yep, that's REAL effective. The left hand doesn't know (or doesn't care) what the right hand is doing).

Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Papa Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
47. What about the 10Billion or so promised for Africa and AIDS?
What kind of effective leadership is it when you propose something like that and then leave it to others to figure it out? In most cases you should make sure you can do it, get the funding and support, then make that kind of proposal.

The last I heard, Africa will only get a fraction of what was promised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
48. Worst Environmental Record
Chimpie wants to "leave no tree behind" even though better management and long-term use plans can help alleviate global warming.

But, of course, El Chimpo does not believe global warming exists. What a complete ignoramus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
x-g.o.p.er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
50. Here are a few...
1) Signed the campaign finance reform law, which limits freedom of speech. It's unconstitutional, and he said it was, right before he signed it.

2) Open borders legislation provides amnesty to immigrants who broke the law to get in this country

3) The Patriot Act limits free speech and dissent; those who oppose the government's policies can be arrested and held without access to an attorney, nor be charged with a crime, for as long as the govt. deems. In Feb., Drake University students were subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury for protesting the Iraq war...in possible violation of the Patriot Act
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracyindanger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
52. First
I'd make him commit to a definition of "not governing effectively," or he'll have a loophole to dismiss what you bring him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
56. Okay, top-of-the-head rant:
Dropped OSL watch.
Can't reveal energy policy production to GAO
Dropped cap on military profits
Doesn't address dad's profit connection to a ground war
Only wants a war in Iraq that is a ground war
Wants no limit on untaxed inheritance from his dad
Skipped European anti-terrorism conference
Won't let 9/11 commission read his daily briefing 8/20/01
Won't testify under oath to 9/11 commission
Won't "visit" with entire 9/11 commission
Won't have Condi testify to entire 9/11 commission
Won't address how a National Security Advisor didn't recall being told that hijacked planes can be used as missles
Hasn't apologized for WH overstating office damage from Clinton era
Won't ask WH staff to admit who outed spy Valarie Plame
Angered O'Neil enough that he quit FBI for WTC days before 9/11
Drops Geneva convention
Can't make up his mind on arsenic levels alright for children
Can't find Anthrax-from-Ft-Detrick sender
Keep implying anthrax was from Middle East
Still hasn't shown evidence of 9/11 Afghanistan connection
Two sets of 16 words in the State of the Union pushing war
Wouldn't cap California power prices for a year
Lowered veteran benefits as they went on to war
Won't count the number of wounded
Won't count the number of Iraqi dead or wounded

Arghhhh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
57. driving Jim Jeffords out of the GOP ...
W snubbed and bullied him, and finally Jeffords just had enough and quit. Another example of Bush's so-called "people skills" -- he really doesn't excel at this unless people are bound and determined to curry favor with him. The real test is whether you can hold together diverse groups with loyalty/vision -- and he really is a disappointment where this is concerned. Look at how he approached building his Iraq coalition. He should have put his dad in charge of that, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
58. Excellent list here to pick and choose your favorites from
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

Of course some are more example of governing evily, but you should find plenty of ineffectiveness in there too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmokramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
59. I have 550 reasons, and they are buried in Arlington Cemetery.
550 Dead soldiers.

Thousands physically and emotionally wounded soldiers.

3,000 dead non-military citizens.

Hundreds of fatherless and motherless children.

Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Millions of unemployed.

I think that is plenty enough reasons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #59
76. That reminds me - that would be 550 funerals he has NOT attended.
Edited on Tue Mar-02-04 02:17 PM by calimary
That's part of the job description for Commander-in-Chief. He's even said so, telling his pals, before the war, that he knew it was part of what he had to do - hug the widows. And he hasn't been to a single funeral. NOT ONE. GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY, and the ultimate slap in the face to our troops. Just the ultimate. THIS one, all by itself, is worth ten. Have your GOP friend explain his way out of this one. It's not possible. Because it's completely indefensible, as well as beneath contempt. FOR THIS ALONE, BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE. I don't want to have to wait til November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
61. depends on the "effect" that you want from his "governing"
opinions differ as to what effect is desirable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
64. Better: Demand just *one* example where he has done something right
Edited on Tue Mar-02-04 10:30 AM by Richardo
"Governed effectively" is not the issue. He's VERY effective at governing the top 1% wealthiest in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
65. Invading Afghanistan was one. An entirely innaproriate response
to a crime committed by a handful of alleged criminals. Carpet bombing a country for ten months is not an appropriate way to capture a dozen or so alleged criminals. We only do that crap in defenseless, brown-skinned countries.
Ignoring many, many warnings about 9-11 is bad governance. Obstructing the 9-11 investigation is bad governance.
Obstructing the public's right to know what's in the public energy papers is bad governance.
Invading another defensless country, Iraq, against the advice of the UN, US and world population and all the world's investigative bodies is bad governance.
Deliberately ramping up terrorism and nuclear re-armament is bad governance.
Allowing his friends in the energy business rape and destroy California, without investigation or punishment, is bad governance.
Murdering 22,000 Iraqis just for the hell of it is bad governance.
Sending many thousands of US soldiers to be maimed or killed for a lie and so his buddies could make big bucks is bad governance.
Trying to overthrow democratically elected rulers to steal their resources is bad governance (Venezuala, Haiti).

What's amazing is that the evidence for all this bad governance is easily available and basically irrefutable unless you choose to live in denial land and worship the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
67. U.S. spy plane, Chinese fighter collide
don't forget the sub ride that killed the Japanese people.the ride that his bubbies were able to drive the sub..........



many many more:

http://www.thousandreasons.org/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
69. What An Arbritrary Request!
So, if you came with 9 strong examples of ineffective governance, instead of 10, then it would prove he's is effective?

