George W. Bush Focuses On Quiet Service After Presidency

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bush should be focusing on his defense while on trial at The Hague.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The Iraq war was the right thing to do. It's execution was handled as poorly as Vietnam.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

President Booooosh was right about Iraq.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqX3DRtZtU]60 Minutes: George W. Bush Sought to -Find A Way- to Invade Iraq - YouTube[/ame]



*

Run, along, Skippy......

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Iraq war was the right thing to do. It's execution was handled as poorly as Vietnam.

Please......

We FUCKED the Vietnamese!!!

It was our KARMA that kicked our ass.

(...In a War that didn't need to happen.)

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT90Qu55O4U]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 2 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erf52WGnM4g]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 3 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMhaypD5wU]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 4 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You know, its just a damn shame this corrupt criminal didn't think about serving his own country while he was in office. Instead, he and his cronies were intent only on lining their own pockets while breaking the US and killing our soldiers.

The Iraq war was the right thing to do. It's execution was handled as poorly as Vietnam.

rw's are always so good at rewriting history to suit their screwy agenda. There is nothing that will ever make the mindless slaughter of so many hundreds of thousands "the right thing to do". Doesn't matter what part of the world, its wrong.

 

[Liability]

You know, its just a damn shame this corrupt criminal didn't think about serving his own country while he was in office. Instead, he and his cronies were intent only on lining their own pockets while breaking the US and killing our soldiers.

The Iraq war was the right thing to do. It's execution was handled as poorly as Vietnam.

rw's are always so good at rewriting history to suit their screwy agenda. There is nothing that will ever make the mindless slaughter of so many hundreds of thousands "the right thing to do". Doesn't matter what part of the world, its wrong.

It's actually a damn shame that you are incapable of honesty or objectivity, muddly.dullwit.

 

[clevergirl]

More soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Obama then did under Bush... Remember Obama falsely claiming that Bush was "air raiding" villages? Now Obama has tripled drone strikes into Pakistan... Drones that kill "innocent villagers".

Obama: troops just airraiding villages and killing civilians - YouTube

Bush ignored Afghanistan, that would probably explain why more troops died under Obama. Obama has had to clean up what Bush and Reagan started.
Were you going to vote for McCain?

Afghanistan is the quagmire its always been- Bush never ignored Afghanistan- He routed the Taliban and al-Qaeda- for Obama's inept handling read starting in 2009 page 20 or there about. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/War-in-Afghanistan-2001-Present.pdf

(page 18) As a result, coalition forces began preparing offensives to root out the
rebel forces. In late August 2005, Afghan government forces backed
by U.S troops and heavy American aerial bombardment advanced upon
Taliban positions within the mountain fortress. After a one-week battle,
Taliban forces were routed with up to 124 fighters (according to
Afghan government estimates) killed. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/War-in-Afghanistan-2001-Present.pdf

?

 

[Freewill]

FW, Welcome, Bro. Glad to have you aboard. The site leans Right on some days, Left on others. If the Lefties abound, your posts will be quickly buried with nary a reply. Thankfully, you won't find any of that chicken sh!t here that was present in massive over abundance in the last site you frequented. Somewhere on these pages you'll find BigReb from the so long ago, old, old days scriveling happily away. Happy posting.
TR, wolfgang13

Hey TR. After getting some BS infractions I started playing all nice. Two moderators said that they liked me being more controversial so I quit being nice and they banned me for a couple of days so I quit going there. Not that it is any loss to them it was just too hard to live up to the legion of rules. Apparently this site has few rules. I did see bigreb posting. Take care, tlc51, Gibran, FW.

 

[Mustang]

I didn't care for his politics but he did seem to be loved in Africa, kind of ironic when you consider the President we have today. I don't know how much Bush had to do with it but his tax cuts seemed to have helped the economy recover from the .com crash, the Y2K wind down and 9/11. I bet a lot of folks forget that all happened at the start of Bush's presidency. What he didn't do is make that recession into longest and weakest in history.

