Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush Celebrates Labor Day

How come President George W. Bush went to Iraq to celebrate Labor Day? As far as I can remember, every American president celebrated Labor Day by making a speech extoling the virtues of the men and women who work hard. And Bush went to Iraq - not Baghdad, but Anbar province. Why?

Could it be his way of celebrating the great day? After all, he hates labor unions - something many workers love - so much that back in 2003 he appointed L. Paul Bremer the first head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Here is what Bremer did:

But from the time the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) took possession of Iraq, the Americans running the country not only declined to engage the labor movement in the process of building a nation, but also worked actively to undermine labor's ability to play a constructive role.

First, during his tenure, CPA chief L. Paul Bremer repealed virtually the whole Iraqi legal structure with his so-called 100 Orders. He did not, however, repeal Saddam's 1987 Labor Code, which forfeited the right of public sector workers to bargain collectively. That decision, though deeply foolish for purposes of nation-building, made perfect sense to the movement ideologues staffing the U.S. occupation.

You see, Bush wanted to remake Iraq into what he thought would be a better democracy than the U.S. is: He would rid Iraq of labor unions. Then Iraq would be more like the U.S. that Bush prefers: laissez faire for business with no unions to bother business.

Bush did celebrate Labor Day. He visited Iraq to celebrate the lack of labor unions there.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 3, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #231640

……….and to kiss up to the troops !!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 3, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #231642

Paul, you are not seeing the primary reason for Bremer’s actions. Those 10’s of billions upon billions of dollars of transfer payments from taxpayers pockets to key corporate supporters like Halliburton, Black Water, CICI, KBR, and many others. If Iraqis did the work, how could Bush and Congress have justified this military industrial complex subsidies?

Republicans know who they can turn to for contributions in 2008’s campaign.

Always follow the money first, if that trail dead ends, then look for philosophical, personality, or value reasons.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #231644

As for Bush going to Iraq. Well, that is pure speculation. Possibilities:

1) Not much applause here, potentially some applause left amongst troops at Al-Asad Air Base in al-Anbar Province, in return for a “Job Well Done” message to the troops still alive there.

2) Can the Generals on the ground be cajoled to sing the Pres.’s message, especially Petraeus? Less chance of leaks of conversations there, than here. Plus, a news report from Iraq by Bush on what EVERYONE there thinks, according to GW Bush.

3) Cheney needed a little wishful thinking time in the Oval Office, now that he is just taking up breathing space in the WH these days, and the GOP took his guns away.

My guess is both 1 and 2.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #231647

4)Carl is still handling publicity stunts.

Posted by: jlw at September 3, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #231655

I’m shocked to see the words “Bush” and “Labor” in the same article title, because the man has had everything in his life simply handed to him.
Btw, did you know that he’s already planning what he’ll do when he leaves office?:
“I’ll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol’ coffers.” Bush added, “I don’t know what my dad gets — it’s more than 50-75” thousand dollars a speech, and “Clinton’s making a lot of money.”

He’s so inarticulate that I can’t imagine his speeches being considered worthy of such large sums. (Actually to be perfectly truthful, I think people making that much simply to give speech is an obscenity.) And could someone tell me what the hell does Bush have to talk about anyway? His many failures? His destruction of the constitution? It can’t be his vast knowledge on some topic or other, because he isn’t much of a reader…

Posted by: Adrienne at September 3, 2007 6:46 PM
Comment #231658

This is just one, of the many, example of how totally incompetant this President and His Administration has been and continues to be. What we have is a ultra-spoiled child of wealth who has had Daddy there to bail Him out of jams, personal and business. Now he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and does not have Daddy to get him out of all his mistakes.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at September 3, 2007 7:42 PM
Comment #231659

I just hope Al Qaeda in Iraq knows he’s there and they to set up their own “meeting” with him.

Maybe he will go visit the grave of Saddam Hussein, just to make sure he is in there with his weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe he will run over a roadside bomb.

Yes, all wishful thinking, but I can I hope can’t I.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 3, 2007 8:38 PM
Comment #231660

I just wish he would stay there.

MacArthur in Japan after ww2,insisted in Placing laws in the constitution garanteeing a strong place for union in Japan. He was politically very conservative and had no love for unions. He did recognize them as a poweful antidote for fascism. The unions of Japan helped create the second largest economy in the world just as they have helped create the largest one,the US.
Speaking of,my union,the Carpenters,has endorsed Edwards in the primary.This is remarkable as we did not endorse anyone in 2004,including the general election.