Why didn't he ask you for a million?!?!?!? Why wouldn't one big one be enough? Why not 2?

By asking for 10, some of which will surely be open to interpretation, he's basically guaranteeing himself that he won't have to agree with you, no matter what you say.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
71. Here's a few hundred examples:
CENSORED AND DELAYED 9-11 REPORT: The Bush administration purposefully delayed the release of the report of the Joint Congressional Committee on 9-11 until after the conclusion of the Iraq war to hide facts such as the absence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. Once released, the administration censored portions of the report that demonstrated that Bush was briefed on August 6, 2001 about Al Qaeda plans for a possible hijacking in the US and the Saudi role in funding Al Qaeda. (Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Priest – Washington Post 07.25.03)

KILLED TREASURY DEFICIT STUDY: The administration “deep-sixed” a 2003 Treasury Department study that projected that “the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase” would be required to eliminate a projected $44.2 trillion budget deficit due to Bush’s tax cuts. The study found that the future health care and retirement costs of the baby boomers would overwhelm the treasury. “Sharp tax increases and massive spending cuts are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations.” The report added that the current financial challenge facing Washington is approximately “10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output, or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets.” (Hollings – Washington Post 06.19.03, Baker – Slate 07.11.03, Ferdinand - Utne Reader 05.2003, Malveaux & McCaughan - CNN.com 05.29.03)

SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL HARASSMENT WITHIN THE ASHCROFT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: For over a year, the Justice Department has delayed the release of a KPMG Consulting report on diversity in DOJ. All that DOJ would release is a redacted version that deletes more than half the report including its summary. It is reported that the redacted portions include findings that DOJ faces “significant diversity issues” and that “minorities are significantly more likely than whites to cite stereotyping, harassment, and racial tensions as characteristics of the work climate.” (Congressman Conyers’

SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff entitled “Politics and Science in the Bush Administration” reveal examples such as the administration:

Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alternative environmental proposals;
using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly; including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health environmental consequences.

Read the full report Here

DELETED FORECAST OF TAX PLAN AS “JOB KILLER”: A Council of Economic Advisors’ forecast showing that the Bush “stimulus” plan would only create 170,000 jobs per year and would be a “job killer” after 2007 was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)

DELETED FINDINGS OF GLOBAL WARMING: Prior to release of the EPA’s 2003 Environmental Overview, the White deleted a detailed chapter of global warming that found that global warming was due to human factors and that “climate changes has global consequences for human health and the environment”. (CBS News.com 06.19.03)

CONCEALED ANALYSIS: An EPA assessment of Bush’s “Clear Skies” plan concealed the fact that a proposal by Senator Carper (D-Del.) would provide greater long term benefits at only slightly higher costs. (Gugliotta & Pianin – Washington Post 07.02.03)

KILLED LAYOFF REPORTS: The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly Mass Layoff Statistics report was killed by the administration in December 2002 and only noted in a footnote in the final report. (President Bush I did the same thing to hide his dismal performance.) After this was discovered by the Washington Post, the reports were reinstated. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)

DELETED DECLINING MIN. WAGE: A Labor Department report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time (which would show the workers losing ground under Bush since there has been no increase since 1997) was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)

FORCED SCIENTISTS TO ALTER FINDINGS ON KLAMATH RIVER WATER LEVELS: Karl Rove and Interior Secretary Norton forced National Marine Fisheries scientists to alter findings on the amount of water required for the survival of salmon in Oregon’s Klamath River to enable farms to use a bigger share of the river water. “As a result, more than 33,000 Chinook and Coho salmon died – the largest fish kill in American history.” (Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)

RESTRICTING DEMOCRATS ABILITY TO QUESTION ADMINISTRATION: In an unprecedented move, the administration is requiring Democrats to submit all requests for information to Republican chairman of the relevant committee, thereby requiring Republican approval of any such requests. (Milbank – Washington Post 11.08.03)

BUSH LIES FROM A - Z

ABORTION

LIE: Bush justified re-imposing the Reagan era gag order prohibiting funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortion services or counseling on the grounds that “taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions”.

FACT: The US funds that Bush cut off were only used for non-abortion activities. (David Corn 02.05.01)

LIE: Bush withheld $34 million approved by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNPFA) claiming that the program supported China’s one-child policy.

FACT: Bush’s own State Department conducted an investigation and found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in China. Bush suppressed the report and withheld the funds anyway. (NOW Report – The Truth About George)

LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed he would not seek to overturn the FDA’s approval of RU-486.

FACT: Bush stated he would not accept the FDA’s decision and would seek to appoint an FDA commissioner who would “make sure the FDA considered the risk”. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

BUSH’S MILITARY RECORD

LIE: After being transferred from the Texas Air National Guard “I was in on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time.”

FACT: Bush was AWOL and never showed up at the Alabama Air National Guard, despite orders to report on specific days. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush returned to Houston after his temporary Alabama assignment and performed Guard duty at Ellington Air Force Base.

FACT: National Guard records indicate Bush had “not been observed” at the Houston base and the unit’s administrative officer has no recall of Bush returning and believed he was still in Alabama. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush applied to Harvard Business School in 1972 since “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I has trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.”

FACT: Bush’s commitment was through May 1974 and his unit continued to fly F-102s through 1974. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush claimed that his Guard duty was not an attempt to avoid service in Vietnam since he volunteered for a program that rotated Guard pilots to Vietnam but he never was called.