George W. Bush Focuses On Quiet Service After Presidency

George W. Bush Focuses On Quiet Service After Presidency

LUSAKA — Former President George W. Bush has kept a relatively low profile in the United States since leaving office. But in Africa this week he is publicly promoting his institute's initiative to prevent and treat cervical cancer. While Bush is following a familiar post-presidential path in supporting humanitarian causes, he would prefer to focus on quiet service, to lead through example and hard work.

He worked alongside other volunteers in Kabwe - Zambia's second-largest city - to renovate a health clinic which specializes in the early detection and treatment of cervical cancer.

Bush is a piece of work. I think any kind of public service is admirable. But he now seems as clueless as his wife, Laura, was (and admitted she was) when she was the First Lady of the United States when she said on camera near the end of her last year that she didn't truly understand the power of her high profile to bring attention to issues she cared about.

Below is a Bush quote from the article:

“I hope you don't see much of it because I don't want to be in the news. In other words, I believe that quiet service is the best kind of service,” he said.
​

Bush is a high profile man. Allowing the media in to give FREE press to his humanitarian work can only serve to help his chosen causes. So, his desire to remain quiet and stay out of the spotlight, frankly, seems rather selfish.

 

[Liability]

I didn't care for his politics but he did seem to be loved in Africa, kind of ironic when you consider the President we have today. I don't know how much Bush had to do with it but his tax cuts seemed to have helped the economy recover from the .com crash, the Y2K wind down and 9/11. I bet a lot of folks forget that all happened at the start of Bush's presidency. What he didn't do is make that recession into longest and weakest in history.

George W. Bush Focuses On Quiet Service After Presidency

George W. Bush Focuses On Quiet Service After Presidency

LUSAKA — Former President George W. Bush has kept a relatively low profile in the United States since leaving office. But in Africa this week he is publicly promoting his institute's initiative to prevent and treat cervical cancer. While Bush is following a familiar post-presidential path in supporting humanitarian causes, he would prefer to focus on quiet service, to lead through example and hard work.

He worked alongside other volunteers in Kabwe - Zambia's second-largest city - to renovate a health clinic which specializes in the early detection and treatment of cervical cancer.

Bush is a piece of work. I think any kind of public service is admirable. But he now seems as clueless as his wife, Laura was (and admitted she was) when she was the First Lady of the United States when she said on camera near the end of her last year that she didn't truly understand the power of her high profile to bring attention to issues she cared about.

Below is a Bush quote from the article:

“I hope you don't see much of it because I don't want to be in the news. In other words, I believe that quiet service is the best kind of service,” he said.
​

Bush is a high profile man. Allowing the media in to give FREE press to his humanitarian work can only serve to help his chosen causes. So, his desire to remain quiet and stay out of the spotlight, frankly, seems rather selfish.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. A liberal's notion of objectivity when it comes to



Boooooooooooooooooooooooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Mustang]

I didn't care for his politics but he did seem to be loved in Africa, kind of ironic when you consider the President we have today. I don't know how much Bush had to do with it but his tax cuts seemed to have helped the economy recover from the .com crash, the Y2K wind down and 9/11. I bet a lot of folks forget that all happened at the start of Bush's presidency. What he didn't do is make that recession into longest and weakest in history.

George W. Bush Focuses On Quiet Service After Presidency

George W. Bush Focuses On Quiet Service After Presidency

LUSAKA — Former President George W. Bush has kept a relatively low profile in the United States since leaving office. But in Africa this week he is publicly promoting his institute's initiative to prevent and treat cervical cancer. While Bush is following a familiar post-presidential path in supporting humanitarian causes, he would prefer to focus on quiet service, to lead through example and hard work.

He worked alongside other volunteers in Kabwe - Zambia's second-largest city - to renovate a health clinic which specializes in the early detection and treatment of cervical cancer.

Bush is a piece of work. I think any kind of public service is admirable. But he now seems as clueless as his wife, Laura was (and admitted she was) when she was the First Lady of the United States when she said on camera near the end of her last year that she didn't truly understand the power of her high profile to bring attention to issues she cared about.

Below is a Bush quote from the article:

“I hope you don't see much of it because I don't want to be in the news. In other words, I believe that quiet service is the best kind of service,” he said.
​

Bush is a high profile man. Allowing the media in to give FREE press to his humanitarian work can only serve to help his chosen causes. So, his desire to remain quiet and stay out of the spotlight, frankly, seems rather selfish.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. A liberal's notion of objectivity when it comes to



Boooooooooooooooooooooooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!

