|
|
(CBS/AP) About 150 students at a suburban Denver high school walked out of class to protest a decision to put a teacher on administrative leave while the school investigates remarks he allegedly made in class about President Bush, including a comment that some people compare Mr. Bush to Adolf Hitler. The protest came Thursday as administrators began investigating whether Overland High School teacher Jay Bennish violated a policy requiring balancing viewpoints in the classroom, Cherry Creek School District spokeswoman Tustin Amole said. It was peaceful. The students yelled, but there was no fighting, Amole said. Most of them did return to class. The suspension, says Amole, is a paid leave and is not a punitive situation... It just gives us the opportunity to talk to him, to talk to students. Overland High student Stacy Caruso says Bennish hasn't done anything wrong. In the classroom, says Caruso, everyone has their right to speak their opinion and he's not forcing any opinions on anyone. Another student, Derek Belloni, tells CBS News Station KCNC-TV reporter Rick Sallinger that Bennish is out of line. He's supposed to be teaching geography, says Belloni, and yet he's pushing a liberal agenda trying to convert kids to his side of the spectrum. A telephone number listed for Bennish, who has been teaching social studies and American history at Overland since 2000, had been disconnected. Sophomore Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1 discussion about President Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said. After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view, she said. The student who made the tape agrees. I've been his class four weeks, says Allen, and I've never heard another side. Deborah Fallin, spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association, which represents about 37,000 union teachers, said it will not represent Bennish because he is not a member. He's terribly upset about the fact that he can't teach right now, says David Lane, an attorney who is now representing Bennish. He's so upset and I am now his lawyer and we will be going to federal court. ©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. Other related messages found in our database sound bite from barbara bush's remarks Here is the sound bite from Barbara Bush (it actually was on The Drudge Report!)
Here's the clip. Let them try and spin it however they want. Her callous words cannot be denied. These are heartless group of elitists: If anyone is dividing America it is Bennett by his remarks and Bush No, Im not trying to defend the democratic party or help with dividing this country. Bennetts remarks have nothing to do with political parties, they have to do with insensitive hurtful hateful remarks made by him..I divide the black white community? I beg your pardon, I have always associated with minorities in America. I have lived side by side with them, dated them, married one of them and I will continue to care for the minorities..the white republican capitalists do not need my support nor do they deserve my support.. article from baltimore sun..time for bush to go From The Baltimore Sun: After Katrina fiasco, time for Bush to go After Katrina fiasco, time for Bush to go By Gordon Adams September 8, 2005 WASHINGTON - The disastrous federal response to Katrina exposes a record of incompetence, misjudgment and ideological blinders that should lead to serious doubts that the Bush administration should be allowed to continue in office. When taxpayers have raised, borrowed and spent $40 billion to $50 billion a year for the past four years for homeland security but the officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency cannot find their own hands in broad daylight for four days while New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast swelter, drown and die, it is time for them to go. When funding for water works and levees in the gulf region is repeatedly cut by an administration that seems determined to undermine the public responsibility for infrastructure in America, despite clear warnings that the infrastructure could not survive a major storm, it seems clear someone is playing politics with the public trust. When rescue and medical squads are sitting in Manassas and elsewhere in northern Virginia and foreign assistance waits at airports because the government can't figure out how to insure the workers, how to use the assistance or which jurisdiction should be in charge, it is time for the administration to leave town. When President Bush stays on vacation and attends social functions for two days in the face of disaster before finally understanding that people are starving, crying out and dying, it is time for him to go. When FEMA officials cannot figure out that there are thousands stranded at the New Orleans convention center - where people died and were starving - and fussed ineffectively about the same problems in the Superdome, they should be fired, not praised, as the president praised FEMA Director Michael Brown in New Orleans last week. When Mr. Bush states publicly that nobody could anticipate a breach of the levee while New Orleans journalists, Scientific American, National Geographic, academic researchers and Louisiana politicians had been doing precisely that for decades, right up through last year and even as Hurricane Katrina passed over, he should be laughed out of town as an impostor. When repeated studies of New Orleans make it clear that tens of thousands of people would be unable to evacuate the city in case of a flood, lacking both money and transportation, but FEMA makes no effort before the storm to commandeer buses and move them to safety, it is time for someone to be given his walking papers. When the president makes Sen. Trent Lott's house in Pascagoula, Miss., the poster child for rebuilding while hundreds of thousands are bereft of housing, jobs, electricity and security, he betrays a careless insensitivity that should banish him from office. When the president of the United States points the finger away from the lame response of his administration to Katrina and tries to finger local officials in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La., as the culprits, he betrays the unwillingness of this administration to speak truth and hold itself accountable. As in the case of the miserable execution of policy in Iraq, Mr. Bush and Karl Rove always have some excuse for failure other than their own misjudgments. We have a president who is apparently ill-informed, lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by oil baron cronies, religious fundamentalist crazies and right-wing extremists and ideologues. He has appointed officials who give incompetence new meaning, who replace the positive role of government with expensive baloney. They rode into office in a highly contested election, spouting a message of bipartisanship but determined to undermine the federal government in every way but defense (and, after 9/11, one presumed, homeland security). One with Grover Norquist, they were determined to shrink Washington until it was small enough to drown in a bathtub. Katrina has stripped the veil from this mean-spirited strategy, exposing the greed, mindlessness and sheer profiteering behind it. It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly, troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden gracefully and mindfully out of Washington and returned to their caves, clubs in hand. Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, was senior White House budget official for national security in the Clinton administration Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached...see article
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9. The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement: If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him. 44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error. Those who agreed with the statement were also more passionate: 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed. The results of this poll are truly astonishing, said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House. Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans. Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment. Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%). Support for Impeachment Surged Since June The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos. After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment was much higher than I expected. At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%. Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition. Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of I don't know responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns. Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the public before the war, and 57% say the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased. Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24. The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach). We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll, said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress. Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war. The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war. We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.' What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush. The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the Ipsos poll. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each. AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls. Footnotes: 1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. 2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau. 3. Zogby asked: If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable 4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media. Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers http://www.davidswanson.org DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997. Get real, I read the entire article. Bush had NOTHING to do with it! My gosh, the lengths you will go to. Shame on you! Obviously, German would not give him up, as Democrat says. Next you will post that Bush is responsible for orginal sin. And you would believe it, too! 
