Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>BTW, I wonder how much it cost to keep the carrier at sea an extra day for that stunt?<<<
The whole spectacle was over the top in spades, especially since a confirmed deserter was cast in the lead role. That said, it was foolish of the democrats to make an issue of it at a time when not belonging to the Bush fan club is considered treason. I'm beginning to think undercover GOP strategists are advising the democratic party.
>>>The helicopter was parked on the flight deck hidden behind the carrier's mast. They took both. He used the helicopter for the return flight.<<<
Like somebody said on CNN yesterday: Why did Bush need an airplane to get out there in the first place? According to most republicans, he can split the sea and walk on water anyway.
>>>So was this person shot and tortured or not? A quick look back tells me there are at least 3 versions of this story.<<<
Here's two versions:
"THE rescue of Private Jessica Lynch, which inspired America during one of the most difficult periods of the war, was not the heroic Hollywood story told by the US military, but a staged operation that terrified patients and victimised the doctors who had struggled to save her life, according to Iraqi witnesses."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-648517,00.html
"It was a road traffic accident," Gizzy said. "There was not a drop of blood. . . . There were no bullets or shrapnel or anything like that." At the hospital, he said, "She was given special care, more than the Iraqi patients."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26714-2003Apr14?language=printer
>>>you add the following "fact" from an article by some staff writer giving her opinion,<<<
Opinion? These are quotes from several hard-right Christian posterboys:
"I think Robertson stepped down because the position has already been filled," said Gary Bauer, a religious conservative who challenged Bush in the Republican primary. Bush "is that leader right now."
"He is the leader of the Christian right," said Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition figure now with the Hudson Institute, a think tank."
>>>You obviously need to get a dictionary and look up the difference between "de facto" and "official".<<<
Parse words all you want. If you're uncomfortable with "official" then pick your own prefix to describe what kind of Christian Coalition leader Bush is. No conservative Christian except for you seem to have a problem with officially declaring him their leader. The end result, no matter how you spin and rant is that Bush is the leader of the United States AND the leader of the conservative extremist Christian Coalition. Any true patriot who believes in the constitutional protection of separation of church and state should be troubled by this.
(i)test(/i)
All the US carriers are eventually arriving at ports along our coastline. Is there a reason (other than political grandstanding) Bush had to don full combat gear and fly off to sea to give his speech?
Former CIA official speaks of manipulated intelligence for war propaganda:
"One former CIA official told Mr Hersh: “One of the reasons I left was my sense that they (OSP) were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fits their agenda. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with . . . as if they were on a mission from God. If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-671612,00.html
>>>you are looking at the Republican party through the eyes of a left wing liberal,<<<
Please don't hang labels on me as you don't have enough knowledge of my values to make a valid assessment. The radical far right agenda of this administration makes everyone left of traditional republican look and sound like a liberal, borne out by your own description of Jim Jeffords.
>>>Bush is not the leader of the Christian Coalition (contrary to what liberals want to believe), he is the leader of the Republican party and the President of the United States.<<<
WRONG! Bush is the leader of both the Christian Coalition and the country which was the point I made to illustrate the folly of describing him as anything but an extreme conservative.
From the article:
"Pat Robertson's resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush.
Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office
Bush Emerges as Movement's Leader After Robertson Leaves Christian Coalition."
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 24, 2001; Page A02
Pat Robertson's resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush.
For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement's de facto leader -- a status even Ronald Reagan, though admired by religious conservatives, never earned. Christian publications, radio and television shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his leadership as an act of providence. A procession of religious leaders who have met with him testify to his faith, while Web sites encourage people to fast and pray for the president.
There are several reasons for the adulation. Religious conservatives have regarded Bush as one of their own since the presidential campaign, when he spoke during a debate of the guidance of Jesus. At the same time, key figures in the religious right -- Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Billy Graham and Franklin Graham -- have receded in political prominence or influence, in part because they are no longer mobilized by their opposition to a president. Bush's handling of the anti-terrorism campaign since Sept. 11 has solidified his standing by painting him in stark terms as the leader in a fight of good against evil.
"I think Robertson stepped down because the position has already been filled," said Gary Bauer, a religious conservative who challenged Bush in the Republican primary. Bush "is that leader right now. There was already a great deal of identification with the president before 9-11 in the world of the Christian right, and the nature of this war is such that it's heightened the sense that a man of God is in the White House."
