posted on August 1, 2003 07:41:16 AM new
Rumsfeld, et al, had full knowledge and gave support and approval to this ridiculous scheme, since its begginings.
posted on August 1, 2003 09:04:43 AM new
I thought Lieberman was Jewish?!?
You know it is strange how people preach tolerance but don't tolerate Christians. Bush isn't perfect by any means just forgiven, but he does acknowledge his imperfection. You know the old saying "Don't kill the messenger". Bush did not condemn homosexuals just their sin (lifestyle) like everyone else's sin. God says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Sin is sin regardless, no ones sin is worse than the other. Sin separates us from God and if we ask for forgiveness and TURN from our ways God is just to forgive us when we accept Jesus death on the cross that paid for our sin.
It can't get any plainer than this:
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you WERE. But you were washed, your were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This verse is saying we WERE sinners but Jesus paid the debt for us if we accept it and ask for forgiveness. He loves us THAT much.
Bush became a Christian when he acknowledged that he is a sinner and needs God. He ask Jesus to forgive him of his sins and for Jesus to come into his heart and life. At that moment Bush became a child of God and is forgiven but it doesn't mean he is perfect, thats why we need Jesus because He IS PERFECT.
posted on August 1, 2003 12:30:14 PM new
Most people recognize that homosexuality is not a moral issue whether they have religious beliefs or not. When Bush makes an effort to link homosexuality to sin, he is mixing religion with political policy and that's wrong.
"Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." [Bush Remarks at Western Michigan University, 3/27/01]
Deficit - Bush said his tax cut would not cause deficits, even in a bad economy.
Bush's FY 2003 budget posts $106 billion deficit, the first deficit since 1997. The budget will return to balance in 2005, at the earliest.
Social Security - Bush said Social Security Trust Fund would remain in a lockbox.
Bush breached the Social Security Trust Fund and is on schedule to spend $1.65 trillion of it over the next ten years.
National Debt - Bush promised to pay down a record amount of the national debt.
Bush not only failed to pay down the national debt, he has been forced to request a $750 billion increase in the debt limit.
Education Reform - As part of the bipartisan education reform, Bush promised to spend more money on education.
Bush budget cut funding from his own "No Child Left Behind" law and provided the smallest education funding increase in seven years.
Medicare Bush pledged to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Bush's plan would cover only 6 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.
posted on August 3, 2003 08:59:50 PM new
If Jesus wishes to forgive Bush his sins that is fine. However I do not nor do I see the relevance of this sinners personal beliefs to the issue at hand. The man is an unrepentant bold face liar. His lies are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Quoting the Bible is as relevant as page 76 of the Best of Marvel Comics series where in paragraph three verse 2 it says "what a load of huey he heaps on us". This may sit well with the followers of Jesus but it does not sit well with me and as I am a native born American and he (Jesus)is not the case is closed.
posted on August 4, 2003 07:13:05 AM new
IMO, you 'lefties' need to read this op-ed article. Here is at least ONE 'leftie' who can see some 'good' that has come from the war in Iraq. Some facts a lot of you seem to overlook in your zeal to condemn.
While you place the blame on President Bush for the all the deaths, you appear to me to 'glide' over [very easily] the fact of how many of his own people the Saddam regime was murdering. And the fact that WAS one listed reason for going to war.
posted on August 4, 2003 08:30:37 AM new
Linda, I'm sure that you will find some Democrats who believe
that we were right to invade Iraq. Lieberman comes to mind.
BUT, this does not excuse the lies used to whip up American
support for the war. LIES, Linda, LIES. Surely you know that
the reason for this war not humanitarian intervention, although that
concept was floated about. Do you invade a small country and kill
thousands of innocent people to provide humanitarian relief??? The
goal was not to secure weapons of mass destruction that were ready
to deploy in 45 minutes. Absolutely no evidence was found to support
this Lie. The insinuated link between Iraq and 9/11 with which this writer
begins his article and a tale that the Bush administration used with
great success was not the reason for this war.