Posted by: BillS at September 3, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #231662

The good news is, union memberships are climbing again. Fancy that in the face of the last 13 years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #231663


He went to Al Anbar because last year that was the province with the most trouble. That was the place that was “lost”. That was the place with Fallujah and Haditha. Now it is the place that is mostly peaceful. The place where roads are being build, bridges are being repaired and agriculture is being revived.

Al Anbar was the past and LAST year it was the future according to Harry Reid who could see nothing but inevitable defeat for the United States. Today it is the future or Iraq, but that future is looking a whole lot better. Al Anbar is the place where THIS year the situation in Iraq turned around. I am not surprised you asked the question. Most Dems still ain’t got the news. You will.

You do not need to give Bush the credit. He probably does not deserve it. But all Americans should celebrate the extraordinary progress we have made in one of the most difficult places.


If you follow the money in this election season, most of it finds its way to Dems.

Posted by: Jack at September 3, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #231667

Jack, More, NOT MOST. And I wasn’t speaking of political contributions, I was speaking of transfer payments to the civilian war support machine.

There are still quite a number of George Soros counterparts contributing handsomely to conservative think tanks, 527’s, the UN Fair Tax organization, and the RNC. Just because Republicans have lost a lot of their grass roots contributions, doesn’t mean they have lost much of their vested interest supporters, though the dollar amounts may have shrunk a bit. Saving it up for the potential of an unanticipated breakthrough opportunity in 2008, should Dem’s really flub it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #231668

It doesn’t seem to me that Paul is giving either a fair or accurate picture of either the Administration’s policies towards Iraqi labor unions or the present status of labor unions in Iraq.

While it’s true that public sector workers weren’t allowed to bargain collectively in the initial days and months right after the invasion in 2003 (at a time when the Occupation authorities were trying to rebuild the public infrastructure from the ground up), the policy was reversed by early 2004.

Since the summer of 04, the elected Iraqi government has been the ones setting labor policy, and they’ve recognized the right of unions to organize, and they’ve been doing just that for over three years now. Why is the six months that they were impeded more important than the more than three years that they’ve been allowed to organize (as they were not under Saddam?).

Not only that, the Administration is currently funding unions in Iraq through the National Endowment for Democracy. Could they do more—you could make that argument. But it’s pretty simplistic to say that there is “a lack of labor unions” in Iraq and that Bush is “celebrating it.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 3, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #231669

It is also far away from Bagdad,has little oil to fight over, is almost entirely Sunni. The tribal leaders are willing to allie with the strongest tribe in the area,the US,to defeat the outsiders trying to take their power,Al; Quiada.Yes, this is good
,but fleeting. When Al Quiada is gone they will naturally turn against the other invaders this time with our weapons and trainning. It is significant this is far from Bagdad with its Shia dominated government. It is doubtful the current Iraqi regime would tolerate what is happening there.Wish you were right. The place might make a decent Sunni capital when we finally wise up,withdraw and let Iraq return to the separate states it was before western imperialist changed it to a place only a strongman could control.

Posted by: Bills at September 3, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #231670

Jack said: “Al Anbar was the past and LAST year it was the future according to Harry Reid who could see nothing but inevitable defeat for the United States.”

Actually Reid had it about right. All the surge accomplished in al-Anbar was supporting tribal leaders courage to repel Iraqi al-Alqueda to other areas of Iraq like the North and NE. Iraqi Al-Queda continues grow by all accounts, and the violence remains in Baghdad and has increased in the North where it was relatively quiet last year. Hence, my repetitive reference to Bush’s whack a mole strategy which is all he has, since America lacks the troops to secure all of Iraq, combat the Iraqi Police who are just one notch less harmful than the Shia Death Squads, and hold areas taken like al-Anbar to prevent a return of the mole.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #231674

Jack: Did Bush go to Fallujah? How about Haditha, did he go there to? It was a Rovian publicity stunt and yes, you are right, a Nixonian peace with dignity ploy. I said yesterday that the Democrats would cave in again to Bush when he came calling with his hand out. Looks like he and Maliki are going to give them some cover.