Ralph Reed, who once led the Christian Coalition and now is chairman of the Georgia GOP, notes that the religious conservative movement "no longer plays the institutional role it once did," in part because it succeeded in electing Bush and other friendly leaders. "You're no longer throwing rocks at the building; you're in the building."
Conservative Christians tend to view Bush's recent success as part of a divine plan. "I've heard a lot of 'God knew something we didn't,' " Reed said. "In the evangelical mind, the notion of an omniscient God is central to their theology. He had a knowledge nobody else had: He knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way."
Bush himself dismisses the notion that he is part of some divine plan. "He does not believe he was chosen for this moment," a senior aide said. "He just views himself as governing on his beliefs and his promises. He doesn't look at himself as a leader of any particular movement."
Still, some of those around Bush say they have a sense that a higher purpose is involved. "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility," Bush aide Tim Goeglein, described as a "strong evangelical," told World magazine, a Christian publication.
Partially a victim of their own success, groups such as the Christian Coalition are finding fundraising difficult. Some leaders, such as Focus on the Family's Dobson, have retreated from political involvement.
Some religious conservative leaders have inflicted wounds on themselves. Falwell was roundly criticized, even by supporters, for saying on television, with Robertson's agreement, that "abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians" and civil libertarians were to blame in part for the Sept. 11 attacks. Franklin Graham produced a furor by declaring Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."
Voting patterns also show a declining religious right. Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, said that only 15 million of the 19 million religious conservatives who should have voted went to the polls in 2000. "We may be seeing to some degree some return to the sidelines of previously involved religious conservatives," he said.
And Bush, his advisers acknowledge, deliberately circumvented the power of the leaders of the religious right, appealing to conservatives himself rather than paying homage to the Christian Coalition during the campaign. "In the old days, Republican presidential candidates went to religious conservative leaders to seek their imprimatur," said a Bush adviser. "George W. Bush was able to go directly to those who sat in the pews."
Bush's effort succeeded. "He is the leader of the Christian right," said Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition figure now with the Hudson Institute, a think tank. "As their institutions peel away, he can go over the heads" of religious conservative leaders.
Bush, aided by speechwriter Michael Gerson, himself a religious conservative, speaks the language of religion better than any president since Jimmy Carter, religious leaders say, and Bush's policies appeal more to conservatives. To many outside the religious conservative movement, Bush's faith-infused words may sound sanctimonious; to those within it, the words sound familiar and comforting. Across the country, churchgoers share Bush's "testimony," his discovery of God 15 years ago with the help of Billy Graham. "Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year," Bush's memoir recounts. "He led me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life."
As Bush had embraced religious conservatism, religious conservatives have openly embraced him. The Internet has several sites offering prayers for the president's success. One example: "Call on the name of the Lord to hedge him in from terrorists and violent people. Psalm 91:11-12; 1 Corinthians 1:10-11."
World magazine, which is edited by one-time Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, named Bush's attorney general, John D. Ashcroft, its "Daniel of the Year." Ashcroft himself considered running for president in 2000 as the candidate of the religious right. "Just as the biblical Daniel faced an established idol-worshiping religion in Babylon, so our Dans must not back down in the face of deadly persecution abroad or the scorn and harassment that comes domestically from the academic and media high priests of our established religion, secular liberalism," Olasky wrote.
The top Daniel, of course, is Bush himself, a view liberally offered by the many religious figures who pass through the White House. In an account of one such meeting, Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, wrote of a "powerful and moving moment" with Bush and an ecumenical group of religious leaders. "One of our group asked, 'Mr. President, what can we do for you?' He indicated that we could 'pray for me, for our country, for my family.' He believes in the efficacy of prayer and needs wisdom and guidance and grace, he said. A Greek Orthodox archbishop was invited to lead us in prayer. We all joined hands in a prayer circle, including the president."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A19253-2001Dec23...
White House keeps lid on 9/11 findings.
From the story:
"The Bush administration also consistently have fought identifying top officials, including the president and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who may have received warnings in 2001 that bin Laden's network planned to hijack commercialaircraft."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm
>>>The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.<<<
What can you say except that all republicans - Bush administration members and their supporters alike - have all the luck. An electorate punchdrunk on patriotism and an opposition party without enough collective backbone to do its job of imposing checks and balances on the system.