This writer has the audacity to infer blame for the lack of a successful completion
on those who opposed the war. There is absolutely no basis for the belief that
those who are concerned are relishing the daily body count. That claim is right up
there with the anti-American charge that you flag wavers used to target those people
who were against this war in the first place.
Now, there is, in fact, a quagmire with no stabilization or democratization
of the country in sight.
posted on August 4, 2003 08:59:46 AM new
LOL Helen - NEVER did I have any false hope that you'd agree with anything in this liberals article. LOL
There are many moderate liberals in this country...I'm VERY AWARE you are not one of them. Clinton was a moderate liberal. Carter was a moderate liberal. There are many like-minded people, who aren't as far left as you. And to find a candidate who would meet with your approval, in whole, would be next to impossible. Hillary, if she decides to change her mind and run in 2004 doesn't even have your support because she voted to give the President the authority to go to war. [your statement]
And it's like-minded people to you and Dean, who are sooooo far left, that are going to ensure President Bush remains in the White House for another 4 years.
posted on August 4, 2003 09:20:57 AM new
By-the-way....GREAT picture you've posted of our President. He looks VERY handsome in that picture, supporting our military.
posted on August 4, 2003 09:49:41 AM new
Liar, Liar...Pants On Fire
“After years of defending Clinton, liberals love the piquant irony of calling Bush a liar. . . . This is virgin territory for Democrats – they never before viewed lying as a negative. Their last president was called ‘an unusually good liar’ by a sitting Democratic senator. Their last vice president couldn't say ‘pass the salt’ without claiming to have invented salt. Having only just discovered the intriguing new concept of being offended by lies, the Democrats are having a jolly old time calling Bush a liar. But they can't quite grasp the concept of a lie as connoting something that is – at a minimum – untrue.”
posted on August 4, 2003 10:07:29 AM newBy-the-way....GREAT picture you've posted of our President. He looks VERY handsome in that picture, supporting our military.
Linda, Linda, Linda.
LOL! I should have known that you would be influenced by the body and not the mind - say of someone like Dean.
The economy is in shambles. As president, Bush has the worst job record
of any since Hoover, with millions of jobs lost. People all across the political
spectrum want an alternative to Bush. Dean, who has massive support, even from
moderates, independents and fed up Republicans, is from the Democratic wing
posted on August 4, 2003 10:07:45 AM new
TXPROUD - Don't you just LOVE Ann's little barbs? I do. She always points out the hypocritical,untrue and sometimes anti-American statements people make. In her books she documents the claims/charges she makes. I like that.
posted on August 4, 2003 10:19:06 AM new
Helen - I support our President not because of how he looks in that picture, but rather the way he governs our country.
You keep mentioning the Hoover administration. There have been other times, since then, when the un-employment numbers have been even higher [or equal to] where they are now and our economy has come out of it. This is not the first time our economy has struggled nor will it be the last time.
While the economy is struggling, I do not put the blame for that on our President. I am aware that our economy was headed downward before Bush was elected. The bubble was bursting already. By itself 9-11 has done a lot of damage to our economy and it wouldn't have mattered which party was in office. Either party would have put in place some of the same things that our President has....and I believe that is backed by the way the votes have gone in Congress on these issues. They wouldn't have passed if none of the Democrats had voted for them. I also am able to see that things are slowly turning around. Not continuing a downward slide. That is encouraging to me.
posted on August 4, 2003 10:31:32 AM new
That's a ridiculous spiel. It never ceases to amaze me that Bush supporters blame Bush for nothing. The funny thing is that I never hear him praised for anything either. I guess he is just an ineffectual puppet who is only successful in giving money to the wealthy.
posted on August 4, 2003 11:10:31 AM new
Linda K. The DEMO-GODS cannot accept what they cannot change. They believe they are a higher power unto themselves and responsible to no one but themselves.