There is also the Republicans to appease as well. They are quite aware of the cash flow into the Democrats coffers and they know that unless Bush declares victory again real soon, their gooses are cooked in 2008. Have you seen the numbers on the Senate? Can you say 60 vote majority?

Bush also has the military to contend with. They are rebeling against him. They have flately stated that we can not maintain troop strength at present levels and must, must start pulling troops out by next spring.

As for that corporate money flowing to the Democrats, there are several reasons for that.

1) It is not looking to great for the Republicans

2) They want to bribe the Democrats into minimizing any reversal in the flow direction of wealth because

3) they know that the workers are catching on quick to their cozzy little relationship with the government

4) Many corporations are making plans to go the alternative energy route because

5) This Pax America crap is just to damn expensive.

Posted by: jlw at September 3, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #231677


What I know about Al Anbar is this. Last year the defeatist wing of the Dems declared this complexly lost. Even many of the more circumspect military analysts agreed. Today the same people are trying to explain why it was so easy to turn the place around.

Success is always a combination of luck, work and preparation. Yes, we were lucky, but we also did the other things.

The situation in Iraq has turned around remarkably. We still have not achieved our objectives, but the momentum is now on our side (if the Dems do not pull out the rug).


Clear, hold & build. If we do this right, the bad guys will not be coming back in force. They can still blow things up. That does not by itself mean much. Terrorist blew things up in New York or Oklahoma City, London, Madrid etc. But they have lost the initiative.


Nobody says that the surge will last forever. I am sorry if this surprises you. The generals are telling the truth as they see it and the president has listened to them. I hope the Congressional Dems listen as well next week. The whole plan is that the surge will buy time, not be permanent. Nobody wants to keep Americans in Iraq longer than necessary. But I do want to keep them there as long as we need to in order to establish the peace and stability we all want.

Posted by: Jack at September 3, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #231684

Jack’s right, we’re going to win this war, damn it!!! Doesn’t matter how long it takes, or how much blood is spilled, or how much money it costs. We just have to keep saying that we’re winning, and that everything is going well and wonderfully, and that the momentum is now on our side, and one day, it will be so. Everyone who says differently is nothing but a damn Democrat rug-puller-outer!

“The generals are telling the truth as they see it and the president has listened to them.”

I think the president should listen to Jesus General, who in his usual hilarious fashion just nailed what the actual situation truly is:

An excited and enthusiastic President Bush appealed to Americans to give him more of the tokens he needs to win the war in Iraq. “I’m close, I’m really, really close,” said the President while he wolfed down a piece of Chuck E. Cheese’s pizza, then made a beeline for the restroom.

Reappearing minutes later, the President continued his appeal:

“I was stuck on level two forever—well, it seemed like forever. They tried to kick me out, saying they were closing down, but my boys, they straightened it out. They were like ‘Hey, we got to close up’ and I was like, ‘Bring ‘em on’ and my boys, well, they don’t cut and run, understand?” He continued, “Listen, I’d love to stand here and talk with you all day—not!—but I got me a couple of itchy trigger fingers. You tell America—the good America, not that other America—you tell them to get me some tokens, and pronto. Pronto-pronto.”

With time for one question, a reporter asked Bush if “Given that you’ve had over three years to figure this game out, and that you’re still stuck at level two, and you have some cheese on your chin—there, no, not there, there—why should America keep giving you tokens? You keep blowing things up and killing, but you always run back to the Green Zone and try to hoard your points. And every time you blow your wad and lose without getting past Level Two. And then it’s ‘more tokens, more tokens.’”

The President furrowed his brow and said, “Just give me the damn tokens. I have asked Congress for more tokens, and they have consistently found the will to get me the tokens that I need to win this thing. I have also asked the American public to just trust me on this. I don’t have to talk to the American public about this, you know. I do this as a courtesy. ‘Cuz I’m a nice guy.”

Then the President turned and walked, nay strutted like a Jay Cock back to the video game, with only a trail of toilet paper stuck to his right shoe betraying the honor and dignity of his office, and his rightful place in history. In all fairness, the paper shield from the toilet was stuck on his pants, too. And he smelled funny. And his eyes were all googly.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2007 12:50 AM
Comment #231687

The situation in Anbar has improved because we cut a deal with the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades and the “Ex” Baathists. In exchange for providing these secular nationalists- and secular is a relative term- in exchange for providing them arms and autonomy, they have agreed not to attack US soldiers. I am sure attacks still occur, because command and control of guerrilla resistance groups is bound to be marginal; in addition, there are factional splits along ethnic/clan/regional lines. But still, it is an improvement.