>>>I'm still floored that Bush's desertion hasn't been his undoing... particularly in light of his recent show boating on the carrier.<<<
Goes back to the original reason he received 46 million votes in the first place: Republicans appreciate the importance of addressing the average American adult as a 4th. grader if they wish to garner support which is how they convinced the masses that presidential adultery in the WH is a sin that may well trigger the undoing of our nation if left unchecked. Anyone who stepped in and saved us from those horrors had to become a republican hero to be worshipped eternally. If desertion, drug abuse, the first rap-sheet in presidential history and lies about reasons for war are considered minor transgressions compared to fibs about sex, then how can Bush go wrong? Shades of cult mentality across the country if I may say so.
http://www.newscoast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73134150467061&Avis=SH&Dato=2003050...
>>>The Republicans as a whole are not "so far to the right of midstream" as you think..<<<
This is where your whole argument falls flat on its face in my opinion. The party as a whole is off the scale to the right for the simple reason that the right fringe dominates the party. Why did Jim Jeffords quit? How often do you see Lincoln Chafee posing with Bush or Cheney, and was the party's wholesale approval of Rick Santorum's gay rantings indicative of a mainstream republican leadership? And lastly, tell me with a straight face that a president who is the official leader of the ultra conservative Christian Coalition is also the leader of a moderate republican party. Bush the elder was a moderate and is starting to look like a liberal next to John Wayne wannabe.
>>>"These are not compassionate people," she said. "They break glass wherever they go. They have a very narrow, very right wing, very ideologically driven agenda that is completely incongruent with what the American people believe."<<<
Probably true for the most part which begs the question: Why are so many midstream Americans sympathizing with a political party so far to the right of midstream? Because most midstreamers only listen to what republicans say and pay no attention to what they actually do. The GOP figured out long ago that the road to the American voter's heart is paved with small words, slogans and only the most basic issues like tax cuts while democrats insist on delving deep into the country's problems with real discussions on real issues - a sure loser with the American voter. Remember the 2000 election GOP slogan; "Help is on the way"? Help for what? The most prosperous 8 years in US history? No matter. It was small, easy to digest and referred to a blown out of proportion presidential roll in the hay and people bought it. Politics for dummies by Karl Rove.
>>>Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?<<<
Where are what? Senior administration officials are now stopping just short of admitting the scare tactics used to gather support for the war were overblown hype. Amazingly, and this has my jaw resting in my lap, most Americans are too busy waving flags and don't care. CNN showed poll numbers Friday night indicating that 79% of Americans don't care if WMD's are ever found which also means 8 out of 10 Americans think it's ok for GW Bush to lie and cheat about reasons for going to war. What makes this even more bizarre is that GW Bush was elected in no small part on his promise to restore honor and dignity to the WH.
http://www.sundayherald.com/33628
>>>If North Korea really made a nuclear bomb while the Bushies claimed WMD in Iraq and bypassed the chance to confront North Korea and then found no WMD in Iraq it may well go down in history as one of the stoopider diplomatic moves of modern times times.<<<
Converting the post 9/11 global compassion and outpouring of support for the US to widespread hatred and contempt in less than 12 months already qualifies as one of the stupidest diplomatic moves of modern times in my opinion. For the world's only superpower to tar & feather, ridicule and humiliate, anyone (including our own citizens) who simply stood firm in their conviction that the war had not *YET* been properly justified was a pathetic display of simple minds at work at a level where they don't belong.
>>>>And didn't we impeach the last President for lying -- about a personal improprieties<<<
Try to imagine this war under the watch of a democratic president using the same "emphasis" and unsubstantiated claims of immediate nuclear threat as Bush did and the same lack of WMD findings to date. Impeachment hearings would be well under way and the GOP would have the country and the world in a state of utter chaos.
>>>however the data presented to establish the position that GWB lies was all from very biased sources<<<
A transcript of a GW Bush speech is a biased source? You use his transcripts in every other post of yours, so should your messages be dismissed as biased junk? This is what he said according to the transcript:
"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/index.html
Now find me ANY source of your choice that legitimized this claim by Bush. I can probably find ten sources that unanimously declare it bluster as best, deception or lying at worst.