Very interesting article about Bush's secrets, lies and to keep his papers, and his father's papers secret and privileged. Martin Garbus: Impeachment is Now Real Martin Garbus Wed Dec 28, 1:41 PM ET An hour after the New York Times described Bush’s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a “High Crime,” and should be impeached. Was there then enough evidence to justify the beginning of an attempt to impeach the President? No. Did the President have a good defense that he relied on Gonzalez, Ashcroft and the best lawyers in the country (in the Solicitor General’s and Department of Justice’s offices)? Yes. Would any significant number of Americans of Congressmen then support such a process? No. Given all that, would the turmoil and consequential turmoil have justified the start of that brutal process? No. But that has all changed. Because we shall soon see the consequences of those warrantless searches, the consequences of the government’s five years of secrecy, and even the citizens of the “Red States” will be outraged. Firstly, the warrantless taps will infect hundreds of “terrorist” and criminal cases throughout the country. Not only future cases, but past and present cases, even if there were convictions or plea bargains after the survellance started. The defendants in “terrorist” and other infected criminal cases, the Court must find, must get access to everything, or very close to everything to make sure they were never improperly surveilled. The Bush Administration, in these cases will refuse, as did the Nixon administration, to divulge information on national security grounds. Many alleged critical cases must then be dismissed. It will include Organized Crime and drug cases. The entire criminal process will be brought to a standstill. Cases that should take six months to a year, will take three times as long, as motions go up and down the appellate ladder – as federal judges trial disagree with each other. Appellate Courts will disagree on issues so novel and so important that the Supreme Court will look at them. Secondly, there will be an endless amounts of civil suits, that we can see will result in substantial damage awards. Commentators claimed there cannot be suits because no one has standing to challenge the surveillance. They are wrong. They do not remember the history of the Palmer Raids in the 1920’s, the surveillance in the Sixties and Seventies. The future will show both the enormous information the new technology has gathered but also the dishonest minimization of the extent of the surveillance. That minimization is standard operating procedure for governments, whether they be run by Democrats or Republicans. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is safe to preduct there will be coverups. This administration is not known for its candor. The coverup starts by trying to get away with the vauge and meaningless defenses. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that. When that doesn’t work, the coverup will be based on a foundation of small lies. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that. We do not yet know what the FISA judges already fear – that they have been not just ignored by the executive but misused. The public shall also learn about the FISA judges’ misuse of the FISA courts and their warrants. The courts were created to permit eavesdropping and electronic surveillance, not physical break-ins. But the facts will show that the Bush administration, with the knowledge, and at times, the consent of, the FISA judges, conducted illegal physical break-ins - break-ins that to this day, the involved person, is unaware of. Were the results of these “terrorist” break-ins then given to criminal authorities to start unrelated prosecutions? Of course. The American public will also learn what this Administration has thus far successfully hidden. When Bush came into office, he signed an Exeutive Order making all of his, and his father’s, papers privileged. The order, extending 12 years out, also says if the President is incapacitated, then a third person can execute the privilege. This means anybody – a wife, a family lawyer, a child. The order also says the Vice President’s papers are privileged. It is an extraordinary Executive Order – this has never been anything like this. No one ever suggested a Vice President has executive privilege. If we do not find out what they are hiding, we will see witholding on a scale never before seen. He will no longer be able to use 9/11 and the war on terror as an excuse. It will confirm the fact that illegality and secrecy existed long before 9/11, that it started as soon as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield got into office. It will show deliberate attempts to avoid any judicial or legislative oversight of the illegal use of executive privilege. Impeachment procedures will come not because of wrongdoing but because of the discovery of lies. Both Nixon and Cliton faced impeachments because they lied. It was inconceivable before the Nixon and Clinton impeachment procedures began that there could be, or would be a country or Senate that would be responsive to it. In the Nixon case, it spiraled from a petty break-in – in Clinton’s case from a petty sexual act. But what Bush has done, and will do, to protect himself is not petty. It goes to the heart of the government. He already has a history of misleading the public on the searches conducted thus far. As he and his colleagues seek to minimize the vast amount of data collection, the lies will necessarily expand to cover the wrongdoing. Bush can be brought down. Copyright © 2005 HuffingtonPost.com. All rights reserved. The information contained in Huffington Post commentary may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without prior written authority of huffingtonpost.com.