FACT: Bush’s application included a box to be checked specifying whether he did or not want to volunteer for overseas duty. Bush checked the “no” box. (Democrats.com) In addition, despite scoring 25 out of a possible 100, Bush qualified for the single available pilot spot due to pressure from his father who was then in Congress. (GregPalast.com). See documentation in DOJ files detailing how strings were pulled for Bush at http://www.gregpalast.com and http://www.awolbush.com

BUSH’S RELIGIOUS DEVOTION

LIE: The Bush administration makes much of the fact of its commitment to Bible study; from the daily White House Bible study meetings to Don Evans recruiting Bush to give up the bottle for two years of “scriptural boot camp” with intensive study of Acts and other parts of the New Testament.

FACT: Bush’s religious devotion may be more show than substance. When Don Evans was asked whether he understood what Acts was about, he answered “no.” When candidate Bush was asked “what Bible passage did you read this morning”, he refused to answer saying “I think you’re trying to catch me as to whether or not I can remember where I was in the Bible”. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

LIE: After initially opposing McCain-Feingold, Bush jumped on the bandwagon once it was a fait accompli. In July 2002, he cut a deal with Senator McCain to appoint a pro-reform candidate (Ellen Weintraub) backed by McCain to the Federal Election Commission.

FACT: As Senator McCain plainly stated, while “the administration wanted to share in the widespread public approval of campaign finance reform by . . . signing the legislation . . . he’s cooperating behind the scenes with opponents of the law in Congress and on the Commission to weaken it as much as possible.” Bush sat on the Weintraub nomination until the Bush FEC issued regulations creating huge loopholes contrary to the express language of the law to permit (i) party committees to raise soft money through independent committees, (ii) federal officials to engage in fundraising, and (iii) permitting candidates to raise soft money through independent committees. In the words of Senator McCain, “hey flat-out broke their word.” (Arianna Online 12.09.02, Public Citizen Analysis of How FEC Is Undermining the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002)

CIVIL RIGHTS

LIE: When asked by David Frost about the demonstrators protesting his visit to the UK, Bush responded that “Freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren’t you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say”.

FACT: Under Bush, the FBI has been monitoring political demonstrations and other legal activities such as using the Internet for fundraising for the first time since the Nixon-Hoover era. In addition, after 9-11 then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that Americans “need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Similarly, Attorney General Ashcroft labeled any criticism of the Patriot Act as aiding terrorists. (Daily Mis-Lead 11.24.03)

LIE: Attorney General Ashcroft told there “is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty”.

FACT: A September 2000 Justice Department report concluded there was racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty. (People For the American Way – Report on Attorney General Ashcroft’s First Year)

CLINTON BASHING

LIE: At the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush claimed that if ‘called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.’”

FACT: This claim was contradicted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Cohen and Bush’s own foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)

LIE: The Bush administration spread stories that the outgoing Clinton administration vandalized the White House with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, phone wires cut and pornography left on fax machines.

FACT: The General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, wires slashed, equipment damaged or other evidence to match the allegations. (Boston Globe 05.28.01)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration were “ill-considered” and “ill-intentioned”.

FACT: Virtually all regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration had been developed over a period of years and are consistent with practices of prior administrations. (Washington Post 06.09.01).

DEFENSE & VETERANS AFFAIRS

(UPDATED!) LIE: Bush has lauded the “great courage” of those serving in Iraq and has proclaimed that “ur men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support.”

FACT: Bush’s support has been in words only, as he has requested major cuts in the Impact Aid program providing funds for the schooling of 900,000 children of military families. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.13.03)

In addition, one million children living in military and veteran families are denied child tax credit help in the President’s tax cut, including 260,000 of children with parents in active duty. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: Bush told the VFW that “Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.”

FACT: In 2003, Bush killed an emergency funding request that included $275 million for Veterans’ medical care, while his 2004 budget requests falls $1.9 billion short of maintaining what the American Legion called “an inadequate status quo.” (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.21.03)

LIE: In June 2001 Bush stated that the US would not deploy a missile defense system “that doesn’t work.”

FACT: Bush then proceeded to deploy the missile defense system even though a General Accounting Office report found only “limited data for determining whether the system will work as intended.” (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

EDUCATION

(UPDATED!) LIE: In signing the No Child Left Behind Act, Bush declared “We’re going to spend more on our schools and we’re going to spend it more wisely.”

FACT: Bush has under funded the No Child Left Behind program by $6 billion for FY2004 alone and by $15 billion over his first three years. Most of the under funding is in the area of Title I of the Act which provided funds to schools with low income or disadvantaged students. (The Daily Distortion 10.24.03, New Democratic Network 12.02.03)

LIE: In a September 2003 speech, Bush claimed that his budget boosted spending for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion -- a 26 percent increase.

FACT: Bush’s budget for elementary and secondary education is only $34.9 billion (his entire education budget is $53.1 billion) and the boost he refers to is actually a $900 million cut. (Corn – The Nation 09.15.03)

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
(Including Black Out Lies)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that its regulation of mountaintop removal mining (i.e., leveling mountain peaks to extract coal) would improve environmental protections.

FACT: The Bush administration rejected a tougher Clinton administration proposal and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the administration’s proposals “cannot be interpreted as ensuring any improved environmental protection.” The FWS also found the Bush proposals “belie four years of work and accumulated evidence of environmental harm, and would substitute permit process tinkering for meaningful and measurable change.” In the two decades since the practice began, 724 miles of streams have been buried and 7 percent of the Appalachian forest cut down. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 01.07.04).