Bush said that HE didn't want to be in the news. By extension, Bush is keeping his causes out of the news. That's selfish.

 

[Liability]

Bush is a piece of work. I think any kind of public service is admirable. But he now seems as clueless as his wife, Laura was (and admitted she was) when she was the First Lady of the United States when she said on camera near the end of her last year that she didn't truly understand the power of her high profile to bring attention to issues she cared about.

Below is a Bush quote from the article:

“I hope you don't see much of it because I don't want to be in the news. In other words, I believe that quiet service is the best kind of service,” he said.
​

Bush is a high profile man. Allowing the media in to give FREE press to his humanitarian work can only serve to help his chosen causes. So, his desire to remain quiet and stay out of the spotlight, frankly, seems rather selfish.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. A liberal's notion of objectivity when it comes to



Boooooooooooooooooooooooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!

Bush said that HE didn't want to be in the news. By extension, Bush is keeping his causes out of the news. That's selfish.

But you're still a gasbag illogical schmuck.

If he tries to keep modest about his good deeds, idiots like you attack him because in the process he is not exploiting his ability to generate press FOR the good work's program.

BUT, if he decides to go ahead and make use of his fame to generate some publicity for the program, duplicitous scumbags like you would chastise him for being a vainglorious attention seeker.

As it goes in logic, SURELY he must either exploit his fame or modestly keep his good deeds more private, and therefore (to partisan hack mutts like you), there is ground to attack him.

You are simply not honest or objective or reasonable or fair.

 

[blackhawk]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. A liberal's notion of objectivity when it comes to



Boooooooooooooooooooooooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!

Bush said that HE didn't want to be in the news. By extension, Bush is keeping his causes out of the news. That's selfish.

But you're still a gasbag illogical schmuck.

If he tries to keep modest about his good deeds, idiots like you attack him because in the process he is not exploiting his ability to generate press FOR the good work's program.

BUT, if he decides to go ahead and make use of his fame to generate some publicity for the program, duplicitous scumbags like you would chastise him for being a vainglorious attention seeker.

As it goes in logic, SURELY he must either exploit his fame or modestly keep his good deeds more private, and therefore (to partisan hack mutts like you), there is ground to attack him.

You are simply not honest or objective or reasonable or fair.

All some people want to do is bitch and criticize I suspect you will have some people still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome 20 years from now.

 

[Mustang]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. A liberal's notion of objectivity when it comes to



Boooooooooooooooooooooooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!

Bush said that HE didn't want to be in the news. By extension, Bush is keeping his causes out of the news. That's selfish.

But you're still a gasbag illogical schmuck.

If he tries to keep modest about his good deeds, idiots like you attack him because in the process he is not exploiting his ability to generate press FOR the good work's program.

BUT, if he decides to go ahead and make use of his fame to generate some publicity for the program, duplicitous scumbags like you would chastise him for being a vainglorious attention seeker.

As it goes in logic, SURELY he must either exploit his fame or modestly keep his good deeds more private, and therefore (to partisan hack mutts like you), there is ground to attack him.

You are simply not honest or objective or reasonable or fair.

I've never said anything of the kind.

There are perfectly legitimate circumstances for someone to choose to remain anonymous if and when they donate time and money to a cause. For example, perhaps the person is wealthy, yet not famous. In situations like that, media attention may not help the cause in any meaningful way, but it might cause the wealthy benefactor to become besieged with requests (some legitimate, some considerably less so) for money.

And I certainly understand that there are some people in the public who just want the good PR but don't really care much about the causes. That's why Hollywood types have publicists and press agents.

A former president falls into a different, entirely unique category because his fame can often catapult a perfectly worthy cause into the public consciousness, thereby helping the cause beyond any personal contribution of time and money on his own part.

Are there some presidents who hope to burnish their image in the process? I have no doubt of that. But who really cares? I certainly don't. Obviously, Jimmy Carter has spent enough of his own personal time on everything from Habitat for Humanity on the one hand, to promoting free and fair elections around the world on the other hand to make that work stand on its own, independent of his presidency. And Clinton's Global Initiative has concentrated on everything from economic growth in 3rd world nations to gaining commitments to help from wealthy people around the world. Clinton has earned his post presidency reputation. But I don't think anyone believes that will erase his Monica footnote in the history books.

