We already know this but Helen Thomas raises some interesting questions, such as....
Why is Brooklyn born Jose Padilla suspected of being an al-Qaida scout still being held incommunicado in a military brig without due process of law and without being charged?
While Ashcroft destroys the constitution where are the constitutional law experts who should protest?
What is really at the bottom of Bush's refusal to release President Reagan's White House papers? (a violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978) note...Bush Senior was vice president.
How long will Bush be allowed to govern by executive order? As Helen Thomas suggests,
eventually, he will have a war and nobody will come.
posted on July 5, 2002 10:49:14 AM new
Helen Thomas is just saying what everyone's been thinking, at least everyone with the capacity to do so, for some time. Unfortunately others with a voice to command attention have been a little too polite, beating around the bush, so to speak. Maybe more of the journalists and politicians will take a clue from her and discover that they too can summon up a little courage and integrity from somewhere within.
posted on July 5, 2002 11:15:44 AM new
This gave me a great Idea How about finding a Bush and Gore Look Alike then saturday night live could do an election take off of the Butter, Parkay commercial.
posted on July 5, 2002 12:39:56 PM new"Amazingly, with Americans turning into a new silent majority and Congress into a bunch of obeisant lawmakers, he is getting away with such acts."
"The lawmakers are worried that Bush will play the "patriot card" in the November elections to attack dissenters and opponents. The Democratic leaders have already rolled over."
*CHRIST!* Are these grown-up Men and Women that Democrats have elected into office, or are they children? I mean, do We the People have to tell them how to use political strategy? It's OBVIOUS how one goes about defeating Bush's 'Patriot Card' ploy. All you have to do is to become MORE Patriotic than the opposition - outrageously so, if necessary, [b]and make sure that your platform is seen as the most Patriotic choice![b] I know what they are doing: they are letting Bush go as far as he wants in order for the American People to see for themselves how vile and dangerous Bush and the Republicans are to Democracy. Nice idea, only it has a *WONDERFUL* chance of back-firing and we all end up in a permanent Police State!
I tell you, my idea is just the right solution: you can't go wrong being Patriotic with your own message! I'll tell you how the Democratic Party can instantly get back a huge block of votes: by publically renouncing their efforts to overthrow the Fourth Amendment! By going after the Fourth Amendment, that was just TOO MUCH for many of their suporters, as it looked like THEY wanted to turn us into a Police State as well! (There! Maybe they DO, too! And that's why they are rolling over for Herr Busche!)
Remember that fun little game that's always played with Presidents? The 666 game? You know, the Prophsies. When Ronnie was President, he fit into a few clues. For instance, his name: RONALD WILSON REAGAN = 6 letters per name = 666 ~ the Sign of the Beast! Other Presidents have hasd this game played at them, but not Bush! So let's see how Bush fits in!
The family name 'Bush' is German and was originally spelled BUSCHE. So, we have GEORGE WALKER BUSCHE = 6 letters per name = 666 ~ the Number of the Beast! Also, wasn't "The Beast" supposed to be a male that was the offspring of a politician? That's two clues that adheres to GW. Any more that you can think of?
PRESIDENT and Mrs. Bush won’t merely attend Ripley’s Fourth of July festivity — they’ll be accompanied by White House aides, Secret Service agents and the usual logistical support such as Air Force One and its crew, plus employees needed for a motorcade or helicopter lift to Ripley.
What will be the taxpayer cost? $1 million? More?
That’s a steep price for taxpayers, for an event shamelessly called a political campaign ploy to help Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., win in November to retain GOP control of Congress — and to boost Bush’s 2004 chance to carry West Virginia again.
For window-dressing, the visit to small-town West Virginia is labeled a salute to veterans — but State Republican Chairman Kris Warner candidly remarked:
“You look at the national map, and you look at the electoral votes, there are certain counties that are down to the precinct where the president has to win. Jackson County is one of those. It’s crucial to his re-election in 2004 and Shelley Moore Capito’s election in November.”
There you have it, folks — an admission that no amount of taxpayer spending is too much, if it helps the GOP campaign.
Ripley Mayor Roy Guthrie, who supports Capito for Congress, made a bipartisan gesture of inviting Democratic Gov. Bob Wise and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., to Thursday’s fete. But he didn’t invite Capito’s Democratic challenger, Jim Humphreys.
State Democratic Chairman Pat Maroney pointed out that nationwide TV coverage of the president standing side-by-side with Capito at Ripley will give the Republican candidate a priceless campaign advantage.
Maybe the GOP should post signs like those at highway construction jobs: “Your tax dollars at work.”
posted on July 5, 2002 01:28:09 PM new
Good article, Helen. And then we wonder why a growing number of corporate executives use their positions to attempt to further their own selfish ambitions at the expense of the corporations, their employees, their stockholders, and the economic health of the nation. If the majority of citizens were to follow the ethical behavior in their private and public business affairs that are being set by those who are supposed to be the leaders in our society, the entire nation would be in shambles within a month.
posted on July 5, 2002 01:47:32 PM new
Helen - The taxpayers always pay.