For years these two major groups refused to negotiate, because their precondition was withdrawal of US troops. Care to make a bet on whether we included meeting that precondition within a certain time frame when that deal went done?

Personally, I think it was a good deal to make. When I expressed this approval a year or two ago, Red Column commenters decried my willingness to “negotiate with terrorists.”

There are two problems with this approach: 1) The Sunnis remain unequivically opposed to being ruled by Shias, and 2) The US invaded Iraq in the first place in order to overthrow the Sunni Baathists.

It turns out Sunni nationalists & Baathists- you know, the “Ex” Saddam Hussein and his followers- are very good at repressing the foreign jihadis and local religious nutjobs if and when they feel so inclined.

So help me out here. Why again did we invade Iraq?

Oh yeah. The Shias. We wanted to install an Iranian allied, democratic, Islamic fundamentalist government. That”s the ticket! At least the Iranian backed Al-Maliki regime will let us continue the occupation, unlike Al-Sadr & the Mahdi Army, who oppose both Iranians and an American occupation.

Sunni v Kurd in Kirkuk. Who do you think will win?

Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2007 1:05 AM
Comment #231690


The leading Dems have backpeddled on withdrawal. They are mostly using it politically now. Reid’s comments will become more and more embarrassing to Dems as time goes on.

The things to remember are options and alternatives. If we pull out quickly, what happens? Is that our best option?


We invaded Iraq for a variety of security based reasons that we have discussed on many occasions.

Our goal is to help the Iraqis make their country reasonably democratic, stable and not a threat. We are making progress toward that goal.

The tribal leaders in Anbar are doing things because they think it is best for them. Surprised? The good thing is that they believe that U.S. interests are best for them. This is a big change.

We still are not done over there, but I find it very interesting that you guys can so easily dismiss the extraordinary progress in what was the worst area of the country. To paraphrase Harry Reid, we LOST in Anbar. Now the situation is turned around and you guys say that it is just natural and not much of an accomplishment.

That is okay. When Iraq is a reasonably democratic, secure place that is not a threat, you can say that was easy too.

Most things are easy after somebody else has done them.

Posted by: Jack at September 4, 2007 7:06 AM
Comment #231692


If Anbar improves but Baghdad degenerates, is that progress? The al-Maliki government is on the verge of being ousted, is that progress? The biggest difference between the Right and Left point of view on Iraq is not an issue of optimism and pessimism, but of the Right cherry-picking the improvements and ignoring the problems, while the Left sees the big picture. The big picture is that Iraq is not improving, at least not enought to justify either the surge or a continuation of it.

Adrienne, love the snippet from Jesus General. Thanks for my one good belly laugh of the day. :-)


Posted by: leatherankh at September 4, 2007 9:28 AM
Comment #231706

We are tolerated in Anbar to a greater extent than last year. Only 20 US soldiers were killed there this July, and during one week, only 100 attacks against us took place. Since May, vehicular traffic has been banned in Fallujah. If you want to go anywhere, you walk; probably not so easy in 110 degree heat, walking through a city in which 2/3 of the buildings have been damaged. But with unemployment running something like 80%, there are lots and lots of people to watch you as you walk. This city of 200,000 is not exactly quiet- more like, dead.

Really, it would make more sense to partition the country, let the Kurds & Shias keep their oil, and simply pay the Sunnis $50 billion/year for the next 30 years… we could probably even keep some of our military bases.

Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #231719

I fail to see why Bush visiting Iraq on Labor Day is worth an article of this nature? I think I will concede to LO’s comments above and leave it at that…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 4, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #231721

jaycee, your comments CLEARLY violate our Rules for Participation. Your participation is no longer welcome here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at September 4, 2007 2:43 PM
Comment #231722

Jack said: “Clear, hold & build.”