ARTICLE-BUSH PARDONS OSAMA BIN LADEN Forgot to post the link for all you "naysayers" ...... MAN - Before you get on your high-horse, READ, READ, READ -- It's all over the internet. I meant to say, that Bush is friends with members of Osama Bin Laden's "family." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/breaking-bush-pardons-osa_b_159272.html ARTICLE BELOW: WASHINGTON, DC: In a stunning late-hour development, President George W. Bush has granted Osama bin Laden a pardon for the murder of more than 2,700 Americans in the fall of 2001. "This kinda came out of nowhere," said a White House aide who requested anonymity. "I wouldn't have put bin Laden on the short list myself. On the other hand, maybe this is the president's way of finding closure. Because ... y'know ... he wasn't actually able to kill bin Laden, or capture him, or even keep him from making all those (expletive) videos. I mean, jeez, let's face it: Osama bin Laden is basically a one-man Netflix of cave movies." The aide paused, then went on to say, "Can you believe this dude (Bush) was actually president for eight (expletive) years? What were we thinking? Seriously, what the (expletive) were we thinking?" The aide began weeping quietly. "May God have mercy on me for my role in the unfathomable travesty that was the Bush administration." Conservative columnist William Kristol insisted the pardon made sense. "George W. Bush is a brilliant strategist. I'm sure he has a good reason for this pardon. I'll figure it out." Kristol sucked his thumb for a few minutes, lost in thought. He was then distracted by a brightly colored piece of string. A passerby, told of the bin Laden pardon, offered a possible explanation: "Maybe Bush is trying to smoke him out. Wasn't that the plan?" ARTICLE-BUSH PARDONS OSAMA BIN LADEN Forgot to post the link for all you "naysayers" ...... MAN - Before you get on your high-horse, READ, READ, READ -- It's all over the internet. I meant to say, that Bush is friends with members of Osama Bin Laden's "family." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/breaking-bush-pardons-osa_b_159272.html ARTICLE BELOW: WASHINGTON, DC: In a stunning late-hour development, President George W. Bush has granted Osama bin Laden a pardon for the murder of more than 2,700 Americans in the fall of 2001. "This kinda came out of nowhere," said a White House aide who requested anonymity. "I wouldn't have put bin Laden on the short list myself. On the other hand, maybe this is the president's way of finding closure. Because ... y'know ... he wasn't actually able to kill bin Laden, or capture him, or even keep him from making all those (expletive) videos. I mean, jeez, let's face it: Osama bin Laden is basically a one-man Netflix of cave movies." The aide paused, then went on to say, "Can you believe this dude (Bush) was actually president for eight (expletive) years? What were we thinking? Seriously, what the (expletive) were we thinking?" The aide began weeping quietly. "May God have mercy on me for my role in the unfathomable travesty that was the Bush administration." Conservative columnist William Kristol insisted the pardon made sense. "George W. Bush is a brilliant strategist. I'm sure he has a good reason for this pardon. I'll figure it out." Kristol sucked his thumb for a few minutes, lost in thought. He was then distracted by a brightly colored piece of string. A passerby, told of the bin Laden pardon, offered a possible explanation: "Maybe Bush is trying to smoke him out. Wasn't that the plan?" White House denies Bush God claims (name of article) White House denies Bush God claims James Sturcke Friday October 7, 2005 A senior White House official has denied that the US president, George Bush, said God ordered him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. A spokesman for Mr Bush, Scott McClellan, said the claims, to be broadcast in a TV documentary later this month, were absurd. In the BBC film, a former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, says that Mr Bush told a Palestinian delegation in 2003 that God spoke to him and said: George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan and also George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq. During a White House press briefing, Mr McClellan said: No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments. Mr McClellan admitted he was not at the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in June 2003 when Mr Bush supposedly revealed the extent of his religious fervour. However, he said he had checked into the claims and I stand by what I just said. Asked if Mr Bush had ever mentioned that God had ordered him into Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr McClellan said: No, and I've been in many meetings with him and never heard such a thing. The claims are due to be broadcast in a three-part BBC documentary which analyses attempts to bring peace to the Middle East. Mr Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister in 2003, claims Mr Bush told him and other delegates that he was spoken to by God over his plans for war. He told the film-makers: President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did. 'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.' The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the June 2003 meeting as well, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state. Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact that brings him much support in middle America. History is littered with examples of people doing the most bizarre and sometimes wicked things on this basis, said Andrew Blackstock, director of the British-based Christian Socialist Movement. If Bush really wants to obey God during his time as president he should start with what is blindingly obvious from the Bible rather than perceived supernatural messages. That would lead him to the rather less glamorous business of prioritising the needs of the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised in his own country and abroad. When we see more policies reflecting that, it might be easier to believe he has God on his side. And more likely that God might speak to him. The TV series, which starts on Monday, charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from the former US president Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000, to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year. It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers, the BBC said. This teacher has her nerve. 1. Graduate from high school. Good, I agree. 2. Get a job - keep it, no matter how much money. So she would have her students stay at McDonalds the rest of their lives, no matter how much money they make. Don't strive for anything more (ya know, some older people have this mindset). 3. Never have a baby out of wedlock. This makes me a bad person. 4. Get married and stay married. I hope she explained to them not to stay in an abusive relationship just for the sake of staying married. Aside from #1, these are definitely not things that you want to have drilled into a 7th graders mind. Definitely don't stop at the principal, they back up the teachers in most cases. BTDT. The case was about a teacher There was a case where they were trying to ban a teacher from wearing a cross. maybe he became a spelling teacher HA HA HA Like my teacher used to say, if you have nothing worth xx This probably all started with a 7-yo misunderstanding his teacher.nm In the case you gave if the teacher said...sm *I'm not in any way trying to tell you what you should believe of think but I am going to put this out there for you thing about...Some people believe Jesus Christ died and was born again for the sins of man.