Excessive or Abusive??
The President's [clinton's] foreign travel is well reported, but its costs are largely unavailable.
Because this president has set records as the most traveled president in American history, three U.S. Senators requested the government's official auditor to examine some of the recent travel expenses he has incurred. Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Larry Craig, and Senators Jeff Sessions and Craig Thomas last year requested the General Accounting Office (GAO)[b] to examine the costs of [b]just three recent foreign trips taken by President Clinton in 1998 -- his travel to Chile, China, and to six countries in Africa. The results of this study, released today by GAO, suggest that Clinton's travel has gone past the level of excessive to that of abusive.
Just those three trips cost the American taxpayer at least $72 million -- with the Africa trip alone accounting for $42.8 million. Not only did they seriously affect the taxpayer's wallet, these three trips seriously affected America's defense.
posted on July 5, 2002 02:24:18 PM new
No Antiquary, I don't have a problem at all. That way others here can read that those three trips were just the tip of the iceberg.
And if you're trying to disprove what the GOA is stating are facts....I don't think it really changes a thing where it was posted.
See, that's what I have tried to say here many times. Because I ran a search on clinton's travel expenses, and that came up....it still doesn't change the fact that the information came directly from the GOA of our govenment.
So...now if any one would like to also accuse the GOA of being thieves and liars....then ...that's their choice/
posted on July 5, 2002 02:29:25 PM new
Thanks Antiquary for the link.
It's clear that the Republicans have taken the information supplied by the GAO and put their nasty spin on it.
Of course, the Republicans would call these trips that Clinton made to improve our international relations and the world situation excessive or abusive.
Now, all that the Bush administration is concerned about is getting their candidates elected in November and to hell with the rest of the world. Just look at what a mess the world is in now and the fact that George Bush would even waste the TIME to go to West Virginia for his self interest angers me.
posted on July 5, 2002 02:31:05 PM new
LOL! Linda. I'm making no partisan arguments at all; I'm merely concerned with ethical conduct in the nation today. I would never attempt to justify it by claiming everyone else does it. That's moral relativity.
edited for clarification
[ edited by antiquary on Jul 5, 2002 02:32 PM ]
posted on July 5, 2002 02:39:21 PM new
No one's claiming if one side does it it's okay....it's not ever okay.
That's why I don't think some here get.
And Helen....give me a break....that was for only one year. Why don't you do a search on clintons travels yourself, both nationally and internationally...oh and add Hillary's and Chelsea's worldwide trips too. And I don't mean when they were traveling with clinton.
On the travel expenses while traveling in our country....the GOP pays for 1/2 and the taxpayers pick up the other half.
posted on July 5, 2002 02:43:39 PM newThat's why I don't think some here get.
Well, then I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, Linda. Get what?
Snowy,
It appears that things are finally beginning to unravel a bit. I guess it's no longer....
Bush the Father, Bush the Son, and Ashcroft the Holy Spook....
posted on July 5, 2002 02:53:12 PM new
So, Linda, you are telling me that Bush is saving the taxpayers money for his restricted travel expenses. ROTFL!!!
As we slide into oblivion and possible nuclear disaster you can rest assured that he stayed close to home and saved money?
You give me a break.
posted on July 5, 2002 03:16:26 PM new
"That's what I don't think some here get"....is what that should have said. We're experiencing very severe thunderstorms so I'm keep getting disconnected [no cheers please ].
For me, Antiquary, it's a sense of balance. Helen made her statement about our tax dollars being spent on the President travels. She shared her view. Fine. I tried to show that clinton did the same thing, even more so. That's politics.
When I show that the GOA gave those facts...what happens? Am I challenged on the FACTS given by the GOA.... No...the source. They're facts...not opinions.
posted on July 5, 2002 03:30:36 PM new
Linda, you must understand that the Republican Policy Committee took the FACTS from the GAO and then stated their OPINION of those facts. I don't dispute the GAO facts.
Bush traveled to West Virginia with a selfish motive, to advance his personal agenda. Clinton traveled to improve our international relations and to improve world conditions...He did not travel with his self interest as motivation. He made this country and the world a better place and in only a few months Bush has almost destroyed it.
posted on July 5, 2002 03:32:32 PM new
Yes, Linda, I agree that the only facts are the specifics that trips were made, certain circumstances surrounded those trips and that they cost money. The central question would then be whether or not the trips serve the national interest as opposed to personal or political gain. I can see how Clinton's trips could be argued to support our national interests, though the members of the Republican Policy Committee, might argue it differently. What I don't see is how the expenses for the trip to Ripley, WV, could be argued to support our national interests. What purposes could it have served other than to promote partisanship?
posted on July 5, 2002 03:40:27 PM new
What about the costs of the "added security" Linda? Does anyone know how much all of this has cost up to date, or how much more it's going to cost? Osama himself stated his goal is to destroy the U.S. economy, so I don't understand how an attack on any U.S. celebration date (like the 4th of July), will meet his goal. Bush makes it seem like the U.S. has extremely deep pockets and will fight anyone but in actual fact, he's just fulfulling Osama's request.
posted on July 5, 2002 03:52:40 PM new
antiquary - The central question would then be whether or not the trips serve the national interest as opposed to personal or political gain.
