Should we trust George W. Bush?

World Net Daily ^ | 8/29/02 | Harry Browne

[feelin_poorly]

Shortly after 9-11, TV talk-show host Sean Hannity said, "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"

And when you think about it, a great deal of what you might believe about the so-called War on Terrorism is based on statements from George W. Bush. You have only his word, or that of someone in his administration:

• that Iraq, which George Bush is dying to invade, still has "weapons of mass destruction" that threaten Americans directly;

• that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9-11 attacks (the infamous videotape demonstrated his joy at the success of the attacks, not his participation);

• that the people being imprisoned as terrorists really are terrorists – even though they've received no public trial (whether you believe terrorists deserve to be protected by the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. You don't even know that they are terrorists until they receive a fair trial under the Bill of Rights);

• that the Bush administration won't misuse the private information it's acquiring through its massive violations of civil liberties.

Since America is endangered by the "you're either with me or against me" tactics of the Bush administration, it becomes vital to know whether we can trust the man in charge of our government.

The record

So does George Bush's record inspire confidence in his honesty?

Unfortunately, this is the same man who has referred to trillions of dollars in budget surpluses – even though the federal government hasn't had a budget surplus since 1956. (The appearance of any "surpluses" was created by taking excess receipts from Social Security and applying them to the general budget, even as the politicians swore they were protecting Social Security.)

Mr. Bush even has the chutzpah to refer with a straight face (well not exactly a straight face, he loves to smirk) to corporate executives "cooking the books." He neglects to mention that many of the corporate bookkeeping methods the politicians are so incensed about today were motivated by rules imposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

And George Bush is the same man who in 2000 said he believed in "limited government." Most people assumed he meant a government limited by the Constitution. In fact, he took an oath in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.

But he's violated virtually every one of the first 10 Amendments – especially the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which are meant to impose precise limits on his power.

• He's willing to give your tax money to foreign dictators who claim they "need" it (meaning they've gone too deeply in debt by spending money on palaces and other forms of self-aggrandizement);

• He wants to escalate the spending of your tax money on farm subsidies, health care, welfare, government schools, the War on Drugs, propaganda and other programs – none of which are authorized in the Constitution;

• He believes we should trust him and his minions when they tell us the unnamed people they've locked up are not entitled to the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

• He claims he can attack Iraq without a congressional declaration of war – even though the Constitution clearly gives such authority exclusively to Congress.

So his belief in "limited government" apparently means government limited to what he wants to do.

George Bush is the same man who in one breath tries to ingratiate himself with you by saying, "It's your money, not the politicians' money" – but in the next breath, he says he's entitled to one third of "your money."

George Bush is the same man who said he has learned more about political philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth than from anyone else. But he's proven by his actions that he doesn't really believe such things as "Blessed are the peacemakers." And "the meek" who Jesus said would inherit the earth are in Mr. Bush's eyes really just "collateral damage" in his plans to tell the world how it must live.

Is honesty important?

In these and in so many other ways, George Bush has proven that he's not an honest man – and that we shouldn't trust him with the safety of America.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson understood that we shouldn't put our trust in any politician. He said we should bind them down from mischief "by the chains of the Constitution." And a truly honest man wouldn't even ask you to trust him.

Contrary to what you might have thought, this isn't an article about George Bush. It's an article about you. Are you going to demean yourself by putting your faith in a man who has done so much to demonstrate the folly of such faith?

Are you going to let politicians stampede you into throwing away the Bill of Rights, based on "evidence" you never see, reassured by politicians who have proven that the truth is secondary to their own ambitions?

Don't you have enough respect for your own mind to make your own decisions, refuse to accept conclusions without evidence, and be something better than a cheerleader for a politician or a political party?

[terilyn]

Excellent rant!

[MJY1288]

I agree, I call it anti-american propaganda by someone who doesn't know the difference between good and evil

[Mo1]

Dang .. Don't Mess with Texas .. LOL

[Howlin]

I'd just like to know why every thread she's on turns into Teen Talk.

[rintense]

Oh I agree. And for all the public butt kissing, I think there are several in the Bush admin who don't trust them- including Dubya. This is why the oil agreement with Russia signed earlier this year is so important. It may be a few years before Russia can develop an infrastructure to support massive oil exports, but it is showing our need to lessen dependency on Mideast oil (and could also be an indicator of a few years of instability.)

[Freemeorkillme]

Since America is endangered by the "you're either with me or against me" tactics of the Bush administration, it becomes vital to know whether we can trust the man in charge of our government.

Well, since you put it that way, you either with us or agin us, as our President said. Take your pick.

