Bush is losing the Bushies

[Superlative]

WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.

“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”

Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.

Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. “We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq,” he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.

Lawmakers said Mr. Bush made no commitments, but seemed grateful for their support and said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could cause the sort of chaos that occurred in Southeast Asia after Americans left Vietnam. The lawmakers said that Mr. Bush and others at the meeting — including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley — appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

“It was very healthy,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who attended but let the moderates do most of the talking.

“I walked away from it feeling I got a chance to make my points,” Mr. Davis said.

The delegation included Representatives Mark Kirk of Illinois, another leader of the moderate coalition; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania; James T. Walsh of New York; and Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. Mr. Kirk, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Emerson declined to discuss the meeting.

White House officials said Mr. Bush welcomed the observations of the lawmakers. “The president encouraged the members to give unvarnished opinions and views,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She also noted a “persistent push” by the administration in recent days to put new pressure on the Iraqi government via a secure video conference by Mr. Bush with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the surprise visit to Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The White House on Wednesday promised a veto of the emerging House bill, which would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said White House officials, led by Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, would try to reach a compromise with Congress. Mr. Bolten met Wednesday with Senate leaders.

While the Pentagon awaits the money, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the military continued to shift funds, terminate contracts and slow spending so troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not run out of money. The cost-cutting measures could sustain the troops until July, he said, “if we pulled out all the stops.”
.......................

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[Bullypulpit]

It's getting bad when even the Saudis won't return Dubbyuh's phone calls. Prince Bandar, these days, never seems to be available for phone calls.

 

[Rosotar]

It's getting bad when even the Saudis won't return Dubbyuh's phone calls. Prince Bandar, these days, never seems to be available for phone calls.

Yeah but cons don't see this stuff.

They still maintain that if everybody else in this world has written Bush off as not even a "useful" idiot anymore they're wrong and he's still right. It's simply because he's a Republican you see. It has nothing to do with any real concern they have for our country.

Their "patriotism" is bogus. They are loyal to their squeaky little excuse for a president. They may as well be cheering for their hometown, high school football team. There's really no difference in the minds of these loosers!

 

[Gunny]

Yeah but cons don't see this stuff.

They still maintain that if everybody else in this world has written Bush off as not even a "useful" idiot anymore they're wrong and he's still right. It's simply because he's a Republican you see. It has nothing to do with any real concern they have for our country.

Their "patriotism" is bogus. They are loyal to their squeaky little excuse for a president. They may as well be cheering for their hometown, high school football team. There's really no difference in the minds of these loosers!

You think being in the right becomes "less" right because the cause loses its popularity with the fair-weather crowd?

And this is one conservative who would like to know just what you consider patritotic about sowing the seeds of hate and discontent parrotting the "We Hate Bush", mindless mantra?

 

[Truthmatters]

What exactly is right about supporting a war commenced on lies to the American people which is making us less safe, spilling our brave troops blood, putting us and our children in massive debt and losing us Allies all over the world?

 

[Rosotar]

You think being in the right becomes "less" right because the cause loses its popularity with the fair-weather crowd? ?

That's what I'm talking about!

This is not a frigging baseball game!

You're on the WRONG side Gunny. You're not much different than the radical fundamentalists that attacked us on 9-11. They believed they were on the "right" side too but they weren't.

Just because you think you've got firm convictions doesn't necessarily mean your convictions are worth a shit.

And this is one conservative who would like to know just what you consider patritotic about sowing the seeds of hate and discontent parrotting the "We Hate Bush", mindless mantra?

I hate Bush because I love America and all he does is destroy it a little bit every day.

If you were a true patriot you wouldn't be so afraid to admit that.

 

[William Joyce]

Bush is committing genocide against traditional white America. I must say that I don't care for him or his neocon prompters.

 

[Truthmatters]

Here here , Bush discusts me because he is doing great harm to my beloved country.

History will tear him a new one.

 

[Gunny]

What exactly is right about supporting a war commenced on lies to the American people which is making us less safe, spilling our brave troops blood, putting us and our children in massive debt and losing us Allies all over the world?

Unsupported, let-wingnut rhetoric.

 

[Gunny]

That's what I'm talking about!

This is not a frigging baseball game!

You're on the WRONG side Gunny. You're not much different than the radical fundamentalists that attacked us on 9-11. They believed they were on the "right" side too but they weren't.

Say who? YOU? I'm not on the wrong side of anything. If you want to paint with such a broad brush, your words apply to YOU as much as anyone.

Just because you think you've got firm convictions doesn't necessarily mean your convictions are worth a shit.

Kinda what I think about you. Difference being, my arguments are based on twisted truthes and outright lies like yours.


I hate Bush because I love America and all he does is destroy it a little bit every day.

If you were a true patriot you wouldn't be so afraid to admit that.

You hate Bush because it's what your party handbook tells you to do. Pretty poor substantiation for for hate.

Hating as the result of being brainwashed with unsubstantiated lies into a good little parrot is NOT my idea of patriotism. A fairly warped notion you have there.