Ain’t going to happen without the 300 to 500,000 troops Gen. Shensecki said would be needed. JCS are warning we need to draw down troops. NOT increase them in by April of 2008.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #231723

aah thanks jaycee, our diet has been lacking the venom in the last few days.
Here is some newly released information, which strengthens our stand on how C.S. this administration has been during the whole fiasco of this war.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 4, 2007 3:03 PM
Comment #231732

“…that US interest are best for them”

Hardly. They are joinning with the most powerful tribe in the area to oust another forign interloper.Their guns will turn on us later. What is more signicicant is that there is not many resources in the area and it is far from Bagdad. If either of these conditions did not exist this shaky alliace would not be tolerated by the Shia dominated regime we installed.In other words it is not spreadable to the whole country.If it proves anything it is that the Iraqis will destroy Al Quiada without large numbers of US forces there.

Posted by: Jack at September 4, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #231741

He went to Al Anbar because last year that was the province with the most trouble.

B.S. Baghdad has been the biggest problem all along. Al Anbar is just small enough to be manageable.

Posted by: mental wimp at September 4, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #231742

God, I’m sick of this partisan crap. I’d like to see writers in the Blue column accentuate the positives of the Democrats, or actually analyze a substantive issue, rather than to engage in this constant sniping.

Posted by: Gerrold at September 4, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #231745

I to am with Gerrold on this. No matter if the president was Dem or Rep makes no difference at least the President of the United States went there to thank the troops for their sacrifice. I don’t read about any of the writers in this column going to Iraq. When was the last time any of you personally thanked one of the service persons for their sacrifice, I talking stranger not one of your family. All this political BS makes me thank God I don’t belong to either party.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2007 6:22 PM
Comment #231751

Yes, KAP, he went there..he thanked the troops…but but I don’t think that he cares enough, if at all, about them. They’re too far away from him, from his life style and mindset. This was nothing but an “photo op” for him…without the Mission Accomplished banner.. And yes, I do take the time to thank anyone I know, or see who is military, for their sacrifice in the name of this idiot and his blind followers.
C’mon, look at it for what it really is, another effort to bribe and beg for support for the upcoming release of ground officers opinions of the status of the war/recovery/rebuilding, etc.
Did you read the article I posted earlier???? Read it, then come back with your opinion of that. Be interesting to see how you can twist and spin that.
He invaded a country to set them free, failed abysmaly, and has yet to get it that they don’t want us there….they hate us, and that hate is spreading beyond Iraq.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 4, 2007 8:22 PM
Comment #231752

Gerrold & KAP thank you, these columns are full of sniping and as we see on the Red column there is a search on for more Red writers, so we tend to hear sniping on the left more than on the right. But hey put people of one mindset in a room together, they move to the extreme of that mindset.

Seems like a good trip to me. You have a low approval rating, you lose Congress & Senate, you go to Iraq to show support but also to take the time to listen to what your General has to say before he reports. Your war cabinet hears the same, you discuss options and probable outcomes, and you prepare for the September update. Prudent management of a situtation and prudent preperation for an important presentation to the American people and the legislators that represent them. I think it is that simple … not that sinister.

Posted by: Honest at September 4, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #231753

Is there still doubt in the minds of all but the Bush devotee (i.e the mindless devotees), that this moron masquarading as President of the US is the most reprehensible individual in the history of American government.

I guess he went to Iraq to shake the hands of soldiers that will come home in body bags, and to lie to them and their families.

How was his trip to Iraq any different from the propaganda of Hitler? It isn’t, it is meant to continue to deceive those American who apparantly he will always be able to fool.

George W. Bush is criminal and if, once again, lying to troops (and right in their faces) and to Americans (who are his constituency whether he likes it or not) is not a “high crime and misdemeanor” for which this presidential jackass should be removed from office; then we as American are treading a very dangerous and slippery slope with our Federal “government.”