>>>And regarding the WMD -- I woud think that rather in relishing in the fact that WMD have not yet been found, the liberals (and everyone else) should be extremely aprehensive that they are still missing -- I know I am--<<<
First off, quit the "liberal" ranting already please. You have no idea where I stand in the political spectrum except that I disagree with the neo-conservative wave that's sweeping the country. As for WMD's, I don't relish in the fact that they have not been found, but I am disgusted by the fear mongering and deception this administration engaged in to justify their little war game. If the threat was as grave and as immediate as we were told, would they not have at least a clue where to find and eliminate that massive threat or at least find traces of it? For the sake of our country's reputation and heritage, I hope they find everything they said we had to go to war for.
>>>Where is the "lie"<<<
Here's the lie:
"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/index.html
Those aluminium tubes were not suitable for uranium enrichment and were instead the exact same tubes used for 81mm rockets since the 80's.
>>>I understand we are in a war triggered by 9/11 against all nations who aid and abet terrorism
You and perhaps others do not have such a understanding<<<<
I have that understanding and I'm sure most people do. But that was not the issue I raised. The question was (and is) whether it was honest of the Bush administration to directly or indirectly IMPLY that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 while both the CIA and the FBI are on record for saying they have not been able to establish such a connection. I believe the CIA official's exact quote was: "We have looked at this for a year and a half, and you know what - we don't think it's there". It was widely published by much of the media but never commented on by the administration which may be why the public's perception never changed.
>>>>SeaBass -- Yes
=========================================
Simultaneously, they deftly distorted facts"
The exact opposite would be no distortions. Would you like to see the list of distortions and outright lies once again?<<<<
From post # 15517:
Call it what you wish. He told us Iraq would have nuclear weapons within six months and referred to an IAEA report for evidence. The IAEA quickly issued a statement saying no such report has ever been written.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-08.htm
Then he told the world and a live UN audience that Iraq had tried to buy aluminum tubes that only had one possible application: nuclear weapons manufacturing. Also false.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2003%2F01%2F24%2FMN163516.DTL
Next came the sales slips to prove that Iraq had contracted to purchase huge amounts of uranium from an African country. The paperwork turned out to be forgeries.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/schanberg.php
In addition, 9/11 was mentioned relentlessly whenever Iraq was discussed, resulting in 75% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the attack. GW Bush is the leader of the world's only superpower. With that privilege comes responsibilities, such as being absolutely truthful with the American people on why he is sending citizens to fight a war.
In addition:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html?page=&pagewanted=print&position=
>>>nowhere/nohow did the WH or administration ever claim that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11<<<
You quoted my original message so you know I didn't say they made such a claim. They did however insert 9/11 references relentlessly whenever Iraq and Saddam Hussein was mentioned which was more than enough to cow the public into compliance. Most importantly though, despite poll after poll lending evidence to the public's confusion, Bush's WH never once made an attempt to set the record straight.
>>> in almost every instance of emphasis the facts are exactly opposite of the rant<<<
I don't have time to pick apart every emphasis of yours, but here's a few for starters:
"A good section of the anxious U.S. public seems eager to accept as truth any nonsense uttered from the White House"
Days before the war started, polls indicated that 75% of the American people believed Saddam hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. Is that not a good portion of the public accepting nonsense as truth since no proof has been presented to support this?
"Bush (43) made it clear to other governments that he cared not a Texas hoot what they think."
The exact opposite would be a world that believes GW Bush is deeply sympathetic to their needs, values and beliefs. Is that your claim?
"Simultaneously, they deftly distorted facts"
The exact opposite would be no distortions. Would you like to see the list of distortions and outright lies once again?
"The very organization that Bush had routinely disparaged as worthless,"
The exact opposite would be constant praise of the UN by Bush. If that's what you heard, then there may be other problems involved that only you can identify.
"cowardly Democrats"
The exact opposite would be courageous democrats. I never saw or heard one leading up to the war. Did you?
>>>Kinda makes me wonder how the Center got so far to the right.<<<
They didn't. In terms of politics, America became a one-issue nation as of 9/11 - national security. Nothing else matters since GW Bush, tightly wrapped in the flag, has convinced the masses that only his party can keep the country safe.
