President Bush

[dbigtex56]

"Never apologize, never explain".

That pretty much sums up George W. Bush's approach to life. This whole matter could be cleared up and put behind us, if he woud come right out and answer the questions about his service (?) in the National Guard.

But he hasn't. And he won't.

Some people call Bush a liar. In his own mind, he is not. He will avoid answering questions; he will make misleading statements; he is a master of innuendo. He is not truthful, nor forthright. Yet, technically, he is not a liar.

And that is why he refuses to answer this question. There is not even one person who saw Bush when he was supposed to be serving with his unit in Alabama. Not even one. There is not even one shred of evidence that he did serve. Even he has not come out and stated, without qualification, that he obeyed the order to report for a physical exam, nor that he was AWOL.

He didn't fulfill his obligations in the National Guard. And he's not man enough to admit it. That's what I find so disturbing.

[SpaceCity]

You are right. I give up. There is NOT ONE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.

The Smoking Gun

More Unproof

[dbigtex56]

My mistake. Of course he was in the National Guard (when it suited him). That was a poorly constructed sentence on my part, and I'm man enough to admit it.

Until George W. Bush comes out and says "Yes, I always reported for duty; I was never AWOL" - and what could be easier? - I remain unimpressed by his apologists.

[SpaceCity]

Yeah, he probably should come out and say that. He has done that through his spokesmen.

But in his mind he is "adding credibility" to the argument if he personally responds to the AWOL issue.

[deepsouthtexas]

I don't think you'll admit to hatred of Bush. But you act like you hate him.

There are things I'd do differently if I were President. I like Bush more than Kerry. But I don't think either of them are perfect. In fact, I'd vote for Edwards if he were the Presidential candidate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do you get the idea that I hate the man? I voted for him in 2000. He's just made too many mistakes and broken too many promises. Don't equate critiquing with hate.

[pineda]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Washington, D.C., Thursday, January 20, 2005

(Following is President George W. Bush's inaugural address:)

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy

[debmartin]

is it just me or does W. say "world" too much. sometimes when he talks i forget he only leads our country, the united states of america because he tends to focus everything outward, away from domestic issues. i wish he could accept the fact that we are not the keepers of the world, and should probably get our act together better at home before we take it out on the road.

debmartin

[pineda]

He does seem to say that he believes that his destiny is to bring freedom to the world using all the resources at his disposal from the greatest country in the world, the United States of America. His is a lofty goal, an admirable goal. It will be up to the historians to determine whether it was an attainable one as well, or if it was in fact too unachievable for the even the greatest country in the world. Heaven help us all if the latter is found to be true!

[westguy]

Bush should be renamed Miss Congeniality.

[pineda]

Inauguration Day website!

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Is it me... or was "hard work" not mentioned at all? I guess SNL finally got to him. LOL.

[pineda]

It was implied.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[bachanon]

peggy noonan, former reagan and bush 1 speechwriter, has a great commentary on the speech at the wall street journal.

LINK

i like president bush; however, i think she's on to something.

personally, the speech left me a little tired. it was a little too something...... pres bush is a plain spoken man and this speech was anything but.

[jt16]

I can't understand the argument that some of the world is not ready for democracy. Don't you think we've hidden behind this for far too long, and allowed ruthless dictators to deprive millions of people of their own freedom? I really can't fathom why someone would think they are ready for freedom and democracy, but people in other countries are not. Pineda, I agree, it's a monumental task, but only because our indifference allows it to grow. How do we get there? Who knows. But I do know one person speaks of the "evil" that is democracy. He's a terrorist and makes a living killing innocent people.

[J.A.S.O.N.]

Should the president go out to meet with her? What's your opinion?

[YakuzaIce]

Should the president go out to meet with her?  What's your opinion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

[texasboy]

I'm lost.

[J.A.S.O.N.]

Huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, where have you been man!?

Grieving mother Cindy Sheehan is demanding to meet with Bush to talk about why the United States went to war. She won't leave his ranch.

[editor]

It's important to note that she's not exactly some "grass-roots" protester. CNN noted on Friday that she's hooked up with a big New York public relations agency.

[YakuzaIce]

lol, where have you been man!?

Grieving mother Cindy Sheehan is demanding to meet with Bush to talk about why the United States went to war.  She won't leave his ranch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oooooh that mother. I thought you meant Bush's mother.

[RedScare]

It's important to note that she's not exactly some "grass-roots" protester.  CNN noted on Friday that she's hooked up with a big New York public relations agency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm curious. Does that mean her dead son doesn't count as much as a "grass roots" mom? Nor her opinion?