LIE: The Bush administration claims that its Health Forest Initiatives will “improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws restoring our nation’s forest”.

FACT: Congressional Research Service reported that the initiative may increase the risk of fire since “imber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood product but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles” that contributes to such fires. The impetus behind the bill was not to prevent fires, but because the timber industry wanted to “increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight.” (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: The administration claims that it has offered stringent new rules that will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

FACT: The administration’s new rules weaken Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions by requiring that plants reduce such emissions by only 1/3 of what is required by the Clean Air Act – reducing current emissions from 48 tons to 34 tons by 2010 instead of a reduction to 5 tons by year 2007. The rules also will result in 1.4 million tons more of air pollution. (Daily MisLead 12.05.03, Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: The Bush administration claims it has imposed “stringent new rules on power plant emissions”.

FACT: The new Bush rules gutted Clean Air Act restrictions to allow utilities to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants. The EPA’s civil enforcement chief resigned in protest, while another senior EPA lawyer wrote to Christie Whitman that the administration “seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: In 2002, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Holmstead told two Senate committees that the proposed rule changes gutting the Clean Air will not “have a negative impact on enforcement cases.” In response to questioning as to whether discussed the impact of the proposed rule changes with EPA and Justice Department enforcement officials, he replied, “Yes, that was one of the primary issues that was discussed. What I can say is, based on numerous meetings that I have had, which included staff attorneys from
FACT: At that time, EPA enforcement agents repeatedly told Holmstead and others that the proposed rule changes would inevitably undermine ongoing clean air enforcement cases, possibly by prompting courts to accept a more lenient standard. EPA’s former chief of enforcement stated that the new rules “substantially complicate current litigation and act as a disincentive for companies to settle.” A General Accounting Report also concluded that the policy will hinder current enforcement actions (Pianin – Washington Post 10.10.03, Shogren – Los Angeles Times 10.24.03)

LIE: In promoting his New Source Review rule, which rewrites the Clean Air Act to permit older power plants to upgrade without installing pollution control devices, President Bush stood outside Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant claiming that existing EPA rules were too complicated to permit the plant to implement upgrades quickly.

FACT: The Edison Monroe plant, which is the 8th largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the US, had received the go-ahead from the EPA to proceed so long as it adhered to its stated intention of not increasing emissions as a result of the project. Under the new Bush rule, Edison Monroe can increase its emissions by 30,000 tons per year or 56 percent. (The Daily Mislead 09.17.03)

LIE: A 2003 EPA ad campaign targeted at Hispanics claimed the administrations “Clear Skies” initiative would “create purer air, better health and a more brilliant future for the United States.”

FACT: The Bush initiative would allow power plants to discharge additional levels of sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen then currently permitted under the Clean Air Act. Sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are associated with diseases such as emphysema and asthma that disproportionately afflict minority populations (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.20.03)

LIE: In 2001, Bush reversed a Clinton administration regulation reducing the arsenic levels in drinking levels from 50 ppb to 10 ppb claiming that the regulation was a last minute decision, with EPA administrator Todd-Whitman claiming the 10 ppb standard was not based on “the best available science.

FACT: The new EPA standard was the result of a decade of work. After the Bush administration reversed the 10 ppb, the National Academy of Sciences found that the 10 ppb standard was not only scientifically justified but that the standard could be less than 10 ppb. Under pressure, the Bush administration reinstated the 10 ppb standard even though the “best available science” suggested a lower standard was warranted. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

LIE: The Bush administration claimed that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was necessary to “secure America’s energy needs.”

FACT: A US Geological Survey concluded that drilling at ANWR would yield only approximately two years worth of oil consumption. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)

LIE: President Bush stood before a Snake River dam and claimed credit for an increase in salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.

FACT: Experts stated that he increased salmon was due to weather and tidal patterns in the Pacific Ocean. The increase happened in spite of the Bush administration which has fallen short of court mandated targets to improve salmon habitats and water quality. Wild salmon are still below the levels necessary to ensure their long term survival. In the summer of 2003, the water levels for the Snake and Columbia River violated the targets 93% and 100% of the days, while also violating the Clean Water Act temperature standards 77.5% and 77.4%. (American Rivers 2003 Salmon Migration Report Card 10.03.03, New York Times 10.14.03, Geranios – AP 10.16.03, New York Times.)

LIE: In August 2003, the EPA denied a petition from environmental groups asking the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new vehicles, claiming that EPA lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

FACT: The claim that EPA lacks this authority is contradicted by case law and the opinion of two prior EPA general counsels. (Zitner, Polakovic and Shogren – Los Angeles Times 08.29.03, Lee – New York Times 08.29.03)

LIE: Vice President Cheney wrote to Congress requesting that they rein in the GAO’s investigation of his Energy Task Force meetings claiming “documents responsive to the inquiry concerning the cost associated with the work” have already been provided.

FACT: The GAO was forced to go to court to obtain the documents and lost. Cheney only produced 77 pages of useless documents which was not a complete production in response to the GAO’s request. Cheney stonewalled the GAO to hide the cozy deliberations the task force had with energy industry representatives. (Dean – Findlaw.com 08.29.03)

LIE: As a candidate, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for not making a greater investment in the nation’s electricity grids and promised he would seek modernization of the grids.

FACT: While the Bush White House initially called for steps to modernize the electricity grids, it did nothing to implement them. Even worse, it allowed House Republicans to defeat Democratic efforts to spend $350 million on grid modernization and played an active role in derailing $2 billion in low-interest loans for expanding transmission capacity in the Pacific Northwest. (American Politics Journal 08.16.03; Allen – Washington Post 08.23.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 10.15.03)

LIE: Secretary Norton told Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region’s caribou population. She also reissued a scientific report as a two page paper that claimed drilling would not result in a negative impact to wildlife.

