In a number of threads around this board and other sites, it's apparent that some people dislike/distrust/hate President Bush, regardless of the circumstances. No matter what he does, it's either wrong, politically motivated, or just stupid.

So tell us: Why do you hate President Bush? Is it reasonable to unquestioningly dislike/distrust/hate him?

I know this will rile the folks on the other side of the aisle, so if you jump into the debate on Bush's side, be prepared to state if you are willing to support him without question (and if you don't, tell where you don't).

Oh, yes, one more thing: Clinton has nothing to do with it. He's gone. It's not about him (or her). This is about Bush.

I don't hate George W. Bush. I don't agree with most of his policies, and I don't think I could get along with him too well socially, but I don't think he's evil. I get the feeling that he feels a little guilty about having sold out so much to the unbending, authoritarian right wing of the Republican Party -- the John Ashcrofts and the Roy Moores -- but that he would really rather be a well-liked moderate.

I hate Bush for a few reasons:

His connection to the religious right, this would not be so bad if he wasn't such a hypocrite (like his drug and alcohol use, his dysfunctional daughters etc)

His never having to work a day in his life and then his numerous business failings only to be rescued by daddy- yet he is allowed to tinker with our economy. This is probably the greatest source of my ire- the fact that he calls himself a conservative and has not been fiscally conservative at all, and may be harming my children for generations to come.

The two greatest reasons I really detest him: 1)his ducking out by way of the "senator's son" method during the war and then doing stunts like the lincoln and the recent trip to Iraq to show how "brave" he is- makes me want to punch him in the face if I ever got the chance.

2) His squandering of the world's good will after 9/11 to press a personal issue in Iraq for him and his friends personal gain, while going after the guy that "tried to assasinate my daddy"- these two items are unforgivable to me.

Had he stayed with Afghanistan, and truly spent the resources stabilizing them and Pakistan first, I would have at least given him respect, even if I disagreed with his policies.

To give an example: there are many areas I vehemently disagree with McCain on- but I will always respect him and believe his heart is in the right place even if I think he is wrong- but I will NEVER feel that way about Bush. You don't hear me rant too much about GWs daddy either- I feel he made some mistakes, I think he was a sneaky CIA spook with his own agenda- but I had respect for him (I have met him prior to his being prez) and though I detest all of his son's, I believe he was probably an okay guy.

I believe GW is completely evil and repugnant, simply by some of the poeple he chooses to run things: Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and all those folks from the new american century, I believe those are the new american Nazis, really the uber-nationalist very similar to the nazi party of germany in the 30s.

I can semi-understand your reasoning for hating Bush, I disagree but understand, anyway, I don't understand this part.Ubernationalist Nazis. I don't think that anyone here knows what the "ultra right" looks like in America, but most know that it isn't GW Bush and CO. Similar to the Nazis? Except: They don't use secret police, they don't censor/imprison/kill dissenters, they don't target specific racial groups, they don't hold complete governmental power...etc. So what's this about Nazi-like?

CP

One could say that those who investigate citizens for Homeland Security are "secret" police... sneaking around, asking your library what books you've taken out, etc.

Bush is trying or was trying to sue Gwbush.com to take down their site isn't that a form of censorship?

They don't imprison dissenters... what about all those people locked up in Guantanamo Bay?

And they use racial profiling. That's targeting a specific racial group. Bush put a "ban" on racial profiling, but included a huge exception: to prevent terrorism, it is 'necessary.' So who do you think he's going to target? Arabic looking men.


They certainly don't do it to the extent the Nazis did, but don't say that they don't do these things when they so obviously do.

The reason I hate Bush? He wants to completely take away a woman's right to choose.

I would say that this falls under libel or slander, and if he is doing it, he's not using the power of government to do it, so it's not censorship.

Those guests at Gitmo didn't dissent, they took up arms against us, and most are suspected terrorists.

Who do you think are committing terrorists acts against us and our allies. Yes, that would be arab looking men.
I think the whole Bush is a Nazi line is just about the ultimate conspiracy theory, and nothing more than wild, venomous flailing from the left.

I hate Bush because I see him as a relic of the cold war. I don't like his politics, his manner, or his callous disregard for the consequences of his actions.

I supported the idea and execution of military intervention to get rid of Saddam Hussein, though I was/ am appalled by the amateur planning that seems to have been prepared... or rather not prepared. I hold Bush responsible for the mess Iraq has become.

I also hold him responsible for the break down of international relationships both between the Middle east, and the mainland of Europe.

Most of all though, I hate Bush because he is doing nothing with regards to the environment.

Along with the policy and character problems previously brought up I have one major problem. I think Bush is incredibly dishonest. Bush got tons of campaign contributions from the oil industry; his energy bill gave them $22 billion. His vice president was the CEO of Halliburton; he gave them uncontested Iraqi reconstruction contracts. He spent billions of dollars in Iraq to protect national security but our
airports are still vulnerable and our veterans are losing health benefits. Bush's Medicare plan gives seniors less doctor choices, still bans drug importation from Canada and doesn't let the government even negotiate prices. Disguising a corporate handout as help for seniors is repugnant and unscrupulous politics especially when according to an independent report by the consumer's union seniors might actually pay more for drugs when the plan is fully implemented. The president is supposed to act in the interest of the nation who elected him. Only representing the interests of the ultra-wealthy is dishonest and a great reason to hate Bush.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."--Hanlon's Razor

I hope you don't mind my lifting your signature quotation, Julian. It describes very eloquently the way I feel about George Dubya Bush.

While I do take interest in conspiracy theories, I think that Dubya, as the likable, impressionable son of a rich and very influential Republican ex-President, was the ideal candidate to push the Republican agenda on America and ultimately the Middle East.

As such, I do not find in Dubya a man to be hated, but someone to be voted out of office as soon as possible, because he is a puppet. He claimed, just before he declared his interest in running for President, that it hadn't occurred to him until he was approached to run. Would that he had been content to remain the governor of Texas a while longer!

I dislike and am wary of the people who pushed Dubya to run, rather than Dubya himself.

If you are referring to the Kyoto Accord, I hate to break it to you but there is no scientific evidence that "greenhouse gases" are responsible for global warming. GW did the right thing in backing out. I always get a laugh out of the criticizm Bush gets for that particular decision.