>>>Fox in the a.m. has been chanting for those who opposed the war to admit they were "wrong"... But "wrong" about what??..<<<<
I've kept asking the same question but can't get a constructive answer from anyone. Probably because much of the pro-war crowd was for the war no matter what the reason so anyone who questioned the wisdom of it had to be wrong, especially after the war was won and suffering Iraqis were liberated. Maybe it's just me, but I can't recall anyone opposing the war out of concern we might lose it or that liberating Iraqis was a bad idea. Speaking of winning the war, does anyone watch CNBC International late night/early morning or read BBC online for perspective? What's with all the American chest beating and victory celebration they ask. The most formidable military force in earth's history takes on a third world country and a second rate dictator who's military for all intents and purposes surrendered and the easy victory is hailed as an awesome stroke of military brilliance and fighting capability? Here's a nice summary by Paul Krugman on the real reasons questions were asked and why the same questions remain:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html?page=&pagewanted=print&position=
>>>But team members who asked not to be identified said the MET's lack almost everything.<<<
Another reason to accept the UN's offer to help out. They would bring manpower and equipment and add credibility to the search - all free of charge. The UN may be slow, methodical and bureaucratic but they haven't been accused of dishonesty so far. The cynics say the only possible argument against admitting them is to allow the US to be "creative" in finding what they are looking for, so why are the cynics wrong?
>>>What really irks me is why do we have all these leaks? Can't they keep their mouths shut until they actually find something?<<<
Who knows, but like everything else that's being publicized by the Bush team, it's probably Karl Rove drafted propaganda of some sort. Maybe they are trying to win people's trust by announcing these weapons findings and later demonstrate their "integrity" by declaring the weapons non-WMD? In other words, if they're honest about a dud, they'll be honest about the real thing too.
Latest WMD find tests negative. Was this the sixth or the seventh smoking gun that quit smoking? I've lost tabs. The desperation to find something is beginning to reach the point where even a legitimate find won't be believed by many which is why a third party needs to join the search a.s.o.p. Why the US won't allow the UN to legitimize any genuine findings is hard to understand. The White House hasn't even bothered to explain why, and the only explanation put forth on this board was along the line of "no need to complicate things". Isn't it complicated already when much of the world is convinced US troops will plant evidence and wouldn't Bush be well advised to add credibility to the weapons search at any cost?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/28/international/worldspecial/28CHEM.html?pagewanted=print&positi...
>>>I think it is good that you give up...We can start to worry if/when there are laws introduced or passed which actually violate the 1st. Amendment.<<<
For the record, I didn't give up on the topic itself but on you and your refusal to stay on topic.
>>>A $1.4-billion legal settlement to be unveiled on Monday between major brokerages and U.S. market regulators was expected to include fraud charges and detailed allegations of misconduct by stock research analysts, said sources familiar with the matter.<<<
A $1.4 billion fine split between what appears to be every large brokerage house on Wall Street and then basically back to business as usual? After deliberately swindling millions of investors worldwide over several decades? And the SEC plans to grandstand at their headquarters and announce this farce before the press? Martha Stewart dumped a measly $300,000 worth of her OWN stock on alleged insider information and the prosecution is seeking fines and prison time for her. If this is all part of the effort to rebuild investor confidence, I have to admit I'm just not getting the sensation of increased confidence by what they're doing.
>>>Do a Google search of 'Christian right, Republican' and you will know who's pulling the strings...<<<
Or watch and listen to what the Bush administration is more concerned with - 40 million Americans (and growing) without healthcare coverage or finding a way to outlaw abortion.
>>>Also I can't find anything in the Constitution or its Amendments which restricts elected officials from being associated with with any Church, Religion, or Coalition of like minded people.<<<
I give up. As long as you refuse to recognize the difference between being associated with a religious organization and being the official leader of it, this is a dead end. Further, my "conservative hack" reference was general in nature and not directed at you personally.
>>>The belief that he is bound in some way to them or controlled by them is ridiculous. Was Kennedy bound to the whims of the Pope because he was Catholic?<<<
Once again you fail to distinguish between being associated with and being the leader of. An individual practicing religion has no obligation towards the Catholic church or whichever religion applies. The leader of the Catholic church on the other hand has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for the church's best interest at all times. So again, GW Bush is the LEADER of the Christian Coalition and has a fiduciary responsibility to look after that entity's best interests at all times. Only a conservative hack can claim that this passes the smell test for separation between state and church.