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 4, 2007 9:15 PM
Comment #231754

Ever consider that there are fewer “reds” willing to associate or contribute positively to the fiasco that thrives on that side???
As far as prudence displayed in dubya’s action….ummmmm nope, don’t think so…
pru·dence (prdns)
1. The state, quality, or fact of being prudent.
2. Careful management; economy.
Synonyms: prudence, discretion, foresight, forethought, circumspection
These nouns refer to the exercise of good judgment, common sense, and even caution, especially in the conduct of practical matters. Prudence is the most comprehensive: “She had been forced into prudence in her youth, she learned romance as she grew older” Jane Austen.
Discretion suggests wise self-restraint, as in resisting a rash impulse: “The better part of valor is discretion” Shakespeare.
Foresight implies the ability to foresee and make provision for what may happen: She had the foresight to make backups of her computer files.
Forethought suggests advance consideration of future eventualities: The empty refrigerator indicated a lack of forethought.
Circumspection implies discretion, as out of concern for moral or social repercussions: “The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection” Samuel Adams.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 4, 2007 9:15 PM
Comment #231755

Sandra, do you really think that it’s a fair criticism to say that a President shouldn’t visit soldiers in a war zone because he doesn’t share a “life-style” or a “mind-set” with them? Where would that leave a President Hillary Clinton? Whether I approved of any president or any war, I’d always think it was a good thing for a President to mingle with them in the theater of action. Is part of the motivation political? Sure. Show me a President whose actions aren’t political from the time he gets up in the morning to the time he goes to bed, and I’ll show you a two-headed horse. Seriously. It would be a lot easier to find a two-headed horse.

This guy “jlw” says that it’s a “Rovian plot.” I say: when are people going to give this Rove stuff a rest? Somebody got kicked of this blog for nasty remarks about Democrats, but on the other hand, somebody named “Kim-Sue” was saying that she hoped Al-Qaida would murder the President of the United States, with a roadside bomb if possible. And as far as I can tell, nobody batted an eye.

I plan to fight tooth and nail to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House, and if she gets in, I’ll probably be furious half the time with what she does. But I’ll tell you this: I will positively go off on anybody who starts wishing for her to be murdered, whether by terrorists or anybody else. I don’t see anything like that level of decency from Democrats when it comes to President Bush. It’s truly sad because we’re supposed to be Americans first and Democrats, Republicans, or “other” second.

Posted by: Liam at September 4, 2007 9:17 PM
Comment #231756

Like Gerrold said it’s partisian BS and petty BS. It’s time for both parties to grow up and quit pointing fingers because they are both to blame. It’s good that you thank the troops, one of how many in this column? At least you thank them I got spit on.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #231760

KAP, I think honestly that if you were to ask each one of us, you would NOT find one anti military in the bunch. We aren’t fighting the idea of them being there and what they’re doing, but the bogus reasons cited to do it, and the absolutely inane (hmm insane would apply as well) logic and self-serving reasons to keep them there.
I grew up in the VietNam era, so the hateful, spiteful and sometimes vicious attacks on the returning vets is still as strong in my mind and memory as it was all those years ago. I’m sorry if you were one targeted by that group.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 4, 2007 9:36 PM
Comment #231762

I to would hate to see Hillary in the W. H. again, but I to would never want to see her murdered. It is a shame that some have to make ignorant remarks like the ones you mentioned. IMO that puts them on the same plain as a terrorist.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #231765

It don’t matter if he was Dem or Rep The reasoning would be the same. Besides the news I hear is some of those troops may be comming home in the near future and I hope and pray it’s true. Your right I don’t see much negative remarks about the troops.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #231766

Liam, sure, I think it’s fair, or I wouldn’t have said it. Bush spent his military service time trying to avoid his military service time. He wasn’t inclined to mingle then and he surely doesn’t feel a real need to do it now. Like I said before, it was a “photo op” set up by his handlers and that was it.
And by the way, if you’re going to quote a poster, you need to get it correct….better re-read Kim-Sue’s comments.
Rove is resting….and staying out of the limelight, but his presence is still strong as ever.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 4, 2007 10:00 PM
Comment #231770

She did say she hopes he runs over a road side bomb. IMO that is a death wish.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #231774

Wouldn’t be a big surprise to find lots more thinking the same thing, seeing as how it doesn’t look like we can get rid of him for another TOO MANY months, but she did not say she wished someone would murder him.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 4, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #231775

Sandra, if you want me to re-read Kim-Sue’s comments, I will. In fact, why don’t YOU re-read them. Here is the whole thing. Is there any possible way of reading this except as an expressed wish for the President of the United States to be murdered?

I just hope Al Qaeda in Iraq knows he’s there and they to set up their own “meeting” with him.

Maybe he will go visit the grave of Saddam Hussein, just to make sure he is in there with his weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe he will run over a roadside bomb.

Yes, all wishful thinking, but I can I hope can’t I.