FACT: Secretary Norton “altered or omitted” key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists that contradicted her view. Biologists also found that drilling would harm must oxen, snow geese and polar-bear populations and would violate an international treaty protection bears, but these findings were suppressed. In the words of one Fish and Wildlife Service Official, “to pass along facts that are false, well, that’s obviously inappropriate.” (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)

LIE: Vice President Cheney argued that ANWR drilling would only affect 2000, acres of Dulles Airport out of a total 19 million acres.

FACT: The 2000 acres Cheney cities are not contiguous. In fact, the oil is located in 35 discrete sites spread across the reserve and to extract oil it would be necessary to have roads and a pipeline covering 135 miles of wildlife habitat. (David Corn 4.13.01)

LIE: During the 2000 campaign, Bush pledged to impose mandatory emission reductions for carbon dioxide.

FACT: Bush abandoned this pledge once elected. (CNN 03.13.01, Washington Post 03.25.02)

LIE: President Bush claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence of global warming as part of his justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty.

FACT: The National Academy of Science’s 2001 report stated that there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years” and that most of the warming “observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Similarly, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global temperatures were rising dramatically and this was due in part to human-induced emissions. (Revkin – New York Times 01.12.03, Corn – The Nation 10.13.03.)

LIE: Bush asked Congress to exempt the military from environmental laws protecting endangered species and migratory birds on the grounds that compliance hampered military training.

FACT: A General Accounting Office report found little evidence to support this claim. (New York Times 07.09.02)

LIE: Bush claimed that conservation would be part of his national energy policy.

FACT: The White House spokesman indicates “that’s a big ‘no.’ The President believes that is an American way of life.” (ABC 05.07.01)

LIE: Bush campaigned that he would expand the “aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt relief for protection of tropical forests.”

FACT: Bush has provided no new funding for the program. (Boston Globe 04.10.01)

LIE: In 2002 Bush promised Nevada residents that “sound science, and not politics, must prevail” in the selection of a nuclear waste dump.

FACT: The Bush administration is proceeding with creating a nuclear waste dump in Nevada despite a GAO report that scientific testing to determine the facility’s viability would not be complete before 2006. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Christian Science Monitor 03.05.02)

LIE: Bush sought to justify oil drilling in Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest on the grounds that the people of Montana support it.

FACT: The plan is opposed by Montana residents, but supported by outside oil companies. (Missoula Independent 4.26.01)

LIE: During the tight 2002 South Dakota Senate race, Bush appeared at a South Dakotan ethanol plant and pledge that he supported ethanol “because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”

FACT: Bush’s FY2004 budget eliminates funding for the bioenergy program at the South Dakota plant. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

ENRONGATE & SEC

LIE: Bush attempted to distance himself from Enron’s Kenneth Lay by claiming Lay supported his opponent (Governor Richards) in 1994 and he first got to know Lay only after elected.

FACT: Lay gave $37,500 to the Bush 1994 campaign and Lay claims he was “very close” to Bush at that time. (Slate 01.17.02) The Bush-Lay connection goes back much further, as in 1988, Bush lobbied the Argentinean government to award a contract to Enron. (Mother Jones March-April 2000)

LIE: Bush pledged to increase SEC enforcement in signing the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform legislation.

FACT: Bush’s FY2003 budget cuts SEC enforcement by $209 million. (Boston Globe 12.29.02)

LIE: In the Enron aftermath, Bush pledged “to do more to protect worker pensions”.

FACT: Four month’s later the Bush administration announced plans to permit employers to convert traditional pension plans into “cash balance” plans that lower benefits for long-serving workers. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

LIE: In 2001 the Bush administration promised to create a $700 million “Federal Compassion Fund”.

FACT: The President did not allocate a single penny for the fund in his 2001 budget. (Green – The American Prospect 07.30.01).

LIE: The Bush administration claims there exists a “widespread bias against faith-based organization’s (FBOs) in Federal service programs” and that complying with federal anti-discrimination employment laws in a major obstacle to FBO participation.

FACT: Recent studies have found no barriers to FBOs participation in government programs and “no hard evidence that hiring requirements are keeping
FOREIGN POLICY

LIE: During his African tour, President Bush touted legislation authorizing spending of $3 billion per year over five years to help fight AIDS in Africa and declared that the Congress “must fully fund this initiative, for the good of the people on this continent of Africa.”

FACT: That same week, the White House asked for only $2 billion of the $3 billion authorized for FYE 2004. The Bush administration strongly opposed Congressional attempts to increase this amount. The Bush administration now plans to ask for only a small increase in spending for FYE 2005. (Bumiller – New York Times 08.26.03, Center for American Progress 12.13.03, Global Aids Alliance 12.02.03)

LIE: On November 24, 2003, Bush boasted that we “put the Taliban out of business forever.” Similarly, in a September 2003 address to military personnel and families in California, Bush claimed “Afghanistan today is a friend of the United States of America. It is not a haven for America’s terrorist enemies.”

FACT: Bush’s November statement came after a series of US casualties in Afghanistan, a day after the Taliban attack Kabul’s most prominent hotel and on the very same day that the Afghan Foreign Minister desperately requested more help in fighting off the Taliban. The resurgent Taliban has forced the UN to remove it staff from parts of the country and led the German ambassador to warn that they threaten the country’s efforts to form a democratic government.