* I still wouldn't see the problem. You have to listen to the entire statement. He said pointedly that he was not trying to tell the students how they should believe. But, if all you got over the newswaves were the butt end *Jesus died and was born again for the sins of man* then the entire point would be lost anyway. That said, I think this teacher needs to find a job in a political science class where his comments would be more appropriate. I don't think he should be fired but a) moved to a political science class or b) told to stick to the cirriculum. I don't think either will be enough for those out for blood on this case. My *teacher* has provided the Bible... the same Bible that says Do Unto Others is very clear about homosexuality. It is called an abomination. Not too many ways you can take that. Therefore, the twinge you feel about homosexual marriage probably was not caused by bad cheese. But, as we all know, no one but you will have to explain your decisions when you stand before Him, and no one but me will have to explain my decisions when I stand before Him. God bless. That teacher also burned a cross into a student's arm. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369549,00.html No, I equate him with a false teacher/leader xx 4th grade teacher's letter to Obama April 17, 2009 The White House Mr. Obama: I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally. You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America . You are responsible to the citizens of the United States ... You are not responsible to the people of any other country on Earth. I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the people of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century? Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this? Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia . You didn't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .. How dare you, sir! How dare you! You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey ... You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you? I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you. You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it. What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't! Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now. I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country. Sincerely, This is just ridiculous and pathetic, doming out of the brain of a 4th grader, not the teacher's! nm Remarks we can all do without I pity you. Nice cut and paste job. You are not witty. These are not your own words. I feel really sorry for you. I will pray for you. You are so funny - NOT. You are a (republican/democrat) clone. You take your talking points right from the (democrat/republican) party play book. You're a dope because you watch Fox. You're a jerk because you watch MSNBC. Beck and Limbaugh are gods. Olbermann and Matthews are gods. Yeah, well BUSH....Yeah, well CLINTON [these guys are not president anymore.] Some remarks on your remarks -- I am not here to argue, but just to give my opinion. I basically am like gourdpainter, my vote was more against McCain/Palin (mostly just Palin) than for Obama. There are some things you addressed that I dont agree with that Obama has done, but there are things he has done that I do agree with. The deal with the cigarettes - I wholeheartedly agree with this. It does not make tobacco or nicotine illegal, it only gives oversight into what they can say in their advertising, their packaging, and the way they can target young people. As a person who has had many family members die of tobacco-related diseases, I say anything to keep young people from starting and getting hooked is a plus. Murdering late term babies - I do not think that Obama is advocating murdering babies. I think he is just pro-choice, as am I. I personally would never have an abortion, and I would be devastated if I found out my child did, but I believe that a woman should have the right to choose that herself. The lobbyists - yes, I believe he backtracked on that, but I also believe that it is probably pretty hard to find someone in Washington who is not connected in some way and he did not realize how hard it would be at the time. Now, for Michelle - I do not see where she did anything illegal in her job and if the hospital felt she was worth over 300,000 a year, then it was not illegal for her to get that pay. I do not think it was wrong for them to try to find ways to get patients out of the emergency rooms for nonemergency treatments either. They said that a lot of times people were sitting there waiting 24 hours or more to be treated for a sore throat - what was wrong with offering them a ride to another clinic or hospital, especially since many times they said there were clinics closer to the person's home than where they were at. As for the part of misusing government funds, I have not read that, but will look it up later as I have time. I will not go so far as GP and say I am ready to eat crow yet, because I feel like Obama has done a relatively good job - I just feel like there are things he could do better and things I am still waiting on him to do that he promised... and if he doesn't, my next vote will definitely be against him. Lowery's remarks I was brought up during the times when blacks were told to sit in the back of buses, when we had sit-ins at the counters at 5&10 cent stores downtown where I lived, where the water fountains were marked with white and colored, bathrooms the same, when I personally saw on television blacks being attacked by dogs, black kids not allowed to go to school with whites- I have been there. I am white, I do have ancestors who were slave owners and think nothing of his speech and yes, whites should embrace what is right. You are true about racism being on both sides, absolutely true but as an older white lady and born and raised in the south, I think his comments were straight on. Why get so offensive when a remark about whites made? I remember my father calling black folks "coloreds" and I would always ask, well what color are they? I certainly don't defend the remarks, but they were taken out of context Obviously, the example Bennett used of aborting every black child was a very poorly thought out example, but his remarks were also taken grossly out of context by the mainstream media. He went on say it would be a morally reprehensible thing to do. He was commenting on the idiots that said that crime or poverty was down since the legalizing of abortion. He thinks abortion of any kind is wrong...he was turning their logic around on them. He certainly does not think that every black baby should be aborted. GRANTED, there are radical right wingers (the KKK, aryan nation etc.) would think this was a great idea, but they are radical and not the mainstream as Ms. Libby FALSELY stated... Im thinking those outrageous remarks of pat Robertson about Sharon's stroke might just put a kink in this deal.. Everybody makes stupid remarks If your an Obama "fan" you are going to defend Obama and say McCain was wrong, and if your a McCain "fan" your going to defend what McCain says and say Obama was wrong. Clearly McCain singing what he wants to do to Iran to the tune of a Beach Boys song was clearly way out of line and the way he covered it up was saying it was a joke. which everyone knows was not a joke. I think the latest two statements (well one of them has not been made recently but the republicans keep bringing it up like she just said it yesterday). Michelle Obama's statement about being proud of her country for the first time. We ALL knew what she meant and anyone who didn't is not being truthful. Everyone knew exactly what she meant. I am a veteran. I was in the Army serving