Petition of Scientists against Kyoto Accord

Real science not computer generated guesses

Venom

Would that it were that simple. I was not refering to Kyoto in specific, but in Bush's track record with regrads to environmentalist issues in general.

I rather like Bush personally, and I think he has some very good leadership qualities. I wouldn't vote for him enthusiastically, but I consider him a lesser evil than any Democrat currently running.

Here's some issues where I have a problem with him:

1) He doesn't use the veto pen, so spending is going crazy. Ok, it is kind of a wartime situation, but still I want to see spending brought under control.

2) I understand that the need to fight terrorism and tighten up national security may require some civil liberties compromises, but I'd still rather not have an Attorney General who appears completely insensitive to civil liberties concerns. I'd feel a lot better with Bob Barr sitting in that chair instead of Ashcroft -- Barr is equally conservative but a definite friend of civil liberties.

3) He appoints some excellent judges, but won't spend political capital to fight for them when the nominations run into opposition. I want to bonk Karl Rove on the head and ask him what the heck is he thinking.

4) I'm not at all sure invading Iraq was the right strategy (though I'm not sure it wasn't either), but I am sure that now that we are there, we have to stay until Iraq is stablized and self-governing. No choice on that, since pulling out before that would be disastrous. So I can't say he's wrong on this but I'm just not comfortable with it, and I would have preferred a different strategy..

I hate George Bush because he assumed the presidency by fraud. He lied to the American public in order to start a war,which is now a disaster. He has destroyed our economy. He is stripping away our rights and liberties. His prescription plan for seniors is a joke and a big give away to drug companies and HMO's. He brags about creating new jobs which are nothing but "McJobs." And on and on!

I very much agree with Paladin's post as well as most
others on this thread. I would like to add that I do not see
George W. Bush as a vicious, evil man. However, he is responsible
for the wrongdoings that are occurring on the homefront and
abroad, because he is wearing the hat of President.

I don't believe that he is really making any of the decisions
in the oval office. He is a puppet, and that is dangerous.
He either doesn't have the knowledge and expertise to
lead the country in a more positive direction, or he is
weak and apathetic, and therefore lets his administration
and special interests dictate his decisions.

Either way, it's a bad scene.

There's a quote that goes something like, "Hating someone is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die." So, I don't hate George W. Bush. I don't think he hates me, so why should I waste time hating him if he's not going to do likewise?

Hating George Bush isn't going to get rid of him. Coming up with a better candidate with better alternatives to his policies just might. Bush is merely a hand puppet for people who don't want to pay too much in taxes or have the federal government nosing around in their affairs.

Remember when Bush Sr. was photographed at a grocery store watching as someone used the bar code scanner and he looked totally amazed? For all intents and purposes Daddy Bush was finished in his hopes for a second term. People got hip to the fact that this guy was totally disconnected from the normal lives and struggles of average people.

Dubya is a little less detached than dear ol' dad, but no less of a blueblood. What is most disturbing about Bush are the older white guys that are far scarier than him that he surrounds himself with. Look at Dick Cheney. Does he look like someone who cares if you lose your job and can't pay your mortgage?

Cheney projects all the warmth of a cold toilet seat. He could NEVER win if he had to stump across the country in a presidential race. His distaste for rubbing shoulders with the masses is almost a physical thing. But with Georgie boy fronting for him, he doesn't have to do all that tedious glad-handing. Cheney doesn't HAVE to act like he cares about anything but starting wars, raping the environment and awarding sweetheart bids to Halliburton. He doesn't actually have to be the president to be in charge.

It's not about hating Dubya. It's more that I hate those creeps hiding behind him that I can't see, but I know they're there.

In a very Christian way, I hate the policies but not the man

GWB is an okay guy, just not very much in tune with the realities people face each and every day. That can be said about most in the lofty seats of power, so that's a wash.

The short list for GWB's administration: Iraq, environment, economy, domestic policy.

Iraq: We've begun sending over National Guard units. This was not part of the initial sales pitch. Next, the draft? Not before November 2004, that's for sure. I think we can count on that to happen if GWB gets reelected.

So much was not part of the initial sales pitch about Iraq. Credibility is thin.

Environment: Drilling on public lands and gutting clean air/water standards are the most irritating of the practices. But then, the secret energy policy meetings were secret for a reason.

Economy: Spending like there's no tomorrow--nobody likes that. Except maybe Haliburton et al.

Domestic policy: Faith-based welfare really is turning out to be an old fashioned mission--get your soup, get your preaching. It's just done in a more subtle manner. Unconstitutional anti-abortion law purposefully pushed for obvious political gain, possible (probablity around .9) that seniors have been given a bad deal with the Medicare/HMO legislation.

Some Republicans did vote against the senior bill. Trent Lott did. Wow!

So even though supporters of GWB would like to think that all his critics hate him personally, that simply is not true. We might become angry with him, but anger isn't hatred. Some do let anger become hatred, and in the end there's only one action that can be legally taken: Vote the guy out.

I believe this 'hating Bush' idea has much more to do with the entire administration and its policies than just a single individual, however he represents, as head of that admin the entirety.

How do we hate him/them, let me count the ways:

1.) Being a candidate for election that had no redeemable past record either in economics or ethics. No redeemable resume.

2.) a Stolen election, barely debatable, in Florida, lets be real and half think, hey its his brothers state, can we overlook the obvious? Yes, some can.

3.) Played his way out of his military service as a blue blood. Ok , Everyone has done it, but recent grandstanding has made this overbearing to the point of nausea.

4.)Karl Rove , no explaination necessary.

5.) If we want to get into the nitty gritty, Neoconism. Lying to the public about the reasons for the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, using false information to gain public support, using the WOT to use and abuse the system. The Patriot act, moving the US to a level of government , police/FBI intrusion never seen before. Padilla still sits in a jail cell with no access to a lawyer or anyone who can speak on his behalf, at least 6 mos. Dissenters are added to the 'no fly list', abuse of american civil liberties. There is a sort of Nazi-ish control. ( By the way have you applied for a drivers licence recently? SS# is now required, yet it used to say SS#is NOT a form of identification. This may seem like a small thing, it is not)

6.) The enrichment of close cronies in theft of resources of the' liberated', while the American public pays the debt. Grandstanding the 'End' of conflict when the end was never near. Spin, telling the American public that now Iraqis are terrorists. They were never terrorists, they only became it after the invasion IE:liberation.