In addition, Afghanistan remains a haven for Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden who is believed to be in remote tribal areas near the Afghan-Pakistani border. Bush allowed Al Qaeda and bin Laden to regroup by withdrawing resources from Afghanistan for the Iraq war. (Corn – BushLies.com 9.13.03, Daily Mis-Lead 11.25.03)

LIE: In his October 28, 2003 press conference, Bush claimed that I was the first president ever to have advocated a Palestinian state."

FACT: On January 7, 2001, President Bill Clinton said, "There can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that accommodates Israel's security requirements and demographic realities." (Corn – BushLies.com 10.28.03)

LIE: During his Asian tour, President Bush told Indonesian news that Congress has dropped opposition to military training programs for Indonesia and that the US was ready to “go forward with” a new package of training programs.

FACT: Congressional opposition to the training programs has increased due to concerns that the Indonesian military may have been involved in the killing of two Americans in Papua. In addition, no new programs have been planned or approved. (Priest – The Washington Post 10.20.03)

LIE: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied tacitly endorsing the Venezuelan coup by stating that the coup was the “result of a message of the Venezuelan people.”

FACT: That is exactly what he said as the White House foolishly backed the overthrow of a democratically elected government and was the only democracy in the western hemisphere that failed to condemn the coup. In addition, the Venezuela government claims to have a videotape of US officials discussing coup preparations with dissident soldiers. (Jonathan Chait 06.04.02, AP 10.22.03)

LIE: During the campaign, Bush promised Armenian groups that he would “ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people” who were victims of a “genocidal campaign.”

FACT: The Bush administration has refused to recognize the Armenian genocide. (Redding Record Searchlight 04.24.01)

LIE: Bush promised Jewish leaders “s soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to” Jerusalem.

FACT: Bush has suspended any action to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. (Washington Post 06.13.01)

LIE: President Bush denied blaming the Clinton Administration’s Camp David Middle East peace summit for the Palestinian intifada.

FACT: The day before issuing this denial, Bush stated “we’ve tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn’t all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area.” (Slate 4.18.02)

FOREIGN TRADE

LIE: During the campaign, Bush stated he opposed “import fees” and would “work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely”.

FACT: As President, Bush has imposed tariffs on steel and softwood lumber increasing costs to U.S. businesses and consumers and risking retaliatory sanctions. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Business Week 03.25.02)

HARKEN & HALLIBURTON

LIE: Bush claims that he “absolutely had no idea and would not have sold had I known."

FACT: Harken’s president warned board members of liquidity problems that would “drastically affect” operations two months before Bush’s stock sale. Harken’s lawyers also circulated a memo warning executives and directors not to sell any stock. Bush sold his stock for $4/share and it quickly dropped to $1.25. (San Francisco Chronicle 07.05.02, Guardian 11.02.02, Washington Monthly 12.02)

LIE: Bush claims to have cooperated with an SEC investigation of his Harken transactions.

FACT: Bush quashed evidence that Harken’s lawyers advised Bush and other executives against selling their stock and only provided it to the SEC after it had ended its investigation. (Guardian 11.02.02)

LIE: Bush signed an agreement in which he promised to hold the Harken stock at issue for six months.

FACT: Bush sold the Harken stock two months later. (The Dubya Report 07.18.02)

LIE: Bush claimed he timely filed the required SEC disclosure form after selling his Harken stock and asserted that the SEC must have lost it.

FACT: Bush did not file until eight months after the deadline for doing so. (Washington Post 07.04.02)

LIE: Cheney claimed that while at Halliburton he imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq. “e’ve not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”

FACT: Senior Halliburton executives claim there was no such policy. Halliburton’s affiliates signed contracts with Iraq to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment during Cheney’s tenure, helping Iraq increase crude exports by 450% between 1997 and 2000. Senior Halliburton executives were certain Cheney was aware of this business. Cheney also defended circumvention of a Clinton executive order banning US trade and investment in Iran. (Financial Times 10.05.00, Washington Post 06.23.01)

HEALTH CARE & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

LIE: The Bush administration touted the Medicare prescription drug expansion as creating a modern Medicare system that provides “seniors with prescription drug benefits” and establishing Health Savings Account (“HSA’s) which will allow more Americans to save for health care needs and more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage.

FACT: The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees will lose their current drug coverage through their former employer since employers will drop such coverage once the Medicare benefit becomes available. The plan provides little relief for low income seniors and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 per year more than they currently spend. Finally, according to studies, premiums for employer-based coverage “could more than double” if HSA’s became widespread. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed that “all seniors” and not just poor would be covered under his plan.

FACT: Only seniors at or below 135% of the poverty level would be covered in full. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

LIE: President Bush has argued that medical malpractice reform and allowing small business to buy group insurance would make “a big difference” in reducing the 43.6 million Americans without health insurance.

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending and even radical reform ‘would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums”. In addition, the CBO found that allowing small businesses to buy at group rates would only add coverage for 0.6 million people, as one-third of the nation’s uninsured are employed by large companies. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.23.03)

LIE: In banning research on embryonic stem cells, Bush claimed that the ban still would permit research on “more than 60” existing lines cells which “could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.”

FACT: Only 11 cell lines are now available for research, all of which were grown mouse cells making them inappropriate for treating people. (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration)

LIE: Bush claimed he “brought Republicans and Democrats together” to enact a Patients Bill of Rights in Texas.

FACT: Governor Bush vetoed such a bill in 1995 and when a veto proof majority passed it, Bush allowed it to become law but refused to sign it. (Washington Post 10.18.00, Salon 10.05.02)

LIE: Bush bragged about a Texas Children’s Health Insurance Program extending coverage to 500,000 children passed while he was Governor.

