digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

8 Years Ago, Bush Made a Promise to America. He Broke it.

thinkprogress.org — Eight years ago today, President Bush delivered his acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention. In the speech, Bush said, “A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • WordsnCollision, on 08/03/2008, -9/+161Yet 4 years later, you went and re-elected him. Nice.
    • mishabear, on 08/03/2008, -5/+79No, the idiots did. It just goes to show you how many idiots there are in America.
      • cjshamrock, on 08/03/2008, -8/+58Let's not forget about the FRAUD, please. Most Americans DID NOT vote for Bush.
      • slezzzter, on 08/04/2008, -26/+5@cjshamrock: It's amazing that you profess to know how every American voted. How can you sleep at night when, just because your candidate lost, you give up all faith in the electoral system?

        I'm not suggesting that Bush deserved to win, or that the system is infallible. However, no allegations of "FRAUD" have ever been proven. Even a democratically-controlled Congress has failed to take any action in that regard.

      • sanman, on 08/04/2008, -9/+2And what was the track-record of the preceding administration? Launching a bombing campaign against Serbia AFTER it signed the Dayton Peace Accords. Nice.
      • mnky9800n, on 08/04/2008, -1/+0You can blame everyone who didn't vote. It is a shame to hear people complain about Bush being elected when they had the chance to vote for someone else. Not pointing any fingers.
      • DocGlass, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1People who have a different view of the world aren't idiots. People are simply poorly informed and don't get involved.
      • sysop073, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1It wasn't the idiots, it was the Republicans. Oh wait
    • xcheats, on 08/04/2008, -40/+8I'd rather have a incompetent Bush than a flip flopping, corporate buyout, Kerry.
      • j1ggy, on 08/04/2008, -1/+24You think Bush isn't a corporate buyout?
      • EvilJelloMan, on 08/04/2008, -0/+25So wait, you'd rather have a flip flopping, corporate buyout bush?

        You don't think the iraq war was a flip flop on his supposed humble foreign policy? You don't think haliburton was a corporate buyout?
      • Jo9100, on 08/04/2008, -1/+30ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!?! BUSH over KERRY?!? It's because of pricks like you we have what we do now.
      • BossKey, on 08/04/2008, -0/+22Is this how blind you are, that you don't recognize that the whole point of this article is about Bush's 2+ trillion-dollar, 4000-dead-American-solldiers flip-flop on foreign policy !?!?

        What Kerry (or Obama) flip-flop could possibly come close to equalling that?

        Good lord.
      • Syrisgone, on 08/04/2008, -0/+21I am so sick of hearing this argument. Bush is the worst president we have ever had. I don't care if the only thing Kerry did the entire time in office was banging interns, at least we wouldn't be 460 billion dollars in debt and in 2 never ending wars.

        Idiot.
    • jeremyosborne81, on 08/04/2008, -6/+28In all actuality he wasn't elected in the first place.
    • DisposableRob, on 08/04/2008, -0/+28Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
      • n00854180t, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Pfft, that flip-flopper Kodos!? Kang's where it's at, man.
    • gemlarin, on 08/04/2008, -5/+25No, actually, WE THE PEOPLE did not elect him. He lost the popular vote if you remember. Also, don't blame me. I voted Democrat.
      • pyronik, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1its not about the popular vote nimrod. We The People didn't create a system in which the popular vote determines the presidency. We The People if we wanted to. Don't blast the system just cause it didn't work out for your candidate.
    • slezzzter, on 08/04/2008, -2/+7Never underestimate the speed with which Americans will trade liberty for safety, responsibility for dependence, and the republic for a monarchy. These are the pillars of both parties today, yet no one seems to notice or care.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -6/+4I'll admit I voted for Bush in 2000.

      And I'll admit that I didn't vote in 2004 because I couldn't vote for either candidate.

      I'll also admit my absolute frustration with a two party system that forces people to choose between voting for a person who is a member of the party they align themselves with, or not voting at all.

      *****. The Commies had a better system. Since they only had one party, they were at least decent enough to give people a yes or no vote, so that every candidate was either voted in or out, and the party had to keep trying until they got enough yes votes to make the candidate the leader. With a two party system, being presented a false choice, nobody seems to think maybe we should have a third vote -- "NEITHER". And then the duopoly would have to keep trying until one of their pre-screened, pre-selected, pre-approved candidates was accepted by the voting population.

      As it stands now, Bush was elected by 50.73% of the popular vote, and only 56.70% of elgible voters even cast a vote. DO THE MATH. Just under 28% of eligible voters elected Bush.
      • duckley, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4And those are the 28% in the Polls who think he's doing a good job, still.

        IMPEACH CHENEY & BUSH. Convict them and send them to prison.
    • Metatron197, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5Dont blame me, i voted for a jar of peanut butter
    • pintomp3, on 08/04/2008, -2/+7he wasn't elected, he was selected.
      • zeabu, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1It also the fault of Al Gore, he should have done better, should have won with a bigger difference.
    • waldo686, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2diebold changed my vote, I couldn't help it
  • clickfire, on 08/03/2008, -28/+6Diggers are going to miss Bush after he leaves office.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/04/2008, -2/+3Are you sure he will leave peacefully?
      • burjzyntski, on 08/04/2008, -1/+0Nah, there's always something to say about 'the President'. Regardless of who holds that title next, there will always be people who disagree with the way they run things, so they will talk.

        Just be because Bush is gone doesn't mean that the attitude that exists towards him will be.
  • Stevanoski, on 08/03/2008, -27/+10Sound like he kept it to me.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -3/+13Yes he did.

      For the people who bought and paid for his election, the cause was just, the goal was clear and the victory was overwhelming.

      Well over a trillion dollars has flowed into the coffers of the Defense industry, Oil prices have achieved the $100 a barrel goal and then some, and there are permanent bases in Iraq.

      The poor hapless citizen just still wants to believe their government is doing things to benefit them, and they don't realize our government has been bought and paid for, and we no longer matter, except on the first tuesday of November, every 4 years.
    • Bith8654, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5Ok I know your just trying to be an ass but please explain the just cause, clear goal, and how the victory was "overwhelming."
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -1/+8I explained it for stevanoski...

        Well over a trillion dollars has flowed into the coffers of the Defense industry, Oil prices have achieved the $100 a barrel goal and then some, and there are permanent bases in Iraq.


        That's a just cause, a clear goal and an overwhelming victory, isn't it?

        I mean, well, if you are a neocon, or had a chance to profit from it, right?
  • Shogi, on 08/03/2008, -9/+68I lost count of all the promises Bush broke.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -2/+7Just say "ALL OF THEM"


      No, wait, he hasn't broken his promise to the oil industry. Oh, my bad, that was Cheney who promised $100 a barrel oil during his super secret energy policy meeting.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4If it's super secret, how does anyone know about it?
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1The fact that there was a meeting is public knowledge, what went on in the meeting has been keep secret.
    • PolishLogic, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2He should have focused on fixing Social Security by allowing us to opt out in favor of private accounts. That would have been more than enough to keep him occupied.
  • chicofaraby, on 08/04/2008, -6/+46Yeah. Liars are like that.
    • zacharytelschow, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

      --Nancy Pelosi, April 24th 2006

      Its amazing the selective memory some of us have.
      • chicofaraby, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Yeah. It's amazing.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

        Senate Republicans Block Energy Bill

        By a narrow margin, the Senate today failed again to block a Republican-led filibuster on an energy bill as GOP leaders made a stand against a $21.8 billion, 10-year tax package that would have extended incentives for wind and solar energy and reduced some tax breaks for oil companies.

        The vote stalled a bill that includes tougher fuel and appliance efficiency standards and a requirement for a massive increase in biofuels...
      • zacharytelschow, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Instead of pushing through a home run of a bill that just reduced oil company subsidisies, the Dems of course had to package on unnecessary bullcrap spending that wouldn't have helped anyone in the long term and the bill failed. Who's fault is that? Why can't the Dems push through legislation that we can all agree on instead of trying to score political points and spend money?
      • chicofaraby, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2"Why can't the Dems push through legislation that we can all agree on"

        So, which is your position? Your earlier post was complaining that the Democrats didn't do what Pelosi said. I showed you that they tried and were blocked by the obstructionist Republicans. Now you are saying they shouldn't have tried to do what Pelosi said they were going to try to do.

        You are the one complaining about selective memory and you don't seem to remember your own post.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/04/2008, -14/+2I have apologized for that many times already. Many of us were fooled very very badly by him.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Don't feel bad.

      I voted for him in 2000.

      But I woke up in late 2002 and early 2003, and even though I couldn't vote for kerry in 2004, I did not vote for Bush in 2004.

      Now we just need to not have a duopoly system. This country does not like trusts, we have the Sherman Anti-Trust act, which is meant to prevent undue control over an industry.

      Why do we allow only two parties to control our political system, and our government?
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2This is a great mystery and may explain the wobbly knees about THird Party candidates.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2What is with negative diggs here? Look at how much of our prosperity he has wasted and continues to waste. He tried to make you afraid of ME ragheads in Afghanistan and Iraq when it was very sophisticated Egyptians and Saudis that did the 911 crimes. With the oil price increases he is increasing the flow of dollars to the same people that can fund these dangerous kinds of terrorists again. Just how gullible are you people anyway?
  • psylemon, on 08/04/2008, -21/+9that article says nothing. buried
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4This article says more than your comment does. YOUR ARE BURIED.
  • Coottie, on 08/04/2008, -13/+16Like Father Like Son - "READ MY LIPS..." and all that other *****.
  • jetboyterp, on 08/04/2008, -31/+19Two years ago, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats promised to lower gas prices. Ever since, they've doubled. And now, they went on Summer vacation.

    Remember, Saddam is the one who lied, not President Bush. And true...we MUST learn the lesson from Vietnam. We can't just cut and run. We're winning in Iraq. Only the lefty, partisan, liberal hacks want to "give up" for political gain in the midst of victory.

    • poprocksandsoda, on 08/04/2008, -24/+8Please don't try to create a rational argument with these people, the Left never lets reality and facts dampen their desire to try to criticize our President.
    • Typhoon2009, on 08/04/2008, -4/+16From some guy's sig on a forum I used to frequent... "The Democrats and Republicans are a locust that has descended upon this beautiful garden planted by our forefathers. They feed and feed until nothing is left." Each party is as guilty as the other.
      • bduddy, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1... and each party was founded by people I'm sure you, and all the rest of us, respect very highly.
      • Typhoon2009, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1The parties we have today are fragments of what they were two hundred years ago. The Republicans were once the "good guys"!
    • du4l1ty, on 08/04/2008, -6/+10You do realize it was a republican that pulled us out of Vietnam right?
      • Skywise, on 08/04/2008, -3/+8After a Democratic congress pulled ALL military funding... right?
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -3/+13jetboyterp, so you think that if we hadn't "cut and run" from Vietnam, we would have won that one, right? It was all because those hippies were dropping acid and holding "love ins" that we lost over there, right?

      It had nothing to do with the fact that we were overrun by NVA regulars and vietcong, and no matter how many soldiers we had committed to the fight (over half a million at its peak in 1968 or 1969, plus ANZAC and ARVN troops.) because some partisan talking head can shout louder that it was because those liberals didn't want us to win, I suppose.

      You've never studied insurgencies, have you? Algeria? Somalia? China? Afghanistan for the soviets? The American colonies against the super power of their day?

      Do you really buy into the sales pitch that we are winning in Iraq? Honestly? Seriously?

      The sunni awakening, the cessation of an internal civil war and the routing of AQI was happening well before the "surge", and the only reason it is still working is because all sides have figured out that AQI was keeping us there (Bin Laden's strategy, the reason he attacked us on 9/11, to draw us into land battles on their turf) and that once we leave they can have their civil war balls-to-the-wall and without outside interference.

      Once we leave -- and we will have to leave someday if we don't want to end up like the soviet union -- they are going to sort out their own ***** in their own way, and it will not be pretty.

      The only way we can win in Iraq is by declaring it a lost cause not worth another soldier's life, and getting the ***** out. We can say "This ***** is crazy, and they don't want our help. We's outta hea, beeyotch! See ya! Wouldn't wanna be ya!"

      We won when we toppled Saddam's regime. We made a mistake in staying there.
      • jetboyterp, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2You have got to be kidding. Declare Iraq a "lost cause"? When we're winning? So that every soldier who has died did so in vein. And what happens the next time? Hey, the US will just give up if we're persistent!

        And by the way, the US won every single combat against the NVA.

        And also, we don't "have to leave someday". We still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea.
      • pyronik, on 08/04/2008, -3/+2the leader of the vietcong said that they were about to surrender, but the only thing that kept them going was, as you so aptly put "because those hippies were dropping acid and holding "love ins" "

        Thats EXACTLY why, if our enemies thought we were resolute to winning they wouldnt try. The left has destroyed our ability to wage war effectively cause everyone knows we won't want to finish the job.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1pyronik, you must look at the world in very simple terms, and can't think in complex or interconnected ways.

        It wasn't just liberals who were against Vietnam. Sure, it was mostly liberals, but there were many Republicans who were also against the war (just like with Iraq, there are many Republicans against this war, too) -- We didn't lose because people were against it, we lost because it was mismanaged and micromanaged, and because it was a war against an insurgency, which is impossible to ever defeat. Like jetboyterp said, we won every battle, yet we still lost, because we couldn't keep on winning every battle if there was always going to be a next battle. The only way for there not to be a next battle is to eliminate the source of the insurgency, THE ENTIRE POPULATION (well, actually, academically, if you destroy something between 10 and 30% of the population, while winning over the remaining population, you can effectively break the insurgency's back).

        I think the veracity of the claim that a vietcong leader (a decentralized insurgency) made such a statement as you claim has been questioned, and found to be suspect.

        But it doesn't matter, let's operate on this "embolden the enemy" premise that gets thrown around the right wing blogosphere.

        When people understand something to be futile, and can intelligently come to the conclusion that the real and tangible risks and costs outweigh the possible benefits, and choose to be against a poorly executed and strategically unimportant war, it doesn't matter that the "enemy" might take that as a sign they can win, because the conclusion of people who matter, the citizens, is that there is no winning or losing. We chose to go into Iraq. We can choose to leave. This isn't like people saying "oh, we'll never be able to defeat Japan, we should end the war even though they started it". In a war of convenience, we can come and go at our convenience. Iraq never posed a threat to us, and they especially cannot do us any harm now. They've got a few decades of reconstruction, after they fight it out for who gets to run the place. They're going to be really busy for a while. I know BIll O'Reilly thinks the Iraqis are puppies who are going to follow us home, but the only people who have ever attacked the United States are the Japanese, the British, and a handful of saudis and egyptians with box cutters.
    • hockeyplayer66, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Check you Poly Sci 101, Dems don't truly control congress until they can get 2/3 majority of votes. They control committee appointments and discussion items but they can't ramrod through legislation like the republican could the 6 years prior when they controlled Executive and Legislative branches of govt.

      Saying the summer legislative break or congress for that matter has anything to do with gas prices is as ludicrous as saying Katrina happened due to global warming. Anything they do now won't be felt for years. You want lower prices without the govt. meddling in your business, use less gas. The price speculation is based on supply and demand. The demand side is easier to impact in the short term as your own actions are immediate to the market. Lower demand and the prices goes down.

      If you really have to rely on Congress to determine what your actions should be, you're a lost cause. Take control yourself.

      What we really need is a 3rd, 4th or 5th party so elected officials actually have to negotiate.
  • evanct, on 08/04/2008, -7/+37A POLITICIAN BROKE A PROMISE?

    SAY W-W-W-W-WHAAAAAAAT??
  • Skull0Inc, on 08/04/2008, -7/+1it is my opinion that some-if-not-all politicians are a waste of time......name the last thing a polotician has done for YOU and correct me if i am wrong.
    • Murdats, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3well I live in a country that doesn't vote in power hungry industry shills who feel they should rule the world, so my politicians actually aren't that bad.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2What country is that?

        I think many Americans would love to have the system of government it sounds like your country has. Unless it's socialist (well, I mean, unless Fox News has labeled it socialist to deflect attention from the fact that we are also a socialist country.)

        I wish I could educate people about what socialism and communism is really about -- Control of labor for the benefit of those who own the means of production.
  • ravage86, on 08/04/2008, -6/+10I feel a little responsible. My 18th birthday was a few days before the election and I didn't bother voting. I wish there were less people like me.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Don't worry. There are people who were eligible to vote, and even registered, and they didn't vote.

      I didn't vote either, in 2004, because I couldn't vote for Kerry, and I had woken up to Bush's being a neocon puppet. I liked him in 2000, hell, I even liked McCain in 2000 but knew he wasn't going to win against a Bush dynasty.

      But, the fact that only 28% of the voting age population selected Bush for president in 2004 should send a message to everyone about how divided and conquered we really are as a nation.
    • JrtD, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0You have a chance to redeem yourself by voting this November.

      One good thing has come out of letting the Republicans have control for four more years -- it's much more obvious that Republicans are bad for this country. They've showed us who they really are since Bush was elected, and we have learned they are not good for working people.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1Don't lump all republicans in with Bush's administration. Even Bush could have been considered a true republican had he not appointed the neocons to his administration.

        BOTH parties have extremist fringe groups, but the neocons have been rattling around washington for so long that they were able to effectively hijack Bush's presidency.

        Colin Powell said it well, and it was what they called Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in the 1970's, especially around the pentagon... "They're a bunch of ***** crazies"
      • JrtD, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1You're right, I shouldn't lump all Republicans in with Bush's administration. I was referring to the neocon Republicans in charge. However, they couldn't have hijacked the Party (and country) without the consent of the majority of Republican voters.

        I don't think we can call the neocons in charge a "fringe group" anymore. They have been front and center, and they've marginalized what used to be the mainstream Republican ideology.

        I don't think old-school Republicans like the following results of neocons' ideology: eroded states' rights, incompetent/bloated government departments, lost civil rights, spying on us/lost of privacy, borrowing and spending money without any regard for how it would be paid later, starting a pre-emptive war with billions of dollars not accounted for, torture, lying and corporate welfare.

        The new Republicans don't want to do anything about health care (we sink or swim as individuals, and they don't care about communities). They don't value the environment enough to protect it. They are fine with dismantling public school systems to enrich the companies that want private school vouchers paid with tax dollars. They deregulate banks and then bail them out when they fail. They don't believe in using tax dollars to invest in this country - in its infrastructure or its people (including war veterans) - unless they can figure out a way to give the money to greedy, large companies in the process. They see tax dollars as something to give in no-bid contracts without accountability. They value corporate profit above everything.

        I hope most Republicans don't like the neocon Republican image that seems to have taken over. If I'm wrong and you think the majority of Republicans are fine with all of this, tell me. If I'm right, I certainly hope that honest, community-minded Republican voters take back their party.

        But in the meantime -- until the Republican Party changes its image and attracts better leaders -- I'm ready to let the Democrats take over for awhile.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1You and I are disgusted about the same thing, but we don't agree on the solution.

        Voting for a democrat doesn't change anything. Sadly, I may just have to vote for Obama this time around just because I don't want to sit out another election cycle just because the republican party could not wake up in time to overthrow these fanatical chicken hawk imperialists.

        The problem is, I don't think it matters who you vote for. It has become obvious that the prevailing corporatist agenda will always prevail, no matter which party gets the most votes, popular or electoral.

        There needs to be a radical change. People need to understand the real, true reality, and stop buying into this false dichotomy, the constructed and staged struggle between two ideologies. "Pro life vs. Pro Choice", "Immigration reform vs amnesty", "Pro gun vs. Anti-gun", "pro-this vs anti-that". "belligerence as foreign policy vs negotiating with the enemy".

        All of it is constructed to keep the voting population divided and arguing amongst themselves. Meanwhile, the same agenda has been going strong through 8 or more administrations from both parties.

        I think Eisenhower was right, in his warning to Americans in his farewell address. However, the octopus has gotten it's tentacles into ever more facets of American society. It isn't just the Military Industrial Complex, anymore. Now it is the Pharmaceutical Industry, the Oil Industry, the Agro-Businesses, or any industry that has consolidated itself into less than a half-dozen corporations, often fewer than 3 corporations.

        Even the financial sector is displaying the power they have. The whole concept of "Too Big To Fail", where the government socializes their risks to prevent failures, but allows the privatized rewards to remain intact. Or anytime a regulation is created to protect the established businesses in that industry, and erects barriers to entry to start ups and potential competitors.

        All of this