 

[bush lover]

Our President has accomplished more in six years than all other presidents combined: Has has allowed us more gun freedom, fixed our schools, restored our economic growth, stepped up border controls, kept us safe, given the elderly prescription drugs, cut back on bankruptcy fraud, shrunken the government by privatizing services, passed laws to fight terrorism, prosecuted two wars to keep the terrorists busy over there, curbed government spending and curtailed nutty environmentalist regulations. The list is endless. He has the wisdom and foresight to see that his policies and his alone will work, even while angry leftwing America haters criticize him.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Our President has accomplished more in six years than all other presidents combined: Has has allowed us more gun freedom, fixed our schools, restored our economic growth, stepped up border controls, kept us safe, given the elderly prescription drugs, cut back on bankruptcy fraud, shrunken the government by privatizing services, passed laws to fight terrorism, prosecuted two wars to keep the terrorists busy over there, curbed government spending and curtailed nutty environmentalist regulations. The list is endless. He has the wisdom and foresight to see that his policies and his alone will work, even while angry leftwing America haters criticize him.

Which President, which country, and which universe are you talking about???

Stepped up border control, more gun freedom, curbed government spending, and shrunken the government??? Even the right disagrees with your assessment.

 

[Gunny]

Which President, which country, and which universe are you talking about???

Stepped up border control, more gun freedom, curbed government spending, and shrunken the government??? Even the right disagrees with your assessment.

Bush lover fancies him/herself a comedian. That's supposed to be sarcastic wit.

You may laugh now.

 

[Truthmatters]

Gunny my friend could you lay out the unsubstanciated lies you are talking about?

 

[Gunny]

Gunny my friend could you lay out the unsubstanciated lies you are talking about?

YOU laid out the unsubstantiated rhetoric. YOU support it. Corroborated, verifiable, unbiased facts and/or evidence will do.

 

[JeffWartman]

What exactly is right about supporting a war commenced on lies to the American people which is making us less safe, spilling our brave troops blood, putting us and our children in massive debt and losing us Allies all over the world?

You are indeed the Democrat version of RSR...spouting mindless Democratic talking points with no care for an independent, intelligent mind...

 

[Truthmatters]

how about a little substance instead of just bullshit

 

[CSM]

how about a little substance instead of just bullshit

ok...you go first.

 

[maineman]

What exactly is right about supporting a war commenced on lies to the American people which is making us less safe, spilling our brave troops blood, putting us and our children in massive debt and losing us Allies all over the world?

I know that the right does not like to deal with the word "lie", but it really does fit the actions of the Bush administration. Let's review the dictionary definition, if we might:

lie /laɪ/ noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. lie1 /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.


If you accept as fact that none of the intelligence that the president used to make his case for Saddam's stockpile was "clean"...none of it was incontrovertible, none of it was without some sort of caveat or qualifier.... then you must accept the fact that that intelligence came laden with some degree of doubt...some level, however minute, of uncertainty.

Given that, when members of the Bush administration made statements that included the phrases "there is no doubt" or "absolutely certain", they WERE intending to convey a false impression. They were trying to convey that there was absolutely no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. Now, they very well may have BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...and if they were solid in that belief, they could very well have said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has WMD's" or "I HAVE NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's" but they did not use those words...and the words that they did use served to convey a false impression.

and that lie did propel us into war..and that war HAS spilled a lot of our troop's blood, and that war HAS made us less safe by making the world less safe. That was has strained our relationships with long term allies...that war has cost us a trillion dollars off budget that will be paid for by our children.... those statements may be shopworn... the democrats may have been saying them for some time now, but that does not make them less true.

 

[Gunny]

I know that the right does not like to deal with the word "lie", but it really does fit the actions of the Bush administration. Let's review the dictionary definition, if we might:

lie /laɪ/ noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. lie1 /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.


If you accept as fact that none of the intelligence that the president used to make his case for Saddam's stockpile was "clean"...none of it was incontrovertible, none of it was without some sort of caveat or qualifier.... then you must accept the fact that that intelligence came laden with some degree of doubt...some level, however minute, of uncertainty.

Given that, when members of the Bush administration made statements that included the phrases "there is no doubt" or "absolutely certain", they WERE intending to convey a false impression. They were trying to convey that there was absolutely no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. Now, they very well may have BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...and if they were solid in that belief, they could very well have said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has WMD's" or "I HAVE NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's" but they did not use those words...and the words that they did use served to convey a false impression.

and that lie did propel us into war..and that war HAS spilled a lot of our troop's blood, and that war HAS made us less safe by making the world less safe. That was has strained our relationships with long term allies...that war has cost us a trillion dollars off budget that will be paid for by our children.... those statements may be shopworn... the democrats may have been saying them for some time now, but that does not make them less true.

Giving out or acting on information later found to be erroneous is NOT a lie. Supporting one's argument with those facts that favor it is NOT a lie.

A lie requires intent. If you cannot prove intent; which, if you could, Bush would already have been impeached, then there is no lie. Just your politically-biased speculation.