I guess I’m just missing all the “gray areas” and subtle logic that Democrats pride themselves on when I read something like that.

Also, as someone with reason to know what he’s talking about, I can promise you that there were a lot of safer and easier ways to avoid military service in the latter days of Vietnam than flying F-102s in Texas. I’m not saying that GWB was a war hero or anything close to it, but unless you’re Dan Rather, it’s BS to say that he was shirking in relation to the rest of his generation at that time. But that doesn’t really matter. He was in, and COULD have been called up, even if the chances were low. That puts him at minimum one step up on most of his peers.

Posted by: Liam at September 4, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #231783

Liam, I’m not going to spend a night playing semantics with you….Kim-Sue is more than capable of taking care of herself.
As far as arguing dubyas’ colorful, honored and revered military history, it’s all a matter of public record, and still looks, but for a rich and powerful family, like he would have washed out altogether. And isn’t Texas a long way from the VC that the rest of our military was fighting? That is, of course, when he bothered to show up for his flight schedules. Course, he probably could have gone in low enough to get in the way of a ball hit out of one of the country clubs he was buzzing….. ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 4, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #231787

Sandra, you are right, she didn’t use those words. But, Liam is also right, the meaning of the words she spoke were unmistakably clear, it would be a good thing if al-Queda took out Bush or some other lethal misfortune should befall him, and that these are her wishful thinking and hope.

As a Texan under Bush as governor, I opposed him in 2000, in 2004, and have been critical of most of his actions. But, as much as I think the simultaneous removal of him and Cheney would be better for the nation, I cannot wish for his death, nor for harm to him by al-Queda. That would contradict my religious beliefs, dishonor my country and its constitutional system for rule of law - not rule of violence, and dishonor our sacrificing military who serve their Commander In Chief whether they agree with him or not.

If I were a Democrat, I would distance myself from Kim-Sue’s comments. I am not a Democrat, but, I would venture to guess that many Democrats understand her feelings, and many others would say that is going to far.

I don’t care much about GW Bush, the man. But, as an American, a veteran, and politically active person, I could not possibly wish for or hope that our enemies or any other lethal misfortune befall our President, regardless of who sits in that office. For the President is both symbol and agent for America. If the man is less than the office calls for, that is the voter’s fault, not the man in office. Bush’s record as Gov. of Texas and his failures in previous career efforts, spoke to his potential as President, but, the voters did not do their homework, and didn’t care what his critics had to say.

Should we hope and wish American voters die to remedy this propensity for poor and ignorant choice to the office of President?

It is just as absurd as wishing for Bush’s death. His death would not prevent the voters from repeating their error of electing another example of the Peter Principle, like Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel. Hence, for purely practical reasons, Bush’s death would serve no good end. Cheney would succeed him. That too would serve no good end.

I will regard Kim-Sue’s comment as a thoughtless one, a passionate one, but, thoughtless and unreasonable. I would suggest others offended by it do the same. Who among us has not engaged our mouth before our brain at one time or another?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2007 12:10 AM
Comment #231802

Thank you David, I think it would be hard to disagree that passion sometimes yields a comment that is ill thought out. I wonder if Kim-Sue will stop by and defend the comment.

Sandra, semantics? What are you talking about? You still won’t admit what was said and explain it away. Nice. It was a clear statement of the death of our President, like him or not. What good could come from a country that wishes for the death of a President because they disagree with policy, or some other reason? What good?

Why not just be honest and admit what David did. It was an emotional reaction that can happen. You look like you are defending it.

Bush is gone, finite, adios, in less than two years. What then? Gerrold & KAP still have it right, what is the policy moving forward. Where are we going. What can we do next. These seem like more relevant questions.

Posted by: Honest at September 5, 2007 1:35 AM
Comment #231808

Honest, it has nothing to do with admission….or explaning anything away. The word murder did not appear in any way in the original post. It was a heated and impassioned statement made, which David pointed out. It was just as inappropriate for Liam to add something to the comment that was not there originally.

“Kim-Sue” was saying that she hoped Al-Qaida would murder the President of the United States, with a roadside bomb if possible.

That is what Liam said, not what Kim-Sue said…therefore, it was not a quote and was Liams words, not hers.
I won’t argue what David intervened with, but it seems the challenged post has been removed, and not the post with the incorrect quote has not.
Is there a principle here David? or a personal influence?