under Reagan. I couldn't have been any more proud of my country back then and wanted to give my time to serve and make a difference. I loved my country. What's happened to it since I am not at all proud of. Politicians are crooked, self-serving, lyers (could think of lots of other things to say about them but I will stop there). With the leaders we have had since Reagan (every one of them) makes me ashamed. To see the greed of corporate american, people like Ken Lay, people like the guy who threw his wife a 40th birthday party that cost $2.1 million (he took the funds out of his company never paying for anything himself), how about the guy who spent $6,000 for a shower curtain for his apartment in Manhattan and took the funds from his business to pay for it. Those are only a fraction of the most "insane" things of the corrupt business americans (insane is the only word I can think of). John Edwards words are true - there are two American's and the rich and greedy sure don't want to live like the rest of us do. Sure its nice they have all the money they can do whatever they want with it, but where do you think they are getting their money from. On the other hand the two America's I think about are the one's who want to live together as one nation, and the other who to this day are still bigots. Who can't see beyond the color of someone's skin. I am truly ashamed to be an American when we have people like that still living in this country. People who believe that politics and our president should only be white. Then again you have the religious side to America and that's where I am ashamed to be an American there too. Too many wars are being fought over religion in other countries and we have the same thing here. Pure hatred for others who are not in "their club". So I (and 99% of other americans) knew exactly what Michelle Obama was talking about and we agreed. Even Laura Bush came out and in an interview said she knew what Michelle Obama meant. But the republicans liked to turn it around and make it something it was not. On the other hand what John McCain said about the cigarette incident was clearly a joke. Everyone knows that cigarettes can kill you. I thought it was funny (and I used to smoke and my family members still smoke), but there you go with the democrats being no better than the republicans, pulling at any straws to try and make something out of nothing. So I just say everyone makes stupid remarks now and then. You can't say one side is better than the other. People have to get over it and move on. Man I can't wait for the election to be over. Shopping and wardrobe remarks Pleeease... what do you think all these first ladies do and have done for years? You think they have been buying all those fancy gowns, etc.? I guarantee they have all been guilty of it. These remarks from Iran and Russia may not RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street: 1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see. 2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders. 3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad. A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions. RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation. I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat. inappropriate racial remarks  I agree Terri - that remark was extremely unappropriate and does not belong here, and unfortunately such a remark can be attributed to ignorance and hatred - which DEFINITELY DOES NOT BELONG HERE.
Derogatory remarks about the Kennedy family. Oh you mean like the fact that Joseph Kennedy thought Hitler was a great man. That fact? Or that he made much of his money bootlegging. That fact? Or maybe that Ted killed a young woman and was never prosecuted. That fact? Okay. I got it now. 
To add, the GDA remarks, in context, were about the potential effects of America not living up to its ideals. Context is everything. Somewhere I saw a link to a site that had the actual sermons. I did not agree with everything he said, but I did agree with some of it. I will have to find that link. I think it was on another MT board... Outrageous remarks made by Clinton The DNC should dismiss H Clinton IMMEDIATELY due to her offensive and despicable comments about why she is staying in the race (the assasination of Bobby Kennedy - in other words the same could happen to Barack and so she should stay in in case that happens). I think it is a disgrace for her to continue in the race at this point. There is no doubt in my mind (and others I have talked with) that she wants something dreadful to happen to Barack, but to blatently come out and mention the assination of Bobby Kennedy when referring to Barack Obama is the lowest of all time lows. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE should call for her removal from the race. This is why we CANNOT have her as VP. If so Barack would have to constantly be looking over her shoulder. If nobody believes that they need to read the history of the Clintons and what they have done to people in the past. It's fact and people need to wake up! This is not some "right-winged" thing against her - it happened and you can read about it. Then she tries to cover up her shameful statements with lies. The media is treating her too kindly by saying they are sure she didn't mean that she believes something would happen to him. I just want to scream - Don't you believe it. Look at the past! Yet once again another reason I'm not voting for her. And what part of NO doesn't the Hillary supporters understand that she is NOT going to be VP on his ticket. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! If, and I doubt that would happen, but if she was to be on the ticket I would not vote for him. I will write in Ron Paul. She goes on and on about all the people she has that will vote for McCain and not Obama if she doesn't get on the ticket - yeah, well there are an equal number that if she is on the ticket will absolutely not vote for her and will either go for McCain or just not vote. I was watching the exit polls after the election on Tuesday and they said that its about a 50/50 split with Hillary supporters and Barack supporters saying they will not vote for the other. There's no way in the world I want that XXXXX anywhere near the white house. I am just outraged that she made such a dispicable, appalling, shameful and vile statement. And I don't even want to hear any Hillary lovers try and defend this. If there is a meaning of evil she fits the description to a T. This just confirms she is XXXXX in my books. Funny how it was okay when Hillary made remarks You all laughed then. Yeah, real cute! We're asking for a link. Looks like all you want is for more posters to jump on the bandwagon and bash Palin. Stick to issues, not personal feelings. Talk about Obama's issues (plans/programs) & McCain's issues (plans/programs). Not Palin. Any kind of inflammatory insinuating remarks for the sole purpose of misleading uneducated voters, in my eyes, is a deliberate act of desperation by a group that has absolutely no integrity at all. Someone who is so vile as to suggest that Obama would endanger our troops if he is elected is less than human. Barack Obama wants nothing more than to get our poor troops out of an endless, senseless situation. If I wasn't so disgusted by that kind of mindless drivel that many of you are so willing to bow down to, I could almost feel sorry for you. I've only seen racist remarks from "anybody would have" What on earth are you talkinga about? Only this one person made a racist comment. I've been reading this board for 2 days. The comment was made by "anybody would have" and called HARLEM DUMBELLS responsible for Obama's win. Read on down. Some posters below