7.) barely nothing has been done within the US to cure our internal problems while we concentrate on the WOT, only costing us billions, to me it is a distraction. Wag the Dog.

8.) The dollar falls, not only against the Euro but against all world currency as our government spending reaches exorbitant porportions, without a plan to pay off the debt/intersest we are incurring, yet tax cuts pay off the public voting majority. The US is in debt over our heads, with no way to pay. So much for Rebublicans being the party of lesser government.

9.)GW Bush spends millions in grandstanding. The US Lincoln flight and 2.5 hours in Iraq, thinking he is brave, or at least 'cool'. Its a perk of being president, he can screw around and be theatrical, now that he has a spotlight. I find it sickening now that he tries to propose he was actually a military man. He was in fact a coward.

10.) The country is going to hell, because most people are enveloped in fear, of something that most likely will never happen, a freaking terrorist. The admin keeps this threat constant and current, yet what do they ask you? Spend money. Keep the economy alive. Nevermind if you are unemployed.

11.) Bush's relationship with the Evangelical right wing religious sectors. Removing pro-choice, and giving over of governmet programs to religious charities. This means conversion to get a goddam meal. Billy Graham was Bush's personal mentor. Jack Van Impe is Jeb Bush's personal mentor. These are scary AND greedy, unethical people.

12.) World domination and the PNAC. Global totalitarianism. Many close or within the administration have signed, sealed and delivered the idea, that America should basically rule the world and every nation should bow down to our supreme power, if not, expect regime changes, might is right and we should exert it each and every time we feel the need, as far as China. This is psychcopathic thinking, yet our admin seems to think it a probable reality. Its not my idea of America, the US.

13.) The biggest reason is the bltant lies, lies and more lies, then there is grandstanding, propaganda and more lies to cover up the previous lies. Then theres the moving from one lie to another.
The strangest thing is , they think we cannot keep up with the last lie. What I most worry about is that for the first time in history, this admin does not care that there is an American public out there at all. They sent electronic voting machines, care of the feds to every impoverished and otherwise town in the Us after the Bush election, including alaska. Action Hero the Terminator was unanimously elected to Calif, the largest electoral state. I wonder if there will ever be a fair election in the US, unless we insist on a paper trail.......

I dont hate Bush. I think the Bush administration is dangerous to democracy, freedom and the economy of the US, especially in the long term. I think they are buying votes by tax cuts. I think they are out for private interests, I think the family ties to larger interests are of much more interest than the public, yet I dont think any politicion is any different, I just worry about to what ends this particular admin will go to to achieve their goals.
Outing Wilsons wife was an underhanded, dirty deal. Using Blair then blaming Brit intelligence for the false intel publicly was also rude and wrong. This admin is a scheming, arrogant plak of self serving excrement that has no business running the country, into the grave, I might add.

Why do you find it necessary to inject race into this debate? Since you have, maybe you need to be brought up to speed. On Thanksgiving day, Bush and Condi Rice left the ranch wearing baseball caps and riding in an SUV with darkened windows. In recapping the story, Bush made an offhand comment that says a lot about the man. "We looked just like a normal couple". I don't think a gentleman who is bent on surrounding himself with 'white guys' would think quite that way. Do you?

It's those off-the-cuff moments that can reveal the real core of a man. You know, like 'surrounding himself with white guys' and such.

An excellent post Artemise! There is much in that list that I have no knowledge of, and reading it laid bare like that only confirms my suspicions.

Moif, it saddens me that a posting of half truths, propaganda and spin will sway you so easily.
I do however, hate Bush for his rampant domestic spending policy and the failure to cut or trim a single bloated government program. Less government....riiiiiight

First thing is that I do NOT hate Bush. Hate is a strong word and I wish it were used alot less these days because ignorance and stupidity are generally related directly to hate. Now, I dislike Bush's policies in certain areas:

1) Not going into Iraq with enough troops nor a plan if the military was victorious. In layman's terms (not going into this half-assed and on the cheap.)

2) Not backing his judicial nominations to the degree he should have.

3) Not having Clinton's assinine policy of stripping away land from land owners executive order recinded.

4) Not getting rid of the NEA as the biggest problem with public education and the reason we spend so much and get so little.

5) Passing, or going to pass, this stupid medicare drug program so the Democrats have zero issues. Ignorant reason to pass this burdon onto America's young.

This is sufficient. I find it interesting the people that claim the most tolerance, and force this tolerance or skewed view of it onto others, are the ones that hate the most. Interesting indeed.

cusbilla

Dontreadonme,

Please elaborate if this is spin. This is how I see the issues at hand and I can back up most if not all of it, care to go detail by detail? Your call. I will reference every single claim, but dont make me work if youre not up to it for the long haul.

I don't know how this is germane to the topic, but for your edification I'll reply anyway. Why do I "inject race into this debate?" Gee, I dunno. Maybe because I'm a black man living in a predominantly white country and I'm never allowed to forget it so I try to return the favor and make sure they never forget it.

I mention the scary white guys behind Bush precisely because when you've got guys like Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz as part of his crew---well, let's call a spade a spade. No racial connotation meant.

You think you're going to bring me "up to speed" Passion51? Please don't flatter yourself.

The story you related about Condi Rice and Dubya chillin' in a SUV and tooling around in a SUV (were they listening to Beyonce or Toby Keith?) might be of interest to Republican fat cats at the next $1000-a-plate fundraiser, but it didn't do much for my enlightenment into how well George W. handles "the Negro problem."

Rice spoke at the 2003 National Convention of Black Journalists in Dallas and stunned the audience into silence when she made the comparison between the war in Iraq and the civil rights era in America. The journalists applauded politely, but were offended by Rice's equating a non-violent struggle for civil rights with the invasion of a sovereign nation for dubious reasons.