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 5, 2007 2:25 AM
Comment #231842

Sandra, the point you are making is completely ridiculous.

It’s as if I said that Ted Bundy murdered his victims and you accused ME of “playing semantics” because he did not “murder” but “strangle them to death.” I’ve never understand how partisanship can lead people to make such warped arguments as the one you’re trying to make.

Posted by: Liam at September 5, 2007 12:40 PM
Comment #231856

Killing for a profit is wrong; I don’t care who you are democrat or republican. How can you defend what is going on no matter who you are???? If you want to support the troops, write them a blank check just like you are doing for Halliburton. I am talking about their paychecks not just bullets. That is support for the troops!!!!! They sacrifice their lives and their families’ lives for the blood for oil scam. Halliburton does not have to sacrifice!!!!!!! You have things turned around backwards. Let us give real meaning to (Support Our Troops)!!!!!! Now it is just a campaign slogan!!!! They can’t even get health care when they come home injured!!!!! I want real support for our troops!!!! Write them a blank paycheck!!!! Do not just use it for a republican campaign slogan!!!!!! Put your money where your mouth is!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 5, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #231869

In the event that some here may not realize, if
you threaten the life of the President or Vice Pres.
The NSA will pick you up two days before a Presidential visit to your State an you will be held
for 24 hours after their departure from your state!
Joking is not an option you may offer. I am only
offering this statement in an effort to save people
much grief when it is not necessary.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 5, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #231875

It’s truly sad because we’re supposed to be Americans first and Democrats, Republicans, or “other” second.

That should apply from the President on down. Too bad it doesn’t. How can you expect more from us peons?

Posted by: womanmarine at September 5, 2007 5:01 PM
Comment #231884

womannarine- Because most great things come from

peons, an utilized by the elite, never sell yourself

short. When you hear President speak, just compare

his speeches to some of the great posts we have seen

right here on this Blog. Site! Some people in

responsible positions are known to be plagiarists.

So just keep truckin with your good post’s.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 5, 2007 6:42 PM
Comment #232120

Liam, David, Whomever,

Here is how you interpret anything I ever write about “president” Bush.



I would venture a strong guess that far more people in this world (hell, this country) than NOT wouldn’t mind if GWB were to all of a sudden die. SOMETIMES BAD THINGS JUST HAPPEN TO BAD PEOPLE. ALL HIS MONEY AND ARROGANCE CAN PROTECT HIM FROM THAT FACT.

For the record—I, myself, see no advantage, whatsoever, of GWB dying in office, no matter how it might happen (by murder or otherwise) UNLESS Dick Cheney goes with him.

You can regard my comments anyway you like. When you can “reasonably” (as you put it) come close to providing EVEN ONE credible argument in support/defense of the autrocities of this “president” against Americans, then maybe I will consider that fact that GWB is PERHAPS something other than how I characterise him. His owm actions and words betray him and reveal what an absolutely baren character GWB is.

Those of you that want to keep to a “wishy-washy” line with respect to GWB, you go right ahead. (There may be a democratic House or Senate seat in your future.) But how dare you accuse me of being unreasonable, irresponsible, and the like.

Ambivelance, cowardice, and “political” correctness (for the lack of a more succint term) is how GWB thrives inspite of the fact more Americans than NOT want to see his clown and his administration just plain disappear from government.

It is the lack of willingness of politicians and their constituents to hold him accountable. It is unwillingness to scrutinize him and his “so called” policies that resulted in the BUSH WAR in IRAQ and all of it humanitarian, social, political, and diplomatic consequences here and abroad.

If I am NOT horrified at the thought that some tradegy might befall GWB, that is my RIHGT as an American to THINK IT AND SAY IT. GWB certainly doesn’t seem horrified by the ACTUAL numerous, mounting tragedies in the lives of Americans that he has caused. But you bloggers criticize me—give me a break!

ALL OF YOU—instead of being so incited by my words, why don’t you take as careful and scrutinizing a look at the “president’s” words (you can ignore his conduct for the time being—I know many of you need baby steps in that regard). While you’re at it, mull this fact over—MY WORDS, AND CERTAINLY NOT MY THOUGHTS, EVER KILLED A SINGLE AMERICAN.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 7, 2007 10:04 AM
Post a comment