[editor]

No. But it means that some of the frenzy surrounding her may have been generated by people and organizations with other interests.

[RedScare]

Agreed. It may have even been their idea to go to Crawford. But, certainly once she arrived, it has taken on a life of its own. I believe Bush is getting some very bad advice in not going out and giving her a few minutes to get her off the front page. His refusal to meet her ensures that this will take on a "No Meeting - Day **" quality. This only works against him, since there is no good news coming out of Iraq, and the less publicity his war gets, the better.

[editor]

Of course, if he does go out and talk to her then he sets a difficult precedent. Then he'd have to meet all the parents of all the troops killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. And is it just mothers and fathers? What about step parents? What about grandparents who raised the child like their own. What about friends of the family who were more influential than the biological parents? The president would have no time left to do presidential things. He's spend all of his time consoling these hurt individuals. That's what priests and counselors are for. Not presidents.

[westguy]

It's not like he's doing anything important with his time. He's spent fourty percent of his presidency on vacation. There's certainly time there to meet with the 1800 families who've lost loved ones.

[KatieDidIt]

It's not like he's doing anything important with his time. He's spent fourty percent of his presidency on vacation. There's certainly time there to meet with the 1800 families who've lost loved ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone seems to forget an important fact here. When someone signs up to go into the military, they sign up for the possiblity of being killed. I don't think Kennedy and LBJ went around and consoled every Viet Nam vet's family...what there were 60,000 dead????

That being said, what happened to real wars? Ones with big bangs that resolved everything? Korea, Viet Nam and now the Middle East are failures because we are not using the power we have. Winning a war without civilian causalities is a pretty idea, but unrealistic.

[RedScare]

This woman begged her son not to enlist. What made it especially tragic, is that he died 6 days after his arrival in Iraq.

As to what happened to "real wars", I tend to ask the same question. I would suggest that the wars you have noted are ideological wars as opposed to wars of necessity. World wars I and II were fought to prevent world domination by an enemy. It is easy to rally behind the efoort, and death in these efforts are indeed considered noble.

Korea, Viet Nam and now, Iraq are not as easily defended as threats to the world's security. In all 3 conflicts, the US was not under attack. Neither was a traditional ally. The first two were ideological in the sense that we were fighting the spread of communism, which is far different than the spread of fascism at the end of the barrel of a tank. Iraq has any number of reasons for being defined as ideological.

Going into conflict is easily defensible for those who agree with the ideolgy. It is easily attackable for those who disagree with the ideology. Korea was largely supported because most Americans agreed with the anti-communist ideology. Viet Nam was initially supported, but the tremendous loss of life eventually overwhelmed the ideology. Iraq always had a tenuous ideological hold, that being WMD and nuclear containment. When those reasons for war were proven false, the ideological support cratered with it. Support for the war plummeted, and protesters like this mom get lots of airplay.

[pineda]

When I first saw this story on television, my heart just went out to this woman. Not because I agree with what she's doing, but because this is her way of grieving. Everyone processes grief in different ways, and she has chosen a very public way of grieving. I feel very sad for her, because even if she were to get her wish of meeting with President Bush, it wouldn't bring back her dead son. It doesn't really resolve anything for her, it's just an event seized upon by the media now in a feeding frenzy, until the next more interesting story comes along and then dump her and move on, and she's left there all alone. I don't think Bush needs to come out, I really do think it would set a bad precedent, encouraging anyone who's ever felt wronged by the wars to come and demand an audience with the President. I do think someone from the White House could arrange for her to meet with a grief counselor of some sort, to help her process her grief in a more constructive (for her) way, in my humble opinion....

[YakuzaIce]

Well Vietnam was somewhat helping an ally. The French having lost many of their colonies post WWII began to try and keep their foothold in Indochina. In this case specifically Vietnam. The French forces were defeated by the communist led armies of Vietnam, specifically at Dienbienphu. The French defeated agreed to a similar setup as post Korean war with a communist north and democratic south bordering at the 17th parallel. Instead of allowing a new communist nation to be setup Eisenhower resolved to send military/economic aid to the French. Also under him psychological warfare was begun upon the north. Eisenhower though did not want full military involvement.

Then Kennedy came to office. He sent United States personnel to train the South Vietnamese and by the time he had been assasinated there had been some American casualties.

Now LBJ is in office and inder him is when we truly became involved in the war. Under him a functional decleration of war was passed (though there was not an actual decleration of war) this allowed troops to be sent in to fight. And by early 1965 bombing was authorized of points within north Vietnam.

The point is while it was an ideological war, it started because we were dragged into it by an ally.