“That speech could have been given to any audience and I am tired of Bush and Rice using the same rhetoric they would for a group of right wing Republicans instead of addressing our issues,” said George Curry, editor of the National Newspapers Publishers Association.

Someone so completely clueless as to make such a stupid comparison is just begging not to be taken seriously and out of the mainstream of contemporary thought among black Americans.

So don't play that "some of my best friends are" song about Dubya for me Passion 51. I don't care what he and Condi do behind the darkened windows in a SUV if in the light of day they perpetuate policies that negatively impact upon everyone who isn't a wealthy white male. While I can respect Dr. Rice's achievements, intellect and accomplishments, a few token black faces in an overwhelmingly white Adminstration impresses me far less than it apparently impresses you.

It's your overweening proclivity to be hyper-sensitive to race issues that reveals quite a bit about your own "real core." That would be a trait you share with your hero, George W.

Yes and WJC would have been against it as well esp. since the start date gave the Europeans a big benifit AND the worst pollutors were left out!

Bush has done a gennerally good job and will continue to do so. I don't agree with everything he does but in general he is the person we needed after 9/11.

As the topic mentioned, Ted, if you're going to support Bush, be specific about where you don't support him.

Thanks.

Ok. I do not support letting the dirty power plants off the hook.

I would have given the UN a little more time on the Iraq issue to clearly show that they did not intend to ever enforce the sanctions.

OK?

[quote=Artemise,Dec 1 2003, 07:38 AM]I believe this 'hating Bush' idea has much more to do with the entire administration and its policies than just a single individual, however he represents, as head of that admin the entirety.
[/quote]
OK, Artemise let's try these...

[quote]1.) Being a candidate for election that had no redeemable past record either in economics or ethics. No redeemable resume.[/quote]
You run on a resume. The resume becomes irrelevant once you get the job. Nothing substantive here.

[quote]2.) a Stolen election, barely debatable, in Florida, lets be real and half think, hey its his brothers state, can we overlook the obvious? Yes, some can.    [/quote]
Um, yeah. Others can count votes. No recount ever showed Gore ahead, nor did the original count. The US Supreme Court ordered that Florida follow its existing election laws, instead of creating new ones on the fly.

[quote]3.) Played his way out of his military service as a blue blood. Ok , Everyone has done it, but recent grandstanding has made this overbearing to the point of nausea.
[/quote]
As you said, it's been done before...it will certainly be done again. Bush was, in fact, a jet pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. His "grandstanding" is largely about troop morale, and his appearance has a definite effect on that. A positive one.

[quote]4.)Karl Rove , no explaination necessary.
[/quote]
Au contraire. All positions require explanations. Karl Rove might be deeply political, but do you seen any difference between him and Terry McAuliffe? Their job is to advance the party. Rove is simply doing his job. Besides, this is not a reason to hate Bush, since Rove was there before Bush.

[quote]5.) If we want to get into the nitty gritty, Neoconism. Lying to the public about the reasons for the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, using false information to gain public support, using the WOT to use and abuse the system. The Patriot act, moving the US to a level of government , police/FBI intrusion never seen before. Padilla still sits in a jail cell with no access to a lawyer or anyone who can speak on his behalf, at least 6 mos. Dissenters are added to the 'no fly list', abuse of american civil liberties. There is a sort of Nazi-ish control. ( By the way have you applied for a drivers licence recently? SS# is now required, yet it used to say SS#is NOT a form of identification. This may seem like a small thing, it is not)
[/quote]
Here, at last, is a substantive issue, if limited to Neo-conism. However, you expand it into the realm of "spin". The Patriot Act is, believe it or not, simply an extension of existing government powers. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard of a single person rounded up for being a dissenter, and we both know that there are plenty of dissenters out there. Have you checked out the EU and Canada? Both are moving towards national ID cards, so we must evaluate the actions in the US in comparison to others. The reference to Nazis is gratuitous, and frankly, takes away alot of your credibility.

[quote]6.) The enrichment of close cronies in theft of resources of the' liberated', while the American public pays the debt. Grandstanding the 'End' of conflict when the end was never near. Spin, telling the American public that now Iraqis are terrorists. They were never terrorists, they only became it after the invasion IE:liberation.
[/quote]
Enrichment of cronies: debateable, but a fair point. Grandstand the end of the conflict: clearly revisionist history. End of major combat operations was the term used at the time. Not an end to the conflict. Clearly, some Iraqis ARE terrorists. They are blowing up non-combatants. Killing US troops is not, at least in my opinion, terrorism. Blowing up the UN building or police stations or other civilian establishments clearly is.

[quote]7.) barely nothing has been done within the US to cure our internal problems while we concentrate on the WOT, only costing us billions, to me it is a distraction. Wag the Dog.[/quote]
Have you heard the recent economic news? Christmas sales were strong this weekend.

Couple of links for you: Factory Growth Fastest in 20 Years
US manufacturers hit 20-year record pace
Stocks Leap with Economic Optimism

[quote]8.) The dollar falls, not only against the Euro but against all world currency as our  government spending reaches exorbitant porportions, without a plan to pay off the debt/intersest we are incurring, yet tax cuts pay off the public voting majority. The US is in debt over our heads, with no way to pay. So much for Rebublicans being the party of lesser government.[/quote]
Who, but an economist, cares? A falling dollar is not necessarily a bad thing. It gives incentive for foreign consumers to buy American goods. The US has been in debt since, well, forever . NOW it is an issue? I am actually in your corner on this one: Bush needs to be fiscally responsible, especially on non-security, non-military spending. He is not. This Medicare prescription drug bill is one of the worst thefts in my lifetime. Steal from the young to give to the old. It is the deficit argument in slightly different terms. The young pay, as they always have.

[quote]9.)GW Bush spends millions in grandstanding. The US Lincoln flight and 2.5 hours in Iraq, thinking he is brave, or at least 'cool'. Its a perk of being president, he can screw around and be theatrical, now that he has a spotlight.  I find it sickening now that he tries to propose he was actually a military man. He was in fact a coward. [/quote]
And other Presidents have not done the same? Bush has an ulterior motive here: troop morale. It is critical to the success of ANY mission. Ask the boys in Iraq if they thought the President was being "theatrical"... Ask the dozens of Congressmen who have made similar trip how much THEY spent on the government's dime. That includes both parties. The President has duties, perhaps you do not understand that.