Did you even read how many trips he took [several times] to the same countries? I'm not saying none of his trips were in our nation's interest. Sure they were. But I believe they were excessive for a nation at peace. AND MY POINT WAS....the same as Helen's...taxpayer dollars paid for them.
I'm sure if one wanted to study the GOA site [I don't - you're not getting rid of me that easily] to learn what $$ amounts have been spent by past presidents, traveling in the US, they would find that what President Bush is doing is no different than others before him have done. Some more than others. That's my point.
And each time the 'other' side screams about them using these trips for political gain. When, in fact, we the taxpayers are the one's footing the bill, no matter who's administration is 'in' at the time.
posted on July 5, 2002 04:03:48 PM new
They're FACTS! Linda shrieks, but she fails to note that they are facts requested of the GOA by the republican campaign WAY back in 1999 or so, and she fails to note that those nasty repugs didn't request any like information about any other administration.
So what's to compare?
Well, the article claims that it's an excessive even abusive amount, and linda believes that because they say so.
The FACT of the amount may be correct, but without comparative data how can the charge be true?
Doesn't matter anyway, it's so long ago that any reference to it is only an obvious attempt to divert attention from current issues. You've been talking abour bush's helicopter trip to Mabel Campbell's yard in Virginia? Well, it was FIVE helicopters that landed there with a small army of bush cronies for the nice politickin' to follow.
And there's an issue of some import - these trips to politic for any and all repugs across the country are not only abusive they're flat out illegal. But don't mind that - you can't call it illegal if bush does it, right? Sorry, it still is, and bush is currently outpacing any other administration in expenditures of publicc funds for political purpose by a large margin. Not just outspending, but in some cases beating the others by twice!
posted on July 5, 2002 04:06:42 PM newHe made this country and the world a better place and in only a few months Bush has almost destroyed it.
You [and most here] and I will NEVER agree on what you said above. That's the opinion of most here, but none of you have anyway of knowing that. No one has a crystal ball and can predict what would have happened to the economy [etc] or how things would have been different under clinton or gore....or anyone else for that matter after 9-11.
Bush didn't cause to happen, what occurred on 9-11. It' been building for a long, long time. He'd only been in office for 9 months. He's the one that has to deal with it though. I remember thinking, bet clinton is wiping his brow saying, "Glad it didn't happen on my watch." We can only see and judge clinton for his actions/inactions with the terrorists acts that did happen on his watch.
posted on July 5, 2002 04:08:35 PM new
I'm still having trouble understanding your point, Linda. If I understand correctly, you would make no distinction between the expenditure of public funds which are necessary to or promote the interests of the nation and those which would only serve the interests of a president's political party. Your objections would be based solely upon the amount of money that is spent. In which case I assume that you would advocate a fixed amount for presidential travel with no accountability to the public, just as long as it did not exceed a certain fixed amount.
posted on July 5, 2002 04:16:08 PM new"But I believe they were excessive for a nation at peace".
What an absolutely foolish thing to say! If those trips served to preserve peace then it would seem that there weren't enough of them.
(Or is the point and purpose of the american people to be at war? In that case bush's trips certainly served us well).
Now, since we are not at war now except bush says so I guess then that the same applies to him?
But if we ARE at war now, then we were also at war then, since gross criminal action had been taken against american interests before bush called it war. And there went the hairbrained italisized statement above.
posted on July 5, 2002 04:18:36 PM new
krs - If anything's illegal ...then it's illegal. That's my view. Doen't matter who's side. Did anyone here show or state that it was illegal before you just did? I don't remember reading it.
If we're talking about President Bush doing is job...the taxpayers foot the whole bill. Nothing illegal about that.
If we're talking about Bush using 1/2 GOP funds and 1/2 taxpayer dollars for other national trips...how can it be proven to be illegal? How would that call be made, when the Republicans, Independants, etc have accused other administrations of doing the same thing....but NO ONE was tried/convicted for doing so.
Helen made a statement...I made a comparison...that's it.
And maybe I miss understood your previous comment when I posted that Hillary had not reported her senate donations and that was breaking the law. I took what you said in that thread to be "hey...they all do it"...so you and other's wouldn't have pointed it out, like I did, because all do the same. Did I misunderstand what you said/meant?
posted on July 5, 2002 04:22:13 PM new
Kraftdinner - Not sure I understand what you're asking.
The DOD [Dept. of Defense] foots the additional costs when any president travels. The military travel too...for our president's protection. Usually arriving, to whatever country, before the president arrives.
Where you referring to additional costs only for Bush?
- you're not getting rid of me that easily] to learn what $$ amounts have been spent by past presidents, traveling in the US, they would find that what President Bush is doing is no different than others before him have done. Some more than others. That's my point.