>>>We should be skeptical of the UN. No need to complicate things.<<<
I disagree and I think you may be reaching here to back the administration's stance. More eyes has to be better than less in this situation if we are interested in legitimizing any WMD findings. We may think the UN are both incompetent and short on good judgement but that's not important here. For all their shortcomings, they are for the most part seen as impartial which is exactly what's needed.
>>>OK, but many reasons to trust Bush also. Time will tell. If Bush lied about WMD, I will not vote for him.<<<
If that comes to pass, your vote or anyone's vote for reelection won't matter since he would likely face impeachment for deceiving the country into war. With more talk of evidence eventually being planted and the cynicism growing both here and overseas, what could possibly be the downside of letting the UN inspectors back in to work side-by-side with the coalition? Seems like they should be begging for an unbiased source on location to confirm whatever findings they come up with. But instead - in typical Bush fashion - they stonewall, tell everyone to shut up and go away and as always, go out of their way to look guilty. If they know the WMD's are there, then how do they NOT have everything to win and nothing to lose by allowing the UN to share in the discovery and eliminate all speculation about foul play?
>>>Your link is over 1 year old...<<<
It's just as valid today as it was a year ago.
>>>I seem to remember seeing many past Presidents associating with Religious leaders/groups...<<<
Associating with or leaders of? The difference is huge since a leader has a fiduciary responsibility to act in his entity's best interest at all times. In Bush's case, it means he has to act in the best interest of the Christian Coalition at all times while at the same time being bound by law to separate those initiatives from his primary responsibilities. You may think that's possible while I think it's not.
>>>We still have regular elections and there si still seperation of church and state... Can you point to any legal changes, maybe I missed them?<<<
Legal changes are always preceded by fundamental changes. If Bush really believed in preserving the separation of state and church, he would separate himself from the leadership of the Christian Coalition and he wouldn't be preoccupied with his faith based organization effort. Tell me with a straight face you think this is appropriate:
"For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement's de facto leader"
Analysis
Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office
Bush Emerges as Movement's Leader After Robertson Leaves Christian Coalition advertisement
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 24, 2001; Page A02
Pat Robertson's resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush.
For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement's de facto leader -- a status even Ronald Reagan, though admired by religious conservatives, never earned. Christian publications, radio and television shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his leadership as an act of providence. A procession of religious leaders who have met with him testify to his faith, while Web sites encourage people to fast and pray for the president.
There are several reasons for the adulation. Religious conservatives have regarded Bush as one of their own since the presidential campaign, when he spoke during a debate of the guidance of Jesus. At the same time, key figures in the religious right -- Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Billy Graham and Franklin Graham -- have receded in political prominence or influence, in part because they are no longer mobilized by their opposition to a president. Bush's handling of the anti-terrorism campaign since Sept. 11 has solidified his standing by painting him in stark terms as the leader in a fight of good against evil.
"I think Robertson stepped down because the position has already been filled," said Gary Bauer, a religious conservative who challenged Bush in the Republican primary. Bush "is that leader right now. There was already a great deal of identification with the president before 9-11 in the world of the Christian right, and the nature of this war is such that it's heightened the sense that a man of God is in the White House."
Ralph Reed, who once led the Christian Coalition and now is chairman of the Georgia GOP, notes that the religious conservative movement "no longer plays the institutional role it once did," in part because it succeeded in electing Bush and other friendly leaders. "You're no longer throwing rocks at the building; you're in the building."
Conservative Christians tend to view Bush's recent success as part of a divine plan. "I've heard a lot of 'God knew something we didn't,' " Reed said. "In the evangelical mind, the notion of an omniscient God is central to their theology. He had a knowledge nobody else had: He knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way."
Bush himself dismisses the notion that he is part of some divine plan. "He does not believe he was chosen for this moment," a senior aide said. "He just views himself as governing on his beliefs and his promises. He doesn't look at himself as a leader of any particular movement."
Still, some of those around Bush say they have a sense that a higher purpose is involved. "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility," Bush aide Tim Goeglein, described as a "strong evangelical," told World magazine, a Christian publication.
Partially a victim of their own success, groups such as the Christian Coalition are finding fundraising difficult. Some leaders, such as Focus on the Family's Dobson, have retreated from political involvement.
Some religious conservative leaders have inflicted wounds on themselves. Falwell was roundly criticized, even by supporters, for saying on television, with Robertson's agreement, that "abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians" and civil libertarians were to blame in part for the Sept. 11 attacks. Franklin Graham produced a furor by declaring Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."