[quote]10.) The country is going to hell, because most people are enveloped in fear, of something that most likely will never happen, a freaking terrorist. The admin keeps this threat constant and current, yet what do they ask you? Spend money. Keep the economy alive. Nevermind if you are unemployed.
[/quote]
I am not in fear. The economy IS alive, and thriving. This country is by no means "going to hell". I guess I should just be thankful I don't live in your country...

[quote]11.) Bush's relationship with the Evangelical right wing religious sectors. Removing pro-choice, and giving over of governmet programs to religious charities. This means conversion to get a goddam meal. Billy Graham was Bush's personal mentor. Jack Van Impe is Jeb Bush's personal mentor. These are scary AND greedy, unethical people.[/quote]
And Jeb Bush's "personal mentor" has what to do with the President, exactly? I don't hate anyone for what their brother does, neither should you. GW Bush's connection to the religious right is not overt, at least not to me. Sure, they both invoke God and don't like late term abortions. But Bush has not moved to get Roe v. Wade removed.
Here is an article with a view about Republicans and the "religious right": How Prayers Poll: Debunking myths about the religious right.

[quote]12.) World domination and the PNAC. Global totalitarianism. Many close or within the administration have signed, sealed and delivered the idea, that America should basically rule the world and every nation should bow down to our supreme power, if not, expect regime changes, might is right and we should exert it each and every time we feel the need, as far as China. This is psychcopathic thinking, yet our admin seems to think it a probable reality. Its not my idea of America, the US.[/quote]
The PNAC is the new bogeyman, it seems. Mention it, and people are supposed to gasp in horror. If you look past the : *gasp* it's the PNAC : rhetoric, and examine the goals of the PNAC, intelligent sensible people can, in fact, agree with them.

From their website:
[quote]Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

[/quote]
PNAC: Statement of Principles
You will notice that they want to strengthen our ties with allies, promote freedom abroad, and police the world to ensure the safety of the US. You can certainly disagree that this is the wrong policy, but don't just say "PNAC" and expect people to think the worst. It is not psychopathic to want to protect the US and the US's way of life. By the way, I don't see anything there about "world domination"....

[quote]13.) The biggest reason is the bltant lies, lies and more lies, then there is grandstanding, propaganda and more lies to cover up the previous lies. Then theres the moving from one lie to another. [/quote]
If you are being lied to, it is well within your right to object. However, if you look objectively at the entire Iraq picture (which is where the "lie" mentality is most often invoked), then you must also think that the opposition party (in this case, the Democrats) are either stupid or tools of the President. Why did the Democrats support the war against Iraq? Why are they now back-pedalling? Why did Democrat members of the Congress vote for this bill just before the elections? It was the popular thing to do, of course. The people were behind George W. Bush and to oppose him at the time of the 2002 elections would have lost Democrats even more seats for being soft on national security. It was the will of the people, in other words. If it had been popular to oppose the war, more Democrats would have done so, I would think.
Democrats Again See Little Choice on Iraq
[quote]"No one would have voted for it if we had known that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction," Meehan said.

Other Democrats are not so sure.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has criticized prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons. But citing the dangers posed by Saddam, she said, "The reason why I voted for the resolution is still valid."

Some lawmakers' views have been shaped by their visits to Iraq - and the mass graves and other evidence they saw of atrocities by Saddam's rule.

"I certainly have concerns about the basis for the intelligence and how this was presented to Congress," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., who visited Iraq last month. But of his vote for war, he said: "I still think it was the right thing to do."

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota distinguished between the war itself and the handling of its aftermath.

"It's the building of peace that has been the subject of a great deal of criticism," Daschle said. "It's very important that we draw the distinction. And it's in that keeping of the peace and building up a new peaceful Iraq that I think the president has failed so far."

Democrats were wary of criticizing Bush last year, but they show no reluctance today with his popularity falling and public doubts about the Iraq war growing. They say his mismanagement of Iraq has left Americans with a huge toll in lives lost and war costs that will worsen the rising budget deficit.
[/quote]
So now it is more popular to bash Bush, and the Democrats are happy to oblige. The popular line is that the Democrats criticize Bush for his handling of post-occupation Iraq and his lack of an "exit strategy" (as if any other conflict had a pre-determine exit strategy ). Then it was costing too much (Democrats voted for that, as well). Who should we criticize here: Bush, for leading us into war, or the Congress for allowing it to happen?

[quote=artemise]This admin is a scheming, arrogant plak of self serving excrement that has no business running the country, into the grave, I might add.[/quote]

Propose a viable alternative, then. That is all that is required: someone who will do a better job, all around, than Bush. So far, the Democrats have been unable to provide that to us.

AAACCKK.....Amlord beat me to the punch. I'll just expand on a couple of points instead of rehashing everything.

Lets start with # 6.

I assume you are referring to Halliburton. Just because Cheney was the VP of the company and is still receiving pension, doesn’t provide factual basis for cronyism. Halliburton has the contract from LOGCAP. The LOGCAP system came about because of the military's need to perform complex jobs i.e. peacekeeping in Bosnia, intervention in Haiti, on sometimes very short notice. Instead of going through a months-long competitive-bidding process for each job, the military came up with LOGCAP. In it, the Army makes a deal with a single contractor, in this case Halliburton, to perform a wide range of unspecified services during emergency situations in the future. The last competition for LOGCAP came in 2001, when Halliburton won the contract over several other bidders. Halliburton had the contract earlier, but lost out to DYNCORP in 1997. In the 90’s, the profit range was 1-9%, standard for the industry. As of 2001, the margin is now 1-3%, hardly making the case for Bush handing out contracts for ‘The enrichment of close cronies’.

Now #2.

So as not to take up all of Mike’s bandwidth……..one needs to look no further than the link http://www.cnn.com/LAW/library/documents/e...re.opinion.html and read the FACTS of the case. Not allegations of blacks being harassed….and the US Civil Rights Commission going to Florida, and nobody showing up to make a complaint. Not the illegal recount that Gore wanted, but the FACTS, and the LAW.