FACT: Bush fought the program and tried to limit its reach to nearly half its current level. (Salon 10.05.02)

LIE: Bush stressed the need to support children’s hospitals at a 2001 appearance at an Atlanta children’s hospital.

FACT: Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals by 15% and his FY2004 budget proposes to cut these grants by 30%. (Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)

HOMELAND SECURITY

LIE: The White House claims that it has given first responders and public health systems “the training and equipment to prepare, prevent and respond to any future attack.”

FACT: The White House now concedes that it has not provided enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil. At the same time, the Clinton administration program to add 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because of funding cutbacks.” (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)

LIE: After September 11th, President Bush promised to take “every possible measure” to guarantee the security of the homeland.

FACT: The Council on Foreign Relations task force headed by former Republican Senator Rudman (which in 2001 warned against a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil and called for the creation of a Homeland Security Department), concluded that the administration was spending only one-third of what is required “to adequately provide for emergency responders.” (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.02.03)

THE RECESSION

LIE: In his December 28th radio address, Bush claimed that the recession began before he took office.

FACT: The economy was still growing at the end of 2000. The recession began during the first year of the Bush administration. (Slate 12.30.02)

2003 STATE OF THE UNION LIES

LIE: Bush vowed to expand AmeriCorps by 50 percent.

FACT: Funding for AmeriCorps has been cut by $100 million forcing the program to cut volunteers from 2,400 to 575 and close 17 of its 20 programs. (Marshall – TomPaine.com 08.12.03)

LIE: “To date we have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of Al Qaeda”.

FACT: Most Al Qaeda leaders remain at large, including Osama bin Laden and September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The US has captured and/or killed as many as 16 lower echelon Al Qaeda leaders. (AP 12.27.02, Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response)

LIE: “We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to strengthen the global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.”

FACT: The Bush administration has cut funding for programs to remove nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union, rejected a Russian proposal to eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons (preferring instead that they be kept in “storage”), and blocked efforts to strengthen treaties preventing the spread of biological and chemical weapons. (Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response)

LIE: Bush asked Congress to “add to our security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorist, call Project Bioshield. The budget I will send will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments”.

FACT: Bush proposed no increase in funding for the National Institute of Health but this did not stop Bush from a photo-op visit the day his budget was released. (Milbank – Washington Post 02.07.03)

LIE: “We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations.”

FACT: Bush’s budget calls for a record deficit of $307 billion deficit without even including the potential cost of a war with Iraq.

DECEPTION: “Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money” if Congress enacts Bush’s 2003 tax cuts.

FACT: Nearly one-third (31%) of all taxpayers, would receive nothing and 64 million taxpayers (nearly half (48%) would get less than $100. An average taxpayer (middle fifth of the income spectrum) will only receive $256 while those with incomes of more than $1 million will receive $90,200. Bush’s statement is technically correct, but very deceptive since it conveys the notion that 96 million Americans would receive something close to $1,100. (Citizens for Tax Justice, The New Republic – 02.10.03)

DECEPTION: One of Bush’s “compassionate” proposals in the speech was “a $450 initiative” to bring mentors to disadvantaged children and children of prisoners.

FACT: Bush’s 2004 budget allocates $50 million for mentoring prisoners’ children but cuts other mentoring programs by $64 million. (Milbank – Washington Post 02.07.03)

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/7/index.htm (Reprinted with full permission)

Want more credibile information about Bush* and the GOP?

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

----------------------------

Call them lies, call them stretches of the truth, call them deception - they are individually and collectively proof of Bush's inability to govern honestly and effectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
72. Ask him for 1 example OF him governing effectively, and then refute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBHagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
73. His refusal to push for railway and chemical tanker security.
...and that despite the pleas of the FBI and some in Congress. Bush is caving to the railway companies and others, who don't want to spend the extra money required for security. Unfortunately, if there's an attack (even with a high-powered rifle) on a chemical tanker, you could get Bhopal II in a major metropolitan area.

Here are some others:

*Demanding cuts to literacy programs (from his very first budget!)

*Stonewalling on the 9/11 investigation

*Administration secrecy that would make Nixon blush.

*Alienating the living daylights out of our supposed allies in Western industrialized countries (100,000 demonstrated against him in London)

*His general and TOTALLY UNFORGIVABLE refusal to do the hard work and preparation required of anyone in public office. I mean, refusing to read the newspapers and having to be spoon-fed things by staff? Come on!

*A backward and ultimately cruel policy on family planning and STD prevention/treatment.

*Abysmal policy concerning the consolidation of media power (Thanks for nothing, Michael Powell).

*Wimping out on press conferences, for the most part, unless they're scripted or very, very brief.

*Auctioning off wilderness areas to his campaign contributors.

*Demanding cuts to mine safety but posing with the rescued miners for a photo op. NICE ONE.

*Unprincipled, cruel and stupid policy on Haiti.

*Same policy for the Middle East.

*Short-sighted and bloody policy in general regarding terrorism.

*Willingness to cozy up to leaders of coups.