Voting patterns also show a declining religious right. Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, said that only 15 million of the 19 million religious conservatives who should have voted went to the polls in 2000. "We may be seeing to some degree some return to the sidelines of previously involved religious conservatives," he said.
And Bush, his advisers acknowledge, deliberately circumvented the power of the leaders of the religious right, appealing to conservatives himself rather than paying homage to the Christian Coalition during the campaign. "In the old days, Republican presidential candidates went to religious conservative leaders to seek their imprimatur," said a Bush adviser. "George W. Bush was able to go directly to those who sat in the pews."
Bush's effort succeeded. "He is the leader of the Christian right," said Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition figure now with the Hudson Institute, a think tank. "As their institutions peel away, he can go over the heads" of religious conservative leaders.
Bush, aided by speechwriter Michael Gerson, himself a religious conservative, speaks the language of religion better than any president since Jimmy Carter, religious leaders say, and Bush's policies appeal more to conservatives. To many outside the religious conservative movement, Bush's faith-infused words may sound sanctimonious; to those within it, the words sound familiar and comforting. Across the country, churchgoers share Bush's "testimony," his discovery of God 15 years ago with the help of Billy Graham. "Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year," Bush's memoir recounts. "He led me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life."
As Bush had embraced religious conservatism, religious conservatives have openly embraced him. The Internet has several sites offering prayers for the president's success. One example: "Call on the name of the Lord to hedge him in from terrorists and violent people. Psalm 91:11-12; 1 Corinthians 1:10-11."
World magazine, which is edited by one-time Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, named Bush's attorney general, John D. Ashcroft, its "Daniel of the Year." Ashcroft himself considered running for president in 2000 as the candidate of the religious right. "Just as the biblical Daniel faced an established idol-worshiping religion in Babylon, so our Dans must not back down in the face of deadly persecution abroad or the scorn and harassment that comes domestically from the academic and media high priests of our established religion, secular liberalism," Olasky wrote.
The top Daniel, of course, is Bush himself, a view liberally offered by the many religious figures who pass through the White House. In an account of one such meeting, Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, wrote of a "powerful and moving moment" with Bush and an ecumenical group of religious leaders. "One of our group asked, 'Mr. President, what can we do for you?' He indicated that we could 'pray for me, for our country, for my family.' He believes in the efficacy of prayer and needs wisdom and guidance and grace, he said. A Greek Orthodox archbishop was invited to lead us in prayer. We all joined hands in a prayer circle, including the president."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A19253-2001Dec23&a....
>>>you want to crucify a man who has done no wrong and agreed with the law of the land.<<<<
In fairness, did Santorum not venture a bit beyond agreeing with the law of the land by comparing gay sex to sex with animals and incest? Could he not have made his point without such obvious provocation? Time and again, the republican party's top brass mouth off with incredible bigotry in one breath, and in the next declare themselves leaders of the party of "inclusion", the party of compassion and the party "with the big tent". Just plain stunning hypocrisy that's slowly being recognized by our politically illiterate population.
mlsoft..>>>I was just wondering if you disliked lying in general or if your distaste for it was limited to when you thought conservatives were the guilty party.<<<
Of course I dislike lying in general, but I believe mitigating circumstances can apply to lying just as it applies to serious crimes. If GW Bush was hounded and investigated by the democrats and an overzealous liberal prosecutor for eight years, and somehow the investigation culminated in a grand jury hearing under oath concerning Bush's sexual habits, would you consider a lie under those circumstances as serious as a lie about national security or war & peace?
mlsoft.....>>>Without commenting on your assertion of Bush "lies", I would be curious to know if you got equally indignant over all the continual lies from willie clinton, his wife, and algore,<<<
Depends on which lies you refer to. Eight straight years of prosecution and slander by the right sort of turned everything into a blur. Clinton's lie under oath about his love life before a camera broadcasting live to a global audience was sickening in a lot of ways. Mostly (in my opinion) because it reflected the GOP's out-of-control hatred for a twice, DULY elected president and its obsession with overthrowing the will of the people at any cost. It was cowardly, it was dirty and it was un-American in the extreme. 70% of disgusted Americans agreed with that assessment at the peak of the impeachment hearings by the way.