are defending Bennett's remarks...sm so while you may feel they are wrong, which I think the white house was right to condemn them. BENNETT having served in two high positions, Secretary of education and over drugs under Bush Sr with these views, is worrisome. I think his true *colors* are shining through. Y'know....all these derisive remarks about McCain's service... and his years in a POW camp...with all due respect, if enduring unspeakable torture for 5 years for refusing to make propaganda tapes for the enemy, turning down a release offered to him because his father was a high ranking military officer because there were men there who had been there longer than he had and suffering even more because he turned it down...the unimaginable suffering, the honor, integrity and love for his country he showed...separated from loved ones, family, friends and country for 5 long years...to be boiled down to a political phrase "lying in a POW camp for 5 years does not make you qualified to run a country." I say it does, in spades. THAT is character. THAT is integrity. THAT is patriotism. I agree, I was responding to some of the ugly remarks made below nm x I like Stephen Colbert's attitude. He said concerning the remarks about colors: "That was th Dr. Seuss book ever!" We take ourselves so seriously. Someone is always going to be offended. Each brown place in the link takes you to a different article that supports this article...nm x And I think you have to read all of my posts, I am responding to arrogant inflammatory remarks, whic Substantiation, no real substance, and yet these people are CHOOSING to start devisive threads with divisive remarks on this board, even making statements that historically are 100% inaccurate. Yes, I pray for unity, compassion, wisdom, etc., but the rabid Republicans on this board (and I do not mean all Rep., just a few loud ones), want to harshy judge and condemnn the new administration without giving things a chance, what would you call that? What about the "hit and run" posts by right wingers who continue to stir the pot with incorrect, slanted, and inflammatory remarks here? Fair is fair, I try to back up each statement I make with historical facts, I try to see both points of view (wow, I have actually agreed with Republicans on certain subjects!), but this board is not about me, or you, it is about all of us trying to hash out all the many struggles this nation now has, and with restraint, intelligence, and care look at each problem and try to help fix it. America comes first. Period. So does someone's comment at the end of the article, discredit the whole article?? Unbelievable. Bush aides challenge Biden's boasts of Bush slapdowns. Aides to former President George W. Bush are challenging the veracity of Vice President Joe Biden's claim this week of having privately castigated Bush, who does not remember the incident or an earlier episode in which Biden claims to have similarly rebuked Bush. Biden spokesman Jay Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss's purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes. "The vice president stands by his remarks," Carney told FOX News without elaboration. Those remarks include a shot that Biden took at Bush on Tuesday. "I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden told CNN, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'" That exchange never took place, according to numerous Bush aides who also dispute a similar assertion by Biden in 2004, when the former senator from Delaware told scores of Democratic colleagues that he had challenged Bush's moral certitude about the Iraq war during a private meeting in the Oval Office. Two years later, Biden repeated his story about dressing down the president. "When I speak to the president - and I have had plenty of opportunity to be with the president, at least prior to the last election, a lot of hours alone with him. I mean, meaning me and his staff," Biden said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2006. "And the president will say things to me, and I'll literally turn to the president, say: 'Mr. President, how can you say that, knowing you don't know the facts?' And he'll look at me and he'll say - my word - he'll look at me and he'll say: 'My instincts.' He said: 'I have good instincts.' I said: 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough.'" Bush aides now dispute the veracity of both assertions by Biden. "I never recall Biden saying any of that," former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said after reviewing detailed notes of Bush's White House meetings with Biden, which include numerous direct quotes from Biden. "I find it odd that he said he met with him alone all the time. I don't think that's true." Fleischer said that whenever Bush met with Sen. Biden, the meeting also included a congressional counterpart so as to not "antagonize" the House. Karl Rove, former White House political adviser, also was skeptical of Biden's claim to have spent "a lot of hours alone" with Bush. "I remember checking on such a Biden exaggeration while at the White House and no one witnessed the meeting and his comments in remotely the same way," Rove said. Candida P. Wolff, Bush's White House liaison to Capitol Hill, said the only meetings she remembered between Bush and Biden also included other lawmakers. She said such meetings were held in the Cabinet Room or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the Oval Office, and certainly did not last for "hours." "The president would never sit through two hours of Joe Biden," Wolff said. "I don't ever remember Biden being in the Oval. He was such a blowhard on all that stuff - there wasn't a reason to bring him in." Andy Card, former White House chief of staff, reviewed the two Biden claims and said: "This does not ring true to me. I doubt that it happened." A spokesman for Bush declined comment, although a person close to the former president said Bush does not remember either episode. This is not the first time the veracity of Biden's assertions has been challenged. In 1988, he dropped out of the presidential race after being accused of plagiarizing British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. The Washington Post also cited "the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record." Last year, liberal Slate magazine recalled that "Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect." Also last year, Biden came under fire for telling a questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq. "Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube in July. "Number one, you take all the troops out -- you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die." But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed." Biden went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said. "No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head." Seven weeks after claiming to have been "shot at" in Iraq, Biden again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones -- this time on "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where my helicopter was forced down." "If you want to know where AL Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are." But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February 2008. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. "We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine." Bush aides challenge Biden's boasts of Bush slapdowns. Aides to former President George W. Bush are challenging the veracity of Vice President Joe Biden's claim this week of having privately castigated Bush, who does not remember the incident or an earlier episode in which Biden claims to have similarly rebuked Bush. Biden spokesman Jay Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss's purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes. "The vice president stands by his remarks," Carney told FOX News without elaboration. Those remarks include a shot that Biden took at Bush on Tuesday. "I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden told CNN, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'" That exchange never took place, according to numerous Bush aides who also dispute a similar assertion by Biden in 2004, when the former senator from Delaware told scores of Democratic colleagues that he had challenged Bush's moral certitude about the Iraq war during a private meeting in the Oval Office. Two years later, Biden repeated his story about dressing down the president. "When I speak to the president - and I have had plenty of opportunity to be with the president, at least prior to the last election, a lot of hours alone with him. I mean, meaning me and his staff," Biden said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2006. "And the president will say things to me, and I'll literally turn to the president, say: 'Mr. President, how can you say that, knowing you don't know the facts?' And he'll look at me and he'll say - my word - he'll look at me and he'll say: 'My instincts.' He said: 'I have good instincts.' I said: 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough.'" Bush aides now dispute the veracity of both assertions by Biden. "I never recall Biden saying any of that," former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said after reviewing detailed notes of Bush's White House meetings with Biden, which include numerous direct quotes from Biden. "I find it odd that he said he met with him alone all the time. I don't think that's true." Fleischer said that whenever Bush met with Sen. Biden, the meeting also included a congressional counterpart so as to not "antagonize" the House. Karl Rove, former White House political adviser, also was skeptical of Biden's claim to have spent "a lot of hours alone" with Bush. "I remember checking on such a Biden exaggeration while at the White House and no one witnessed the meeting and his comments in remotely the same way," Rove said. Candida P. Wolff, Bush's White House liaison to Capitol Hill, said the only meetings she remembered between Bush and Biden also included other lawmakers. She said such meetings were held in the Cabinet Room or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the Oval Office, and certainly did not last for "hours." "The president would never sit through two hours of Joe Biden," Wolff said. "I don't ever remember Biden being in the Oval. He was such a blowhard on all that stuff - there wasn't a reason to bring him in." Andy Card, former White House chief of staff, reviewed the two Biden claims and said: "This does not ring true to me. I doubt that it happened." A spokesman for Bush declined comment, although a person close to the former president said Bush does not remember either episode. This is not the first time the veracity of Biden's assertions has been challenged. In 1988, he dropped out of the presidential race after being accused of plagiarizing British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. The Washington Post also cited "the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record." Last year, liberal Slate magazine recalled that "Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect." Also last year, Biden came under fire for telling a questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq. "Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube in July. "Number one, you take all the troops out -- you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die." But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed." Biden went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said. "No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head." Seven weeks after claiming to have been "shot at" in Iraq, Biden again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones -- this time on "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where my helicopter was forced down." "If you want to know where AL Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are." But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February 2008. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. "We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine." Bush aides challenge Biden's boasts of Bush slapdowns. Aides to former President George W. Bush are challenging the veracity of Vice President Joe Biden's claim this week of having privately castigated Bush, who does not remember the incident or an earlier episode in which Biden claims to have similarly rebuked Bush. Biden spokesman Jay Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss's purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes. "The vice president stands by his remarks," Carney told FOX News without elaboration. Those remarks include a shot that Biden took at Bush on Tuesday. "I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden told CNN, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'" That exchange never took place, according to numerous Bush aides who also dispute a similar assertion by Biden in 2004, when the former senator from Delaware told scores of Democratic colleagues that he had challenged Bush's moral certitude about the Iraq war during a private meeting in the Oval Office. Two years later, Biden repeated his story about dressing down the president. "When I speak to the president - and I have had plenty of opportunity to be with the president, at least prior to the last election, a lot of hours alone with him. I mean, meaning me and his staff," Biden said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2006. "And the president will say things to me, and I'll literally turn to the president, say: 'Mr. President, how can you say that, knowing you don't know the facts?' And he'll look at me and he'll say - my word - he'll look at me and he'll say: 'My instincts.' He said: 'I have good instincts.' I said: 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough.'" Bush aides now dispute the veracity of both assertions by Biden. "I never recall Biden saying any of that," former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said after reviewing detailed notes of Bush's White House meetings with Biden, which include numerous direct quotes from Biden. "I find it odd that he said he met with him alone all the time. I don't think that's true." Fleischer said that whenever Bush met with Sen. Biden, the meeting also included a congressional counterpart so as to not "antagonize" the House. Karl Rove, former White House political adviser, also was skeptical of Biden's claim to have spent "a lot of hours alone" with Bush. "I remember checking on such a Biden exaggeration while at the White House and no one witnessed the meeting and his comments in remotely the same way," Rove said. Candida P. Wolff, Bush's White House liaison to Capitol Hill, said the only meetings she remembered between Bush and Biden also included other lawmakers. She said such meetings were held in the Cabinet Room or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the Oval Office, and certainly did not last for "hours." "The president would never sit through two hours of Joe Biden," Wolff said. "I don't ever remember Biden being in the Oval. He was such a blowhard on all that stuff - there wasn't a reason to bring him in." Andy Card, former White House chief of staff, reviewed the two Biden claims and said: "This does not ring true to me. I doubt that it happened." A spokesman for Bush declined comment, although a person close to the former