They choose to lambast & verbally abuse they don't agree with or those who they feel don't uphold their HIGH standards?
They never have had a president that would stand and say "I am responsible for what I say & do".
All their [/b]IDOLS[/b] built their lack of reputation on TRYING to coverup their repeated lies with more lies.
posted on August 10, 2003 07:54:08 PM new Another Lie...or does George just consider it politics?
Life is returning to normal for the Iraqi people -- hospitals and universities have opened, and in many places, water and other utility services are reaching pre-war levels. George W. Bush
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 10, 2003; 1:30 PM
NAHRAN OMAR, Iraq, Aug. 10 -- Violence spread through the sweltering southern region surrounding Basra city today, where protracted shortages of electricity and gasoline sparked a second day of angry demonstrations in the country's second city and in surrounding towns and villages.
In Basra on Saturday, angry crowds burned a gasoline tanker and threw stones at British troops stationed in the city, protesting the utility shortages that have made life nearly unbearable in heat that reaches up to 125 degrees fahrenheit daily.
Today, residents in the region said the violence in Basra had worsened, and that two people had been killed and seven others wounded in clashes between irate mobs and British troops. They said more tanker trucks had been stolen at gunpoint and that Iraqi police had fled from other violent confrontations.
The reports from Basra could not be confirmed, but in interviews in long gas station lines and in towns along the highway today, many residents expressed deep anger at the shortages, which they blamed largely on British authorities that have occupied the region since coalition forces overthrew president Saddam Hussein in April.
BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - A foreign security guard and two Iraqis were killed in a second day of violence in Basra on Sunday in which British troops fired warning shots as crowds attacked vehicles and blocked streets with burning tires
The British patrolled in tanks as hundreds of stone-throwing Iraqis rampaged in protest against fuel and power shortages. In one incident troops said they returned fire from gunmen, but a tense calm settled over Iraq (news - web sites)'s second city by evening.
The violence was some of the worst in Iraq since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was toppled by U.S.-led forces on April 9 and occurred in a city at the heart of the mostly Shi'ite Muslim south, which has been relatively peaceful in the wake of his fall. Iraq's majority Shi'ites were repressed under Saddam, a Sunni Muslim.
But for the Bush administration, things quickly began to go wrong with the Obeidi story. True, Obeidi said he’d buried the centrifuge equipment, as he’d been ordered to do in 1991 by Saddam’s son Qusay Hussein and son-in-law Hussein Kamel. But he also insisted to the CIA that, in effect, that was that: Saddam had never reconstituted his centrifuge program afterward, in large part because of the Iraqi tyrant’s fear of being discovered under the U.N. sanctions-and-inspections regime. If true, this was a terribly inconvenient fact for the Bush administration, after months in which Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials had alleged that aluminum tubes imported from 11 countries were intended for just such a centrifuge program. Obeidi denied that and added that he would have known about any attempts to restart the program. He also told the CIA that, as the International Atomic Energy Agency and many technical experts have said, the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program. And he stuck by his story, despite persistent questioning by CIA investigators who still believed he was not telling the full truth.
The treatment of Obeidi has in turn raised questions about whether even fresh intelligence from Iraq is being manipulated in advance of the report being prepared by David Kay, which is intended as the definitive account of Iraq’s WMD program. One Capitol Hill legislator told NEWSWEEK that the administration’s plan is to put out a vast compilation of data about Saddam’s decades-long effort to build weapons of mass destruction and “hope the issue will go away.” And several Democrats say they are disturbed by what Sen. Dianne Feinstein told NEWSWEEK was the “very vague and nonprecise” nature of Kay’s testimony when he appeared at closed sessions of two congressional committees last week. “Signs of a weapons program are very different than the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were a certainty before the war,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “We did not go to war to disrupt Saddam’s weapons program, we went to disarm him.” President Bush himself in late July said Kay would require a long time to analyze “literally the miles of documents that we have uncovered.”
Cont...