And that's just for starters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swinney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
75. 194 lies I have posted
A pathological Liar should not be a leader
A waffler. My list of 54.

draft dodger--criminal military deserter--criminal baby killer--criminal cocaine snorter-criminal drunkard--criminal insider trader--
alleged adulterer--alleged woman Assaulter--pathological liar--member of evil Texas mafia family a "Sorry Group"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myopic4141 Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
78. The answer depends on the goals of Shrubby and conservatives in general.
Shrubby wishes to return to the military interventionism of the 20's which he is effectively doing. Shrubby wishes to return to the pre-FDR safety net economics of Spencerian Evolution Economics (laissez-faire taken to the extreme) which he is effectively doing. Shrubby wishes to return us to the inadequate "faith based welfare" system of the pre-FDR years which he is effectively doing. Shrubby wishes to replace discrimination against "race" with discrimination against "sexual preference" which he is effectively doing. Shrubby wishes to make America a Christian nation which is what he is effectively doing. The fact that all this is not good for America is immaterial. Conservatives want this as much as Shrubby; therefore, it would be hard to find anything ineffective in what Shrubby is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arrogantatheist1000 Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
79. Haliburton and subsiduaries.
1. No bids on the iraqi contracts. That was a big chance to get some money in the hands of the iraqis, but instead gave the whole thing to haliburton.

Then later said that haliburton wasn't up to the task so gave them about 1 billion dollars. Earlier had said haliburton was only company capable of task.

Giving a lot of the mercenary defense of iraq to a subsiduary of haliburton. I can't find the name atm but its 3 names together. The vast majority of americans dead in Iraq are contractors, ex military americans working under contract to the military. When they die or are wounded no reports, yet they have all the frontline positions.

2. Withdrawing troops from the conflict areas in both Afghanistan and now Iraq. In both cases calling it a 'strategic withdrawl.' This began before November in Iraq but was hugely increased during that bloody month. This is why US deaths are down in Iraq, they simply have withdrawn from the urban areas. Leaving Iraqi security who the pentagon has said aren't ready, and mercenaries. And of course Iraqis just to get butchered in the civil war.

This has two bad implications. First Iraq is more unstable, and there is the human toll. Secondly it backs up the core terrorist argument that America has no stomach for casualties. One of the main reasons for Iraq was to show the islamists that resistance to america was futile. Hence taking out the foremost arab who had stood up to america.

Someone above explained what happened at tora bora when bush held back american troops and sent in locals. This is happening all over afghanistan and for the last over 12 months its been to the point, where americans don't ever leave the base. What we are hearing about this hunting for bin laden now is basically bullshit to make the administration look like they are actualy trying for him.

I've read journals of taliban and international militants there, plus news from many international journalists. If americans leave the base they die. Afghanistan by and large is almost as safe as a base for terror as it was in 2001. The country is less stable.

3. So there is another failure of governance, destabilizing afghanistan further and with that endangering the stability of pakistan.. a potentialy nightmarish situation.

4. Lying about weapons of mass destruction. When you dont' know something for sure, and you say its true its called lying. Now most americans are to stupid to realize this lie, but its destroyed what little credibility america had left on the international stage. Everyone in the world talks of the irony that north korea made nukes and they get sent money, and Iraq destroyed their WMD and they get taken over and imprisoned.

Its my opinion america probably had to go to war in Iraq for the longterm interests of the war on terror.. I can debate that with you guys later. But regardless lying about the reasons further jeopardized longterm success by destroying the nations credibility so early in the war. That is a failure of governance.

If it had been clinton in power when those lies came out, he could have done the same thing and said uh.. I didn't know, but ultimately he is responsible.

5. Economic policy. In terms of foreign trade we have managed to piss off basicaly everyone on the planet. Including countries like australia and canada which are trying to help us on the war on terror. If Bush is a protectionist which he appears to be at least he should say and do the same things. If he is open to trade, make fair trade deals with another nations. All other nations see at this moment is a liar in the whitehouse trying to rip them off. Ultimately this hurts americas credibility and ultimately the return sanctions which have come have hurt america's economy. Not to mention forcing consumers to pay more for the same goods, just because they now have to buy it from some super rich american tied to the administration.

Thats all I see with this administrations trade policy, buying votes from unions in swing states, Or paying off super rich campaign financiers with nice protectionism. Its like they have no principles the only thing they care about is getting re-elected. Which maybe is a fault of our democracy at the core, but either way it is a failure of governance.

6. Pensions. This is a coming time bomb, and the clock is closer to 12:00 then we think. And I don't just mean a time bomb like a few pensioners dont' get all the benefits they were promised, I'm talking imminent collapse of our entire economy. Bush talked big on the campaign trail about the need for social security reform. And he was right it needs reform and it needs it yesterday. However since he has come to power he has done nothing on it, in fact he has promised future seniors even more benefits with the perscription drug benefits. This is something that is going to explode within the next 10 years, and possibly within 5 years. He knows of course he wont' be in power by then, but it is a collasal failure of leadership. Democrats are guilty of this to btw, but the republicans are just as guilty.

7. Nato expansion into FSU. This is another ticking time bomb, russia may again rise, and if/when it does it will have to vanquish all of those who have invaded its sphere of influence. Nato agreements lock us into suicidal defense agreements with countries that we could never defend. However if we do not defend them that is the end of nato. Ok maybe that is a good thing, but this appears to be a mistake. Add to that russia was promised that nato would never go into the FSU. Again america lying for short term gain, then screwing everyone over 10 years later. This works a few times, then no one will ever deal with you, or they will deal but be planning on screwing you over. Btw Pat buchanan just wrote a great piece on this, so will work against conservatives.

Hmm these are all I can think of atm. All of these though are very serious and dire decisions, that will have costly reprocutions down the road. I personally wouldn't say everything bush has done was wrong, but things like not dealing with the coming pension crisis put the entire nation at real risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonDeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
80. How about Gray Davis calling bush* and asking for help
because Enron was ripping us off and bush* responded that it wan't Enron but the free market at work. Everyone in California and the Western States knew we were getting ripped off but bush* wouldn't step in to help us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC