The Truth About "George W. Bush's Resume"

Curt King

[curtking]

(Forgive me if this is posted in the wrong area. I'm new at this.)

Some of you may have seen an article known as the "George W. Bush Resume" that's been making its way around cyberspace for the past few months.

"The resume" claims to list the "qualifications", "work experiences", and "accomplishments" of our current President. It is a venomous, sarcastic stab at George W. Bush.

I have created a rebuttal to "the resume". You can find it at:

http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf

For those of you who haven't seen "the resume", this rebuttal will also help you counter the arguments of Democrats and liberals who can't stand to see a successful conservative Republican in the White House.

Enjoy!

Curt

[facedown]

BTTT

[Nea Wood]

I only had time to skim it, but it looks like you did a great job! Re: Bush not winning the popular vote. Of course you pointed out that Presidents are elected by the electoral vote. I was thinking it might also be worth mentioning that Bush and Gore both campaigned with an eye toward winning the electoral vote, not the popular vote. If they'd been aiming for the popular vote, they both would have campaigned differently, trying to rack up more votes in states they knew they'd win. Bush would have spent more time in Texas, for instance. You might also mention the massive vote fraud on the part of the Dems, which will prevent us from ever knowing how many votes Gore really got. Some think if the vote fraud could be eliminated, and if all the votes were counted in states where one or the other of them clearly won, such as California, Bush might indeed have won the popular vote. Just a thought!

[FairOpinion]

"it was difficult to decide which of the hundreds of images to put on the 32 stamps. Then coming up with the annotation."
----

You have done a really terrific job in every respect, from choosing the pictures, the themes, the annotations.

And for those, who missed it, here is the address, be sure to check out the "stamps" section:

http://www.winningiraqifreedom.com

[FairOpinion]

Perhaps CurtKing's link didn't work, because you don't have Acrobat Reader? It's in .pdf format.

You can download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html

Click on the "Get Acrobat Reader" logo in the lower left.

It is a very useful thing to have, many documents on the web are put in that format.

King's work is quite detailed, 26 pages, and it addresses all the liberal lies, and discusses the facts.

Here is the link to that again, it should work after you download Actobat reader --it may take a bit to load: http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf

I did find the original "Lying liberal" version, I'll freepmail it to you, so as not to pollute the message board with it.

[dix]

Great Ammo for the commies. Thanks

[lowbridge]

bump

[Conspiracy Guy]

I have acrobat but for some reason my server or the firewall didn't like it. Thanks for the mail.

[GopherIt]

Great work. BTW, Souter (and Breyer) did indeed join the other 5 in overturning the FSC on equal-protection grounds, then dissented on the remedy (stopping the recount).

[lowbridge]

bump

[Diddle E. Squat]

bump

[lasereye]

I have a few points on your overall excellent responses to the "Resume":

• On the fund raising trips, Clinton by far set the record for that. He had about one a week I think. I think that bears pointing out.
  
• On the "executive orders amending the Constitution", Clinton essentially revoked the Constitutional right of the Senate to approve appointees by making a recess appointment of Bill Lan Lee after he had been rejected by a full vote of the Senate. Unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional.
  
• On Ken Lay, Enron made some heavy contributions to the DNC during the Clinton admin. and I believe Lay has played golf with Clinton on a number of occasions. More importantly, there seems to have been a quid pro quo on contributions, with a big one coming after Clinton obtained some Export-Import loans for Enron.
  
• The combination of "Failing to fulfill the pledge to capture Bin Laden" and the "Attacked and took over two countries" is preposterous. The only way we could even attempt to get Bin Laden was to attack and take over Afghanistan. This indicates that in addition to fabrications the author also is unconcerned with any logical consistency and will just say whatever he thinks will create a negative impression.
• On the Supreme Court decision, the 7-2 decision was not the one that ended the recount. That was on whether the specific scheme proposed by the FL SC was constitutional. Interesting that the author had no problem with the fact that the 2 Clinton appointees alone thought that it was. On the vote to end all recounts, it was 5-4. If memory serves, Justice Souter was one of the 4. So without the Bush I appointees, the vote was 4-3.

[pupdog]

Fantastic job, and to dissent with some other people who replied, this is precisely the kind of thing that I think the effective activist needs to do.

The point isn't necessarily to dissuade the people who write these and/or forward them about; a few of them will be open-minded enough to admit their folly, but they aren't the target audience here. The target audience is the silent majority that watches these conversations from the sidelines. When they see person A try to look real cool for unthinkingly forwarding something along their buddy sent them, followed by a point-by-point rebuttal from person B who clearly did think about these issues, person B looks good, person A looks bad.

So again, great work on this, and I suggest at least for a while continuing to put effort into this. The original charges are probably going to bounce around for a while, and so you'll need to make sure that your rebuttals are as up-to-date and accurate as possible. Your efforts are not only appreciated, they are vital.

As a side note, I'm not actually the biggest Bush fan in the world. But I have far more problems with the reactionary left, which at this point has gone completely loony (and no, I don't think they were always this bad). They will believe anything that anyone forwards to them so long as it makes W look bad, and for this they need and deserve to be widely ridiculed.

[lasereye]

Another point I forgot to mention: Clinton lost a run for Congress. I think it was his first time running for anything.

[k2blader]

Thanks--fantastic work.

Bookmarked.

[LisaFab]

Great work! Thank you.

[lowbridge]

bump

[NYC Republican]

Awesome work. Thanks for sharing!

[RobFromGa]

thanks for the research bump...from GA

[Allegra]

though teaching a retard liberal anything is like teaching higher math to an ant. All they do is mindlessly sting you.

Good way to put it. If I had a dollar for every time I've tried to debate a liberal's ranting by tactfully using facts only to be called names in a very childish manner, I'd be one of the "richest 1% who benefit from the tax cut." (Gag me on that tired, overused whine...)

[Vinnie]

Presided over the biggest stock market fraud....

I Submit that this fraud, Enron, started long before Pres. Bush's term. They were 'cooking the books' for years.
I think Robert Rubin, then Sec. of Tres., had a hand in showing some of these companies the ins and outs, to make his pres. look good.

Bush was President when they were caught.

Excellent research BTW. Thanks