#5.

We have quite enough threads on Iraq, but how exactly did Bush lie about Afghanistan?

Most of your other points are speculation or opinion, nothing there that can be refuted, because it’s based in fact.

Things I like about Bush:
1.Good leadership qualities
2.Seems like a "normal guy"
3.Isn't afraid to use the military
4.Keeps his promises, in terms of military action

Things I don't like about Bush:
1.TOO much spending, way too much
2.Civil liberties being overly impeded/violated
3.TOO much spending, way too much
4.Passed that ridiculous Medicare bill
5.This whole World Police thing doesn't work for me.
6.TOO much spending, way too much.

CP

This is really Bush's credit and undoing, simultaneously...

He keeps his promises, he uses the military...

BUT: it costs money and he ends up policing the world.

A double-edged sword in both cases.

I agree completely. Bush has gotten this country into debt. HUGE debt. I believe that the budget deficit was more than 10% of the national budget this time around. The war in Iraq was a HUGE waste of money and only encouraged MORE terrorism against the United States. Why doesn't the President step back for a second and see the simple truth: mingling in others' conflicts (Afghanistan in the early 1980s, Israel in the 1990s) are the CAUSES of 9/11, and more entanglement is NOT the solution. He's just taking a knot and pulling it tighter and tighter to try to undo it.

Bush and his cabinet have far too many conflicts of interest and seem to care only about their corporate pals. The Iraq war was nothing whatever to do with terrorism. The PNAC story shows this: The key PNAC letter showing that future cabinet members wanted a war (unilateral) with Iraq in 1998.

The war, Wolfowitz has strong hinted, was about Iraq's oil and its hatred of America. Not much else. The other stuff was used just to get approval based on the assumption that it wouldn't turn into a form of Vietnam. More US soldiers have been lost in 6 months in Iraq than were lost in the first 2 years of Vietnam.

Then you have the tax cuts despite a colossal increase in military spending and a trillion dollar flip inside 3 years from a half trillion surplus to a half trillion dollar deficit (and growing). Gray Davis was thrown out by Issa's money and Jeb Bush's PR man for a similar financial problem after only three months of his second term.

Then you have the breach of human rights, constitutional rights and the Geneva Convention since 9/11. Then you have the executive orders he's making which effectively repeal the Presidential Papers law (the president is constitutionally only permitted to enforce law, not make it or change it). This order on the presidential papers allows him to protect the many Reagan administration members currently working for him (Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Rice etc). This complete defeats the purpose of the legislation.

Then you have the Enron scandal where Bush lied about hardly knowing Ken Lay (despite borrowing his private jet to campaign in). You have the fact that not one person has been disciplined over 9/11. If there were errors (and there must have been) why have no heads rolled? You have the public pronouncements that the Whitehouse was not assisting (in fact stonewalling would not be inappropriate) the 9/11 and Iraq inquiries. They were not being helpful over an incident that killed thousands of Americans with 3 buildings collapsing and catastrophic procedural breaches. This in itself should get Bush thrown out.

An interesting article on this issue:

Experts: 'Hatred' Toward Bush Not Exceptional

First of all, there is no proof that he lied about the reasons for the Afghan war, second, I highly doubt that the President is a Neo-Con, I hope he isn't at least.

I've said it once before, and I'll say it again...NO ONE American here knows what the face of the FAR RIGHT WING looks like.

World domination? Global totalitarianism. Well, no. I think that Amlord handled this one fine, I won't go on and on about this one.

There is no proof of any lie yet Artemise. When there is, go nuts, but until then, what THIS is is propoganda. As I said, I'll be the first one to criticize Bush if he is proven to lie, until then, I'll assume he's innocent until proven guilty, instead of vice versa.

CP

.

As far as I'm concerned, he said that Iraq has WMDs. Until he finds WMDs in Iraq, he's lying. And since he's lying to the public to justify a war that has cost American lives, he shoud be gone as President in 2004.

I try not to hate G.W., but I'm pretty sure he does hate me. At least in the abstract.

I do think he may very well wind up being the lesser of two evils compared to the Dem. candidate, but he's still evil.

I feel I have to answer since I asked and Amlord answered and so did DTOM.

Amlord, mostly your responses are the other side of the coin to mine, the conservative slant opposed to my liberal one. I did check your link which the page came up but after several minutes no text.

I will provide a link also. Its not all, but explains some things for me, so we dont have to go one on one about this which can be exhausting. I took note of your comment about Nazi-ism which may have been gratuitous on my part, however dissenters HAVE been persecuted recently in the US, placed on no fly lists and arrested. I do see a fascist swing, take the Miami protesters for example, or the hundreds of muslim nationals that were registered and many arrested on the spot as terrorists, when registration was voluntary. I do NOT see The Patriot Act as a simple extension of already existing powers but an invasion of civil liberties.

I must laugh at 'Christmas sales were strong this weekend' . Good scale on the economy, base it on day after Thanksgiving breakaway sales giveaways!, hey economy up ** points! DUH! They expect this years spending to be less than last years, thats your independant research groups who are talking a red hot economy. How the two coincide I dont know.

The things that I bring up take a lot of research. I have done much. I leave you only this, to answer some of my commentary. I do realize that we all have a different take on things.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/GT2c11.htm

DTOM,
You asked about Afghanistan. The facts surrounding the situation are interesting, and complex. I had to go back awhile as it was more notable in its time.
Before the spring of 2001 the US was quite friendly with the Taliban, we paid them 44 million dollars around May 2001. This was billed in the US as as a buy off that they would take a stance against the opium trade, however the Taliban was always against opium. The L.A Times wrote a scathing article about this 'gift'. Mostly in the past, the US saw the Taliban as a stable emerging structure upon which they could negotiate an oil pipeline through the Caspian region through Unocal, which had been in the planning, however instability in the region was always a concern (There is no reason that the English, Russians and US have fought over this territory, except for oil) US forces had already made bases in several Russian territories in the region. Also in spring of the same year the US became worried that the Taliban was gaining too much control and would not bargain. ( After the 44 mil payoff) The US was trying to negotiate the turning over of Bin Laden as well as a backing down of Taliban forces. Noone can really tell what happened except that the Taliban rejected US offers, whatever they were behind closed doors and the US threatened invasion WITHIN 6 MONTHS, BY OCT of the SAME YEAR. It was reported in India , France and England but not in the US. There are current links to this news story, but old ones could only be found in that year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

Basically, the US intended to invade Afghanistan well before 911, which provided a good excuse. We did invade and make our mark in Afghanistan, did not get Bin Laden. Subsequently moved onto blaming Saddam Hussein, invading Iraq, making Iraqi's terrorists and the cause of all our troubles, although Saddam and Bin Laden were never associated ,(nor found) in fact despised each other, and Iraq was never the cause of anything to do with 911. An Iraq invasion was an incredibly easy sell to the American public because of past hatred.