So, IF Bush really believes in his causes like he and you would have us believe, perhaps he should think more about what's best for the causes he's supposedly championing instead of making his own personal desire for a lack of publicity the overriding priority.

 

[Liability]

Bush said that HE didn't want to be in the news. By extension, Bush is keeping his causes out of the news. That's selfish.

But you're still a gasbag illogical schmuck.

If he tries to keep modest about his good deeds, idiots like you attack him because in the process he is not exploiting his ability to generate press FOR the good work's program.

BUT, if he decides to go ahead and make use of his fame to generate some publicity for the program, duplicitous scumbags like you would chastise him for being a vainglorious attention seeker.

As it goes in logic, SURELY he must either exploit his fame or modestly keep his good deeds more private, and therefore (to partisan hack mutts like you), there is ground to attack him.

You are simply not honest or objective or reasonable or fair.

I've never said anything of the kind.

There are perfectly legitimate circumstances for someone to choose to remain anonymous if and when they donate time and money to a cause. For example, perhaps the person is wealthy, yet not famous. In situations like that, media attention may not help the cause in any meaningful way, but it might cause the wealthy benefactor to become besieged with requests (some legitimate, some considerably less so) for money.

And I certainly understand that there are some people in the public who just want the good PR but don't really care much about the causes. That's why Hollywood types have publicists and press agents.

A former president falls into a different, entirely unique category because his fame can often catapult a perfectly worthy cause into the public consciousness, thereby helping the cause beyond any personal contribution of time and money on his own part.

Are there some presidents who hope to burnish their image in the process? I have no doubt of that. But who really cares? I certainly don't. Obviously, Jimmy Carter has spent enough of his own personal time on everything from Habitat for Humanity on the one hand, to promoting free and fair elections around the world on the other hand to make that work stand on its own, independent of his presidency. And Clinton's Global Initiative has concentrated on everything from economic growth in 3rd world nations to gaining commitments to help from wealthy people around the world. Clinton has earned his post presidency reputation. But I don't think anyone believes that will erase his Monica footnote in the history books.

So, IF Bush really believes in his causes like he and you would have us believe, perhaps he should think more about what's best for the causes he's supposedly championing instead of making his own personal desire for a lack of publicity the overriding priority.

Stop. You're embarrassing yourself more than you usually do.

I didn't say you HAD said anything of the kind. President Bush only did one thing, so all you COULD do was strain -- as you did -- to make that decision an object of your absurd criticism.

HAD he done the other, your criticism would have been chosen for you. But you WOULD have criticized it.

You are a partisan hack. Still and always.

 

[Mustang]

But you're still a gasbag illogical schmuck.

If he tries to keep modest about his good deeds, idiots like you attack him because in the process he is not exploiting his ability to generate press FOR the good work's program.

BUT, if he decides to go ahead and make use of his fame to generate some publicity for the program, duplicitous scumbags like you would chastise him for being a vainglorious attention seeker.

As it goes in logic, SURELY he must either exploit his fame or modestly keep his good deeds more private, and therefore (to partisan hack mutts like you), there is ground to attack him.

You are simply not honest or objective or reasonable or fair.

I've never said anything of the kind.

There are perfectly legitimate circumstances for someone to choose to remain anonymous if and when they donate time and money to a cause. For example, perhaps the person is wealthy, yet not famous. In situations like that, media attention may not help the cause in any meaningful way, but it might cause the wealthy benefactor to become besieged with requests (some legitimate, some considerably less so) for money.

And I certainly understand that there are some people in the public who just want the good PR but don't really care much about the causes. That's why Hollywood types have publicists and press agents.

A former president falls into a different, entirely unique category because his fame can often catapult a perfectly worthy cause into the public consciousness, thereby helping the cause beyond any personal contribution of time and money on his own part.