FMOKM

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I can chit-chat with anyone. Small-talk isn't so bad when you are just getting to know someone.

[max61]

Even Rush has challenged listeners to tell him what freedoms they have lost since 9-11. No takers to my knowledge.

We have all lost the right to walk into an airport and wave good-bye to our loved ones as they leave out on an aircraft. We have all lost the right to walk into an airport and not be searched without probable cause. We have all lost the right to have a simple private telephone conversation. Would this suffice?.

True, the US did fund the Afghanis in the war with Russia. And yes, Osama was a part of that. But we certainly didn't make him into the monster he is. That sounds like the standard liberal 'oh blame society for his actions' crap. I blame Osama, and Osama alone for his actions.

Actually, the US funded the Taliban of which Osama was part of at that time. We also funded and armed Saddam in his war against Iran just about the same timeframe.

I would be glad to hang blame on the person(s) who undertook 9/11, I just happen not to believe the federal government's version in absence of supporting evidence.

---max

[FreedominJesusChrist]

And I am not a teen anymore. I am going to be 21 soon, Yayyyy!!! I am actually excited for that birthday.

[lonestar]

Oh puhleeeeze...spare me the sob stories, I left for work at 5:30 this morning,drove the 52 miles ...

You don't understand. KW goes down to the creek and beats her dirty laundry on the rocks. That's how she releases her aggressions when she isn't calling people idiots when they don't agree with her.

I think she's one of those people who has no self control, therefore, tries to control others.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I trust in Bush, but also think that there are wise men who are trying to make sure he thinks this through. Some may have their own agendas, but when Armey, Kissinger, Scowcroft, Schwartzkopf, et. al. speak out, their voices have merit. Along with Papa Bush, these are leaders who have served and seen enough to know when caution is warrented. Think of it as a generational issue, the wise elders moderating and counseling the headstrong and fiery leaders of the Boomer generation(now reaching the apex of their power). Its a good balance, since historically we are in the same pattern where the uncompromising idealists(Boomers) rush to seek total victory(which may not be possible). Idealists generations were at maximum power during the Revolution, Civil War, Depression, and now.

Not to imply any lack of support for the President. If Dick Cheney is for war, then there is good reason to be. He is levelheaded, in command of excellent judgement, pragmatic, and knows how to accomplish. I trust his judgement. My point is that while there may be good reasons to go after Iraq, how that is done is also vital. We have many internal weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and a difficult judgement as to what and when sufficient purging and rearming has taken place. Too many things can spin out of control, there are so many variables, and a Pandora's Box of negatives IS quite possible. Unlike many here, I do not salivate for war, but rather am very concerned. I think few understand what hardships we will ultimately face, and the very real risks. We are in a temporary calm, but once it starts we will never again be the same. While I think we will prevail, I don't think it can absolutely be guaranteed, nor the costs predicted. 'Victory' may end up being defined quite differently from what we now envision, and there will be waves of vulnerability to escalating threats for the rest of our days. Its kinda the combination of technology, king-of-the-hill, and the Tower of Babel.

But there is no choice. We must intervene proactively, and I am thankful that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield understand that. The fact that Bush hasn't attacked yet strengthens my belief in his judgement, patience, and ability to find a successful strategy. How lucky we are to have the calibre of leaders and counselors at this point in time. We have been forced into taking action, and the only debate is to how. There is no alternative. Let the other nations cry about how we cannot take Canaan, I will side with our own Moses, Joshua, and Caleb.

[woofie]

How do you make sure you have a date to the prom?

[rintense]

The fact that the Saudis met with x42 after they met with GWB last time they were in Crawford should prove that neither they not Clinton can be trusted. But of course, we knew that. And that meeting I bet sent Dubya's face a bright shade of red. He may slap sugar on them in public, but I am pretty sure he's ripping them big time behind the scenes. You know Rummy is! ;)

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Get onto Prom Court, which I did.

[oldvike]

You do realize that, one year from now after a successful war has opened up the Iraqi oil lines, all the media and dems will be talking about is how this war was about oil.

[Howlin]

EWWWWWWWWWWWW............you got the dreaded 666, but I do LOVE your nick!

[Diddle E. Squat]

Now that is funny.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Although I didn't win Prom Queen, which I was a little bitter about. But my good friend did though, and my best friend was on court with me too.

It just so happened that my date was crowned Prom King 2000 though.

At my school, the seniors were on Prom Court, not the juniors.

[Howlin]

A better question is if you HAD a date to the prom, why would you be HERE, talking to a bunch of adults.

[woofie]

Meanwhile on some other threads we are discussing the nature of God and whether or not Evil is more powerful than Good....You should get out more