Conservpat, Youre joking right?
You know, I get really astounded at the blinders that can be achieved when one wants to be blinded. I supported Clinton, but I was clear on the reality that he was a sleazy bastard when it came right down to it. If you cannot see the blatant lies that this administration has put forth, the disregard for basic American values and the bad economics that this admin appears to think sound, I hope you have a really good investment plan and can support your grandchildren with it as well.

Bush fasciniates me and repulses me in almost equal portions. I'm not a great believer in 'no smoke without file' but there was so much smoke billowing out of his election campaign it was hard to ignore.



It's still pretty substantive to me. This isn't a checkout clerk at a 7/11. It's the president of the United States, the most powerful man in the free world. His resumes sucks and it’s peppered with get out of jail cards dished out by daddy. And it shows he doesn’t come across as an intelligent man at all. He can barely speak! It's not very inspiring or comforting to collation countries with troops in Iraq when the man who initiated the war on terrorism can't even say the word!

People can generally smell when something’s wrong and it can be seen all around the world that poeple think theres something decidedly whiffy about Bush.
He comes to his greatest ally’s country and tens of thousands turn up to tell him to go back. Where were the crowds lining the streets when drove to capital hill after being elected? When he went to war people who had never even considered protesting before took the streets in their millions. In a recent poll when asked who was the biggest threat to world peace Bush was second level with Kim Jong the second of North Korea.

He levies massive steels tariffs then runs away when he realises that Europe will bite back.

He resurrects the defunct and pointless flight of fancy that is star wars and places the hard fought and very real nuclear none proliferation treaty in jeopardy.

Sends us to wage a war based on lies. The doubters have to get over this. There are no WMD's. They really would have been found by now. I can absolutely guarantee that at the very most they might find a barrel of something that even Saddam had forgotten about. I don't buy were doing this for the people of Iraq. It certainly wasn't the reason the British were sold the war and since when has Bush’s love of the Iraqi people reach such levels that he's prepared to send troops to war to free them. Let's hope his all encompassing love will spread to those who don't threaten the USA and haven't got resources he needs. (If he next moves on to free Burma I will retract much of what I've just said)

He jails and denies basics rights to my countrymen at Guantamo Bay and doesn't even care enough to bring charges against them. How dare he!!

I'm keeping my list short and not I'm even going to touch the false promises about Africa, or the environment, bullying of other countries etc...Suffice to say it's not so much why do you hate Bush but why wouldn't you?


.

The Bush administration appears to be using the office for its own enrichment and for distributing favors to Bush's supporters. Bush has been less than truthful in situations such as his acquaintance with Kenneth Lay. Cheney's ties with Halliburton and the no-bid contract look awfully suspicious as well.

There's a line in the first Indiana Jones movie where Marion asks Indie if he has a plan. He replies, "I'm making it up as I go along." This is how Dubya comes across all too often. While there might be a clear exit strategy for troops in Iraq, and there might actually be a plan to provide people here with jobs, Dubya's performance does not show it.

Debunking the Myth.

The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands.

" We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, " Powell said. " We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan’s ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. "

Powell did say one favorable thing about the Taliban: " We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome. " The bottom line, though, was — or should have been — easy enough to comprehend: humanitarian aid for Afghans, yes; money for the Taliban, no. (On Tuesday, the Taliban reversed themselves, announcing that opium production will resume if the US attacks.)

Did the White House give the Taliban $43 million?

Scheer Deception: The Lies and Jargon of Robert Scheer

Meaning that he's guilty until proven innocent, that's not the way things work in America.

Artemise: I"m not by any stretch of the imagination a blind Bush supporter, I've already explained my problems with him. My point is that with all the "right-wingers", and "far right' that gets flung around here, no one really knows what the FAR Right in America looks like. As a matter of fact, some conservatives don't even think that Bush is that conservative at all [he spends like a liberal, pro-big gov't, etc].

CP

Public Approval rating of Bush personally, latest polls after thanksgiving

General Public: increase from 65% to 72%
Republicans: increase from 83% to 94%
Democrats: increase from 46% to 55%

I don't know what this proves, but makes you think about the "Hate Bush" meeting last night at the Beverly Hills Hilton... I'd never seen so many sparkling bentleys, landrovers, and mercedes benz in a single parking lot in all my life.

Shed a tear for the oppressed Hollywood left. Bush, you make baby jesus cry.

what a joke

Your 'countrymen'? Interesting word choice. Just remember, we are often judged by the company we keep.

There are reportedly nine British prisoners being held at Camp Delta, Passion. I believe mule, who is from England, was merely stating a fact.

And your post has what, by the way, to do with the topic? (Which is, in case you've forgotten, Why do you hate President Bush?)

Artemise, I concur with the facts that you laid out...for the most part. I think Bela added some valuable insight to that affair. And in any case, it does not prove intent to invade Afghanistan. If we set the bar that low, Bush would have troops in Paris right now. And please don't imply that we are still not trying to find Bin Laden. If you don't see much about it on the news, blame the media. It is an absolute fact that we are still conducting operations towards that goal.

Mule

Proof of get out of jail free cards please, or is this just left wing speculation?

So you judge people on how well they speak...Bush is stupid because of that?.....do you judge a minority who speaks in ebonics the same way? Or a southerner with a drawl? Hey you misspelled coalition...does that mean you don't come across as an intelligent man?

Evidently you weren't watching TV that day, they certainly outnumbered the people with the 'Hail to the Thief' placards.