Are there some presidents who hope to burnish their image in the process? I have no doubt of that. But who really cares? I certainly don't. Obviously, Jimmy Carter has spent enough of his own personal time on everything from Habitat for Humanity on the one hand, to promoting free and fair elections around the world on the other hand to make that work stand on its own, independent of his presidency. And Clinton's Global Initiative has concentrated on everything from economic growth in 3rd world nations to gaining commitments to help from wealthy people around the world. Clinton has earned his post presidency reputation. But I don't think anyone believes that will erase his Monica footnote in the history books.

So, IF Bush really believes in his causes like he and you would have us believe, perhaps he should think more about what's best for the causes he's supposedly championing instead of making his own personal desire for a lack of publicity the overriding priority.

Stop. You're embarrassing yourself more than you usually do.

I didn't say you HAD said anything of the kind. President Bush only did one thing, so all you COULD do was strain -- as you did -- to make that decision an object of your absurd criticism.

HAD he done the other, your criticism would have been chosen for you. But you WOULD have criticized it.

You are a partisan hack. Still and always.

It was no strain to quote Bush's own words on the subject.

 

[Liability]

I've never said anything of the kind.

There are perfectly legitimate circumstances for someone to choose to remain anonymous if and when they donate time and money to a cause. For example, perhaps the person is wealthy, yet not famous. In situations like that, media attention may not help the cause in any meaningful way, but it might cause the wealthy benefactor to become besieged with requests (some legitimate, some considerably less so) for money.

And I certainly understand that there are some people in the public who just want the good PR but don't really care much about the causes. That's why Hollywood types have publicists and press agents.

A former president falls into a different, entirely unique category because his fame can often catapult a perfectly worthy cause into the public consciousness, thereby helping the cause beyond any personal contribution of time and money on his own part.

Are there some presidents who hope to burnish their image in the process? I have no doubt of that. But who really cares? I certainly don't. Obviously, Jimmy Carter has spent enough of his own personal time on everything from Habitat for Humanity on the one hand, to promoting free and fair elections around the world on the other hand to make that work stand on its own, independent of his presidency. And Clinton's Global Initiative has concentrated on everything from economic growth in 3rd world nations to gaining commitments to help from wealthy people around the world. Clinton has earned his post presidency reputation. But I don't think anyone believes that will erase his Monica footnote in the history books.

So, IF Bush really believes in his causes like he and you would have us believe, perhaps he should think more about what's best for the causes he's supposedly championing instead of making his own personal desire for a lack of publicity the overriding priority.

Stop. You're embarrassing yourself more than you usually do.

I didn't say you HAD said anything of the kind. President Bush only did one thing, so all you COULD do was strain -- as you did -- to make that decision an object of your absurd criticism.

HAD he done the other, your criticism would have been chosen for you. But you WOULD have criticized it.

You are a partisan hack. Still and always.

It was no strain to quote Bush's own words on the subject.

No dopey. The strain was to take note of his modesty and try to convert it into your ridiculous "basis" for being critical of him.

You are transparent, you hack.

 

[Mustang]

Stop. You're embarrassing yourself more than you usually do.

I didn't say you HAD said anything of the kind. President Bush only did one thing, so all you COULD do was strain -- as you did -- to make that decision an object of your absurd criticism.

HAD he done the other, your criticism would have been chosen for you. But you WOULD have criticized it.

You are a partisan hack. Still and always.

It was no strain to quote Bush's own words on the subject.

No dopey. The strain was to take note of his modesty and try to convert it into your ridiculous "basis" for being critical of him.

You are transparent, you hack.

Hey, I didn't even get to the part where I speculate that with Bush's Secret Service detail in tow, the whole Bush magical mystery tour probably cost more than whatever his contribution was worth. Now, if he didn't shun the media spotlight, perhaps he could actually draw enough attention to his charitable <cough> work to actually make a REAL difference instead of just footing the taxpayer with a bigger bill.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Each morning the former decider in chief gets out of bed and falls on his knees and prays, "Let this not be the day I am sent to The Hague."

 

[Liability]

Each morning the former decider in chief gets out of bed and falls on his knees and prays, "Let this not be the day I am sent to The Hague."

Another Fakey lie or failed attempt at being clever.

You fucking liberal Democratics always say dumb shit from The Democrap Underground.