Reborn,
I find myself troubled by a few comments you made. For example, you said:
Knowingly including lies (i.e. Iraq attempting to acquire uranium from Africa) in his State of the Union Address in order to drum up support for the war in Iraq? After all, the White House website stated he reviews the Address line by line and word by word, and the buck stops with the President right? Oh I know. That can't possibly be his fault for including a lie.
I’m wondering what you may know about this subject that I don’t know from both my public and private sources. Exactly what words are lies? British Intelligence claims to have distinct and separate intelligence apart from the one single report that was questioned, so just what are you talking about?? I find it odd that they to this very day they stand by their stated position. A position, which you claim to be a lie. I am wondering what you know about this matter that both British Intelligence and I don’t seem to know.
Another thing you said that has me troubled is this comment:
Stating that the justification for the war was that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States and it's allies, thereby warranting a "preemptive strike" to prevent a catastrophe.. and 5 months after the war is over and the US military possesses sovereignty over the Iraqi state.. NO weapons of mass destruction are found?
I’m wondering yet again where you get your information. I though I paid pretty close attention to what the president said in the days, weeks, and months, before the war and I don’t ever recall the word ‘imminent threat’ being uttered by him, perhaps I missed that. I do however recall the phrase ‘building or gather threat’ being used, but I just don’t recall him ever saying Iraq was an imminent threat.
As far as not finding WMDs, I have to say no comment on this one. All I will say on the matter is that you are at odds with persons that are cognoscente of what has been found thus far.
Here is yet another thing you said that I found interesting:
George Bush going before the public in 2002 and criticizing the unethical corporate practices of Enron and Worldcom, in which CEO's sold their shares and cashed out with millions a week before the bottom fell out, leaving shareholders and regular workers out to dry when he himself sold his shares in Harken Oil stock 10 years ago and committed the same egregious offense of using insider knowledge for trading purposes. I suppose it was "ethical" and "legal" then eh since he did it?
So let me get this straight, Mr. Bush as a private citizen holds stock in a company, he has a need for cash so he sells his shares to finance a business venture, namely to buy into a baseball team. This lawful action somehow equates Mr. Bush in your mind with people that did illegal things? I buy and sell stock too, so just what am I doing that is illegal? I’m sorry I just don’t get that. Why was it wrong for Mr. Bush to finance the purchase of a baseball team with the sale of some stock? Specifically what law was violated and what was his punishment for this wrongdoing?
Be patient I’m almost done. You also state this:
The Commander-in-Chief you so respect is a deserting soldier. National Guard records and Bush's own supervisor's and friends show no sign of him attending any drills or performing any service for nearly a year, from May 1972 until May 1973. This period began with Bush moving to Alabama for a political campaign. He was AWOL in the Texas Air National Guard!
A deserting soldier faces the consequences of being court marshaled, put in military prison, and then being dishonorably discharged. During a time of war, he can in fact be shot. Well I did a bit of checking and I cannot for the life of me seem to find any info about Mr. Bush’s court marshal. Not a word was found about his incarceration in military prison, or subsequent dishonorable discharge. I’m also fairly confident that he was not shot by a firing-squad since they tend to not miss. So I‘m wondering just how do you draw these conclusions?
And one last final point you make:
Bush was arrested on September 4, 1976 for drunk driving at the age of 30. Do you brush this aside as the mistake of a youth? 30 is a bit old for that excuse. Oh wait.. you wanted integrity.. I suppose a convicted drunk driver fits the bill.
Well I think you nailed him there. Sure enough, he was drinking while driving some years ago and the dope was caught. In fact, his drinking was so bad that he now considers himself an alcoholic. Moreover, he should, because he is and he knows it. He knows that he is the type of guy that can’t just have one or two drinks and call it a night and that’s why he doesn’t drink at all anymore. I won’t comment on his drinking too much more as I have a few alcoholics in my family myself (all on my wifes side ) but perhaps your right, I would not like to see any of my alcoholic family be considered for the office of president, so maybe you have a valid point there.
No hard feelings, but you seem to be unabashedly anti-Bush. Are you? Maybe just a tad, yes?
I just don’t see how logic brings one to support some of these positions you have taken. Maybe your personal feelings for Mr. Bush is clouding your judgment just a bit, is that possible?
Again, I concede that I could be entirely wrong if you are indeed privy to information that everyone else seems to be unaware of but only you would know that for sure.
Freeman