Really? So if you were given a fairly small team of dedicated inspectors, and dropped into California, with the natives having had several months to hid or ship out.....and hundreds of Californians trying to kill you......you could make a similar determination in seven months?
(California being roughly the size of Iraq, mind you.)

Because some of us rely on facts and logic, and not left wing spin. I could spout the same lies about Bush until I'm blue in the face....it doesn't make them anymore true. I've definitely got my problems with the guy, but if it were a Dem in office, I still wouldn't throw around rhetoric because it's trendy, or that's what all the cool people at the coffee shop are saying.

Challenging his position has everything to do with the topic. Lest you forget, that is what debating is about. If you think my post is off-topic, report it. Otherwise stick to the topic at hand. As a member of the committee you should know that.

Has anyone come up with a viable alternative to the re-election of Bush btw? Seems to me that there's a lot of wasted energy in 'hatred'. If you can't offer policies that differ, and make a case for them being better, then you're part of the 'problem' and not the solution.

I started this, but held off on giving my own reasons to dislike/distrust/hate Bush... 'til now:

1. He thinks the environment is something to be controlled by people/corporations who want to use it for their own selfish (and usually profitable) interests instead of protecting it for the interests of all. He wraps his initiatives to gut existing environmental law in "friendly" names like "healthy skies", which will do nothing to make the skies healthier. This one's my biggie.

2. His inability to deal with people who disagree with him or his policies. Lately, whenever he's talked to any group, it's been either to military folks or to hand-selected groups of supporters (and usually to raise money for RNC or Bush re-election). His "security" detail goes around before a visit and finds anyone with a banner or a sign that is negative toward the president and tells them either to move to a spot far away from where the President might see it or get arrested (and the charges are ALWAYS dropped afterward unless the arrestee becomes unruly during the arrest). It's suppression of free speech because Bush (or his handlers) doesn't want to see it.

3. His short-sighted energy policy that doesn't offer viable alternatives to petroleum production/consumption. Are we EVER going to stop being reliant on getting oil from the Middle East?? Not while the oil guys rule the roost. There's NO WAY we can increase production enough within our own country (even if we turn the entire state of Alaska into a free-for-all production zone).

4. The smirk. Even when he's delivering bad news, he has that gawdawful smirk on his face. GOD, that's annoying. Ok, so it's petty of me, but the least the head of the Executive Branch could do is spend time practicing appropriate facial expressions.

5. His need to tie everything back to "terrorism" to keep people scared. I'm SICK of people telling me we need to be scared. I'm not scared. If you're really that scared, MOVE to somewhere less scary (is anyone really considering attacking Iowa, for example?). But stop trying to sell every policy as being about terrorism. He recently went to Asia -- which is more concerned about their economic growth than terrorism -- and spoke only about terrorism, which didn't make a great impression on anyone there. The USA is about MORE THAN TERRORISM and we need a President that will spend more time communicating that.

6. Government by the wealthy for the wealthy. This isn't about class warfare, unless you think it is. Since when do professional investors who make millions need to have a lower income tax rate than professional bricklayers who make thousands? I thought this was a country where we valued producing something instead of just buying and selling stock. Not according to our tax structure du jour.

7. Bush has never met a spending bill he didn't like or a tax cut he didn't like, but combining the two at the same time means someone will have a BIG bill to pay later. Will it be the social security recipients in 15 years who won't get paid? Will it be our kids who will have to pay higher taxes then to make up for our excesses?

Those are my reasons. You can dispute whatever you like, but I've spent the past three years building this list. Hopefully, I don't have to spend another 4.



Edited to remove what Jaime just said anyway.

Dontreadonme

Unfortunately I don't have the time to properly research this (the run up Christmas is far and way my busiest time of year) and what research I have done has lead to sites a bit too rabidly anti bush to be taken as gospel (there’s a lot of anti bush sites out there!)
So let me leave myself wide open with very general and loose defence (be gentle with me ). As I understand it when Dubya first ran for congress he lost. Losing his appetite for politics he bought his own oil company (I don't see him doing this without help from pop, but maybe I'm wrong). Which went bust - right after he sold his stock. The single biggest indicator to me is just how many members of his Daddies administration are in key positions in Dubyas office. Also the state that had the biggest hand in him somehow coming away with the presidency having lost the popular vote was governed by his brother. Maybe I'm being harsh, its Bush family not just dad that has bailed and bankrolled him. Never the less the shadow is dad cast seems to fall over everything Dubya does. Having just read that last paragraph back to myself my lack of proof means I'll concede that point to you.

Saying that George has trouble pronouncing is a cheap shot granted - especially as I suffered from a bad lisp throughout my school years. But he should be an excellent speaker it’s a large part of his job. He clearly does'nt have the ability to think on his feet or under pressure and I do take that as an indication of lack of intelligence. As president of the USA he should be highly intelligent, brilliant in fact but he is clearly not. I challenge anyone to go to Dubyaspeak and not be worried. It's not just what he says it's the sheer volume. This scares me and as Yoda taught us: fear leads to hate, hate leads anger, anger leads to the Republicans.

Passion 51



Tread very carefully here, what exactly are you inferring? Yes I call them my countrymen and I see no reason to be ashamed at calling them that. They are British and unlike Bush I still believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' they remain innocent men imprisoned indefinitely without out charge and with out trial. The only hope they have rests on a kangaroo court entirely appointed by Bush and the military.

Fresh legal row over Guantanamo



camp delta

special report

I've said it before on AD that if this was happening in virtually any other country we would have sent the SAS in to rescue them by now. What Bush is doing is utterly immoral and illegal, without justification and to me it’s the single biggest reason to hate him.

Edited to add. I posted this reply just after you Jamie-my apologies if its contributed to straying off topic

Mule.....OK I'll be gentle
But,

From this Link
"In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action.

A look at Harken's stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid.

And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, "A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share."

So Bush could have done much better if he had waited."

And the company did not go bust, it still exists: Harkin Web Site



That may seem suspicious, but who knows how many Clinton people Gore would have retained if he had been elected? I have to conclude that this is fairly irrelevant, unless some sort of conspiracy is uncovered.