Bush Book Tour during the November Elections

[xsited1]

the book will include the former president speaking "candidly" about September 11th, his decision to invade Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and more. I'm interested to see how Bush feels he handled these situations because I know myself and the rest of the American public has their own opinions.

PhillyBurbs.com: Bush book due out in November

The memoir of former US President George W Bush will be a candid account of his "flaws and mistakes" as well as his achievements, his publishers said.

BBC News - George W Bush book to tell of 'flaws and mistakes'

********************************

Yea, his "achievements". Both of them. He tricked American into invading Iraq and he managed to let Bin Laden go scott free.

Couldn't ya just "die"?

Bush will be, for the Republicans, THE GIFT THAT JUST KEEPS ON GIVING.

Just when Republicans thought they had gotten rid of Bush once and for all, he shows up with a book of his "mistakes", just in time for the November election. AND HE'LL BE ON TOUR. I can't wait. Don't cha just love it?

You can hope all you want for Bush to die, but he's very fit. He'll probably outlast Clinton and Obama.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but I just had to respond here.

Right from the beginning, the Bush administration ran on a platform of "morals" and a "constitutional amendment" to protect the American Family from gay rights. I can't even remember a president ever who ran on a platform of hate, besides Bush. Then, once elected, he never brought up "save marriage" again.

Actually, they tried to pass an amendment several times. But as the President has little to do with Constitutional amendments and Democrats had more than enough to defeat the Supermajority needed for an amendment, it didn't happen.

BTW there is nothing hateful about protecting marriage.

Then there was Iraq. The country was attacked by Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. Yet, the majority of soldiers, nearly 90%, from a Zogby international pol, believed we attacked Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. Where would they get such an idea?

I'd love to see the questions asked in that poll, because I have a feeling you aren't accurately representing what the poll said.

However, no one in the administration actually argued that we were going into Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. In fact, Iraq was always represented as a preemptive action because in a post 9/11 world where we are aware of potential threats, we can't sit on our butts and wait for someone to attack us before taking care of a problem.

Simply because retaliation had nothing to do with the motives doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't at all a factor.

Then there was Iraq. A country who had been in an 8 year war with Iran, who lost a generation of young men, whose military was pretty much wiped out when chased out of Kuwait. A country with almost no manufacturing, no industry, no natural resources besides oil and dates. A country under sanctions. Yet they were a threat?

Intelligence said that they had weapons programs. We know they've used used WMDs. There were countless WMDs that they hadn't accounted for which the cease fire agreement required them to provide an account. They were waiting for sanctions to cease to reconstitute the weapons programs. And by definition a preemptive strike is designed to stop threats before they become serious. Most people familiar with the english language and looking at things honestly through a non-partisan lense would realize that it's impossible to preempt a threat after it's manifest.

As for the sanction, we all know how effectively they were working with France, Russia, the UN and other nations buying oil off Iraq with food that never went to the people in the Food for Oil scandal. Amazing how little that did.

Colin Powell believed they were. He was lied to. We know that now. He was lied to. He lied to us, but he didn't know he was lying. He found that out later.

You can't lie if you believe something is true. The evidence provided by every nations intelligence and by Saddam's own government reinforced that. I know you really don't like facing reality, but claiming otherwise doesn't change things.

Republcians lying? Wow, do they lie? Death panels? Kill Grandma? You betcha!

It's funny you guys make that claim all the time, yet you never prove anything.

Republicans can never answer. Why did we go to Iraq and let Bin Laden go? When they do answer it, it's always weird and laughable.

Who said Bin Laden was let go? He could be dead for all we know. As for Iraq, if you don't know why we went into Iraq, you are seriously dumb. Because even if you don't agree with the reasoning, the reasons have been pretty clear from the beginning.

 

[rdean]

lol....and the left whines about the supposed hatred of the president in office now....good lord, it is truly amazing the deep vitriol hatred the left has for bush....

i have no doubt some on the right hate him as well, but its not as profound as those on the left....its funny how many on the left forget how many democrats supported iraq and act like it was only the gop and bush

Right from the beginning, the Bush administration ran on a platform of "morals" and a "constitutional amendment" to protect the American Family from gay rights. I can't even remember a president ever who ran on a platform of hate, besides Bush. Then, once elected, he never brought up "save marriage" again.

Then there was Iraq. The country was attacked by Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. Yet, the majority of soldiers, nearly 90%, from a Zogby international pol, believed we attacked Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. Where would they get such an idea?

Then there was Iraq. A country who had been in an 8 year war with Iran, who lost a generation of young men, whose military was pretty much wiped out when chased out of Kuwait. A country with almost no manufacturing, no industry, no natural resources besides oil and dates. A country under sanctions. Yet they were a threat?

Colin Powell believed they were. He was lied to. We know that now. He was lied to. He lied to us, but he didn't know he was lying. He found that out later.

Republcians lying? Wow, do they lie? Death panels? Kill Grandma? You betcha!

Republicans can never answer. Why did we go to Iraq and let Bin Laden go? When they do answer it, it's always weird and laughable.

How can protecting the American family be considered hate?

Uh, because gay people come from "American Families"? How do YOU think they got here?

 

[WillowTree]

Right from the beginning, the Bush administration ran on a platform of "morals" and a "constitutional amendment" to protect the American Family from gay rights. I can't even remember a president ever who ran on a platform of hate, besides Bush. Then, once elected, he never brought up "save marriage" again.

Then there was Iraq. The country was attacked by Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. Yet, the majority of soldiers, nearly 90%, from a Zogby international pol, believed we attacked Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. Where would they get such an idea?

Then there was Iraq. A country who had been in an 8 year war with Iran, who lost a generation of young men, whose military was pretty much wiped out when chased out of Kuwait. A country with almost no manufacturing, no industry, no natural resources besides oil and dates. A country under sanctions. Yet they were a threat?

Colin Powell believed they were. He was lied to. We know that now. He was lied to. He lied to us, but he didn't know he was lying. He found that out later.

Republcians lying? Wow, do they lie? Death panels? Kill Grandma? You betcha!

Republicans can never answer. Why did we go to Iraq and let Bin Laden go? When they do answer it, it's always weird and laughable.

How can protecting the American family be considered hate?

Uh, because gay people come from "American Families"? How do YOU think they got here?

they snuck across the border tucked tightly within the labia of a illegal!

 

[txlonghorn]

I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but I just had to respond here.

Right from the beginning, the Bush administration ran on a platform of "morals" and a "constitutional amendment" to protect the American Family from gay rights. I can't even remember a president ever who ran on a platform of hate, besides Bush. Then, once elected, he never brought up "save marriage" again.

Actually, they tried to pass an amendment several times. But as the President has little to do with Constitutional amendments and Democrats had more than enough to defeat the Supermajority needed for an amendment, it didn't happen.

BTW there is nothing hateful about protecting marriage.

Then there was Iraq. The country was attacked by Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. Yet, the majority of soldiers, nearly 90%, from a Zogby international pol, believed we attacked Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. Where would they get such an idea?

I'd love to see the questions asked in that poll, because I have a feeling you aren't accurately representing what the poll said.

However, no one in the administration actually argued that we were going into Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. In fact, Iraq was always represented as a preemptive action because in a post 9/11 world where we are aware of potential threats, we can't sit on our butts and wait for someone to attack us before taking care of a problem.

Simply because retaliation had nothing to do with the motives doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't at all a factor.



Intelligence said that they had weapons programs. We know they've used used WMDs. There were countless WMDs that they hadn't accounted for which the cease fire agreement required them to provide an account. They were waiting for sanctions to cease to reconstitute the weapons programs. And by definition a preemptive strike is designed to stop threats before they become serious. Most people familiar with the english language and looking at things honestly through a non-partisan lense would realize that it's impossible to preempt a threat after it's manifest.

As for the sanction, we all know how effectively they were working with France, Russia, the UN and other nations buying oil off Iraq with food that never went to the people in the Food for Oil scandal. Amazing how little that did.




You can't lie if you believe something is true. The evidence provided by every nations intelligence and by Saddam's own government reinforced that. I know you really don't like facing reality, but claiming otherwise doesn't change things.

Republcians lying? Wow, do they lie? Death panels? Kill Grandma? You betcha!

It's funny you guys make that claim all the time, yet you never prove anything.

Republicans can never answer. Why did we go to Iraq and let Bin Laden go? When they do answer it, it's always weird and laughable.

Who said Bin Laden was let go? He could be dead for all we know. As for Iraq, if you don't know why we went into Iraq, you are seriously dumb. Because even if you don't agree with the reasoning, the reasons have been pretty clear from the beginning.

Good answers, all of them...too bad they won't get any consideration.

As for letting Bin Laden go...that question should be asked of one, William Jefferson Clinton...

 

[rdean]

I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but I just had to respond here.

Right from the beginning, the Bush administration ran on a platform of "morals" and a "constitutional amendment" to protect the American Family from gay rights. I can't even remember a president ever who ran on a platform of hate, besides Bush. Then, once elected, he never brought up "save marriage" again.

Actually, they tried to pass an amendment several times. But as the President has little to do with Constitutional amendments and Democrats had more than enough to defeat the Supermajority needed for an amendment, it didn't happen.

BTW there is nothing hateful about protecting marriage.

Then there was Iraq. The country was attacked by Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. Yet, the majority of soldiers, nearly 90%, from a Zogby international pol, believed we attacked Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. Where would they get such an idea?

I'd love to see the questions asked in that poll, because I have a feeling you aren't accurately representing what the poll said.

However, no one in the administration actually argued that we were going into Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. In fact, Iraq was always represented as a preemptive action because in a post 9/11 world where we are aware of potential threats, we can't sit on our butts and wait for someone to attack us before taking care of a problem.

Simply because retaliation had nothing to do with the motives doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't at all a factor.

Intelligence said that they had weapons programs. We know they've used used WMDs. There were countless WMDs that they hadn't accounted for which the cease fire agreement required them to provide an account. They were waiting for sanctions to cease to reconstitute the weapons programs. And by definition a preemptive strike is designed to stop threats before they become serious. Most people familiar with the english language and looking at things honestly through a non-partisan lense would realize that it's impossible to preempt a threat after it's manifest.

As for the sanction, we all know how effectively they were working with France, Russia, the UN and other nations buying oil off Iraq with food that never went to the people in the Food for Oil scandal. Amazing how little that did.




You can't lie if you believe something is true. The evidence provided by every nations intelligence and by Saddam's own government reinforced that. I know you really don't like facing reality, but claiming otherwise doesn't change things.

Republcians lying? Wow, do they lie? Death panels? Kill Grandma? You betcha!

It's funny you guys make that claim all the time, yet you never prove anything.

Republicans can never answer. Why did we go to Iraq and let Bin Laden go? When they do answer it, it's always weird and laughable.

Who said Bin Laden was let go? He could be dead for all we know. As for Iraq, if you don't know why we went into Iraq, you are seriously dumb. Because even if you don't agree with the reasoning, the reasons have been pretty clear from the beginning.

There is a 50% divorce rate. What exactly are you protecting marriage from? Other people? Does that make any sense? Roman men married each other and that was two thousand years ago and guess what? Marriage survived. Odd that. Three is no coherent argument against gay people. How can there be?

Who tried to pass an amendment several times? When? Did it ever come to the floor?

Go look it up:

Zogby International

Bush trying to have it both ways:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM]YouTube - Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11[/ame]

Just stop with the "Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States". It's just not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.

He contends that the urgent appeals of the C.I.A. on terrorism received a lukewarm reception at the Bush White House through most of 2001.

It's funny you guys make that claim all the time, yet you never prove anything.

We never "prove" Republican lies? Death Panels, kill grandma. Those ARE lies.
Obama is a “boy” who is an empty suit, a racist, terrorist, child molester, Marxist, Kenyan, watermelon eating, totalitarian, Socialist, drug addicted, gay, Nazi, black, Muslim, Communist, illegal Alien who wants to kill your grandmother and is the "anti Christ"?

All Republican lies. Republicans lie so much about everything. Gays are a threat to marriage - lie. The damage to the economy caused by Democrats? Lie.

Republicans lie so much about so many things, they don't even know it. They think those lies are reality.

This is what Iraqis think of America. Was it worth American lives and treasure to make a right wing, Islamic theocracy by constitution? A county that hates our guts and I suspect, will one day, "get even"?

 

[rdean]

Who wrote the Bush Book. I am sure that Bush did not write it.

prove it asswipe.

"Going Rogue by Lynn Vincent" was written by Sarah Palin.

 

[WillowTree]

Who wrote the Bush Book. I am sure that Bush did not write it.

prove it asswipe.

"Going Rogue by Lynn Vincent" was written by Sarah Palin.

good job you proved you wuz a asswipe..

 

[Yurt]

i won't repeat avatars excellent answers

i will however mock rdean's partisanhackmanship for calling out bush being against gay marriage while ignoring that obama also ran on the platform of being against gay marriage....

ignorance is bliss i guess

 

[txlonghorn]

i won't repeat avatars excellent answers

i will however mock rdean's partisanhackmanship for calling out bush being against gay marriage while ignoring that obama also ran on the platform of being against gay marriage....

ignorance is bliss i guess

Careful there Yurt...you might actually hurt his feelins. You know what they say about the truth...

 

[Avatar4321]

Rdean,

I'm going to try to make this as simple for you to understand as possible.

The administration didn't claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. The whole concept of preemption is to stop threats before they become imminent.

This isn't rocket science here.

 

[rdean]

I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but I just had to respond here.

Right from the beginning, the Bush administration ran on a platform of "morals" and a "constitutional amendment" to protect the American Family from gay rights. I can't even remember a president ever who ran on a platform of hate, besides Bush. Then, once elected, he never brought up "save marriage" again.

Actually, they tried to pass an amendment several times. But as the President has little to do with Constitutional amendments and Democrats had more than enough to defeat the Supermajority needed for an amendment, it didn't happen.

BTW there is nothing hateful about protecting marriage.





I'd love to see the questions asked in that poll, because I have a feeling you aren't accurately representing what the poll said.

However, no one in the administration actually argued that we were going into Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. In fact, Iraq was always represented as a preemptive action because in a post 9/11 world where we are aware of potential threats, we can't sit on our butts and wait for someone to attack us before taking care of a problem.

Simply because retaliation had nothing to do with the motives doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't at all a factor.



Intelligence said that they had weapons programs. We know they've used used WMDs. There were countless WMDs that they hadn't accounted for which the cease fire agreement required them to provide an account. They were waiting for sanctions to cease to reconstitute the weapons programs. And by definition a preemptive strike is designed to stop threats before they become serious. Most people familiar with the english language and looking at things honestly through a non-partisan lense would realize that it's impossible to preempt a threat after it's manifest.

As for the sanction, we all know how effectively they were working with France, Russia, the UN and other nations buying oil off Iraq with food that never went to the people in the Food for Oil scandal. Amazing how little that did.




You can't lie if you believe something is true. The evidence provided by every nations intelligence and by Saddam's own government reinforced that. I know you really don't like facing reality, but claiming otherwise doesn't change things.



It's funny you guys make that claim all the time, yet you never prove anything.

Republicans can never answer. Why did we go to Iraq and let Bin Laden go? When they do answer it, it's always weird and laughable.

Who said Bin Laden was let go? He could be dead for all we know. As for Iraq, if you don't know why we went into Iraq, you are seriously dumb. Because even if you don't agree with the reasoning, the reasons have been pretty clear from the beginning.

Good answers, all of them...too bad they won't get any consideration.

As for letting Bin Laden go...that question should be asked of one, William Jefferson Clinton...

Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Over the course of the campaign, several polls showed that majorities of
respondents believed that Saddam Hussein was either partly or largely responsible
for the 9/11 attacks (see Althaus and Largio 2004, for a summary of polling
evidence, and Kull, Ramsay, and Lewis 2003, on closely related questions).
This percentage declined slowly, dipping below 50 percent only in late 2003
(Everts and Isernia 2005). This misperception persisted despite mounting
evidence and a broad official consensus that no such link existed.
Explanations for this have generally suggested that the misperception of a
link resulted from a campaign of innuendo carried out by the Bush administration
that explicitly and implicitly linked Saddam with Al Qaeda. For example, Gershkoff
and Kushner (2005:525) argue that “the Bush administration successfully
convinced [a majority of the public] that a link existed between Saddam Hussein
and terrorism generally, and between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda specifically.”
We characterize this explanation as being about the
information environment
: it implies that if voters had possessed the correct information, they would
not have believed in the link.

http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

**************************

After 9/11, it never occurred to me that Saddam was behind it. Then we found out it was 15 of 16 Saudis.

At what point did Americans suddenly believe that Saddam was either behind or connected to 9/11? And where did that connection come from. Remember, Bin Laden and Saddam were mortal enemies, so make it a good one.

**************************

If Bill Clinton had killed Bin Laden, Republicans would have had him impeached and imprisoned. They spent 40 million dollars of tax payer money and endless hours of investigation trying to bring him down and all they got was blowjobs. Republicans don't do what is best for the country. The party is dirty and odious.
Obama refused to go after Bush and with Bush's 22% approval rating for his disastrous two terms, Obama might have been able to see some of Bush's rotten administration jailed, but he preferred to think of the country. Something Republicans never do.

 

[rdean]

Rdean,

I'm going to try to make this as simple for you to understand as possible.

The administration didn't claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. The whole concept of preemption is to stop threats before they become imminent.

This isn't rocket science here.

And they never were a threat. Besides, where did Americans get the idea that Saddam was behind or connected to 9/11? Come on now. Tell us. Don't forget, Saddam and Bin Laden were mortal enemies, so make it a good one.

 

[rdean]

i won't repeat avatars excellent answers

i will however mock rdean's partisanhackmanship for calling out bush being against gay marriage while ignoring that obama also ran on the platform of being against gay marriage....

ignorance is bliss i guess

Obama has always been for civil unions for gays. Republicans want gays dead. Come on. We both know it. It's no secret.

 

[sealybobo]

Rdean,

I'm going to try to make this as simple for you to understand as possible.

The administration didn't claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. The whole concept of preemption is to stop threats before they become imminent.

This isn't rocket science here.

And they were wrong. Iraq and Saddam were no threat. Iran maybe and North Korea for sure, but not Iraq.

They also knew not to invade because it would be a quagmire, but Chaney and Rumsfeld counted on that, because they wanted a long occupation. That gave them time to take the oil. And the oil companies didn't pay for the defense contractors, Americans did. Or they slapped it on the debt. And we continue to pay for the defense contractors, who outnumber the troops, and will remain long after the last troop leaves.

So the defense contractors (chaney) and Oil men (bush) fucked America.

 

[traveler52]

the book will include the former president speaking "candidly" about September 11th, his decision to invade Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and more. I'm interested to see how Bush feels he handled these situations because I know myself and the rest of the American public has their own opinions.

PhillyBurbs.com: Bush book due out in November

The memoir of former US President George W Bush will be a candid account of his "flaws and mistakes" as well as his achievements, his publishers said.

BBC News - George W Bush book to tell of 'flaws and mistakes'

********************************

Yea, his "achievements". Both of them. He tricked American into invading Iraq and he managed to let Bin Laden go scott free.

Couldn't ya just "die"?

Bush will be, for the Republicans, THE GIFT THAT JUST KEEPS ON GIVING.

Just when Republicans thought they had gotten rid of Bush once and for all, he shows up with a book of his "mistakes", just in time for the November election. AND HE'LL BE ON TOUR. I can't wait. Don't cha just love it?

I'm proud that Georgie finally was able to find a children's book publisher willing to help with his Pop-Up Book.