president said Bush does not remember either episode. This is not the first time the veracity of Biden's assertions has been challenged. In 1988, he dropped out of the presidential race after being accused of plagiarizing British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. The Washington Post also cited "the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record." Last year, liberal Slate magazine recalled that "Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect." Also last year, Biden came under fire for telling a questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq. "Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube in July. "Number one, you take all the troops out -- you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die." But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed." Biden went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said. "No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head." Seven weeks after claiming to have been "shot at" in Iraq, Biden again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones -- this time on "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where my helicopter was forced down." "If you want to know where AL Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are." But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February 2008. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. "We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine." Bush aides challenge Biden's boasts of Bush slapdowns. Aides to former President George W. Bush are challenging the veracity of Vice President Joe Biden's claim this week of having privately castigated Bush, who does not remember the incident or an earlier episode in which Biden claims to have similarly rebuked Bush. Biden spokesman Jay Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss's purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes. "The vice president stands by his remarks," Carney told FOX News without elaboration. Those remarks include a shot that Biden took at Bush on Tuesday. "I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden told CNN, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'" That exchange never took place, according to numerous Bush aides who also dispute a similar assertion by Biden in 2004, when the former senator from Delaware told scores of Democratic colleagues that he had challenged Bush's moral certitude about the Iraq war during a private meeting in the Oval Office. Two years later, Biden repeated his story about dressing down the president. "When I speak to the president - and I have had plenty of opportunity to be with the president, at least prior to the last election, a lot of hours alone with him. I mean, meaning me and his staff," Biden said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2006. "And the president will say things to me, and I'll literally turn to the president, say: 'Mr. President, how can you say that, knowing you don't know the facts?' And he'll look at me and he'll say - my word - he'll look at me and he'll say: 'My instincts.' He said: 'I have good instincts.' I said: 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough.'" Bush aides now dispute the veracity of both assertions by Biden. "I never recall Biden saying any of that," former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said after reviewing detailed notes of Bush's White House meetings with Biden, which include numerous direct quotes from Biden. "I find it odd that he said he met with him alone all the time. I don't think that's true." Fleischer said that whenever Bush met with Sen. Biden, the meeting also included a congressional counterpart so as to not "antagonize" the House. Karl Rove, former White House political adviser, also was skeptical of Biden's claim to have spent "a lot of hours alone" with Bush. "I remember checking on such a Biden exaggeration while at the White House and no one witnessed the meeting and his comments in remotely the same way," Rove said. Candida P. Wolff, Bush's White House liaison to Capitol Hill, said the only meetings she remembered between Bush and Biden also included other lawmakers. She said such meetings were held in the Cabinet Room or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the Oval Office, and certainly did not last for "hours." "The president would never sit through two hours of Joe Biden," Wolff said. "I don't ever remember Biden being in the Oval. He was such a blowhard on all that stuff - there wasn't a reason to bring him in." Andy Card, former White House chief of staff, reviewed the two Biden claims and said: "This does not ring true to me. I doubt that it happened." A spokesman for Bush declined comment, although a person close to the former president said Bush does not remember either episode. This is not the first time the veracity of Biden's assertions has been challenged. In 1988, he dropped out of the presidential race after being accused of plagiarizing British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. The Washington Post also cited "the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record." Last year, liberal Slate magazine recalled that "Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect." Also last year, Biden came under fire for telling a questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq. "Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube in July. "Number one, you take all the troops out -- you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die." But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed." Biden went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said. "No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head." Seven weeks after claiming to have been "shot at" in Iraq, Biden again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones -- this time on "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where my helicopter was forced down." "If you want to know where AL Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are." But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February 2008. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. "We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine." Yeah right. Served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II x Stop bringing up Bush - this post was not about Bush I even said we have had some good presidents and some bad ones, but this post was not about Bush. It was about Obama. Yes Bush was one of the worst presidents I'm not arguing with you on that one, but everytime anyone brings up something about our current president they are shot back with Bush this or Bush that and on things that have nothing to do with what the current topic is about. Again, this was not about Bush. It was about Obama. Oh, more "blame Bush" - except Bush didn't send these out, now did he? Here's a news flash for you since you apparently haven't heard: BUSH IS NOT IN OFFICE and just today Gallup did a poll showing that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK OBAMA SHOULD START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENS ON HIS WATCH. G E T A C L U E. Bush is gone, YEA!!! and yeah, it could darn well be Bush! LOL. Chimp boy!!  But, the cartoon is NOT about Bush, now is it? Give me a break.
George Bush HIMSELF makes it so easy to make fun of George Bush!!!! oh where would I start, so litt nm 
|  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Overland High School students demonstrate March 2, 2006, in Aurora, Colo., to protest the school district's decision to put geography teacher Jay Bennish on administrative leave. (AP Photo/Aurora Daily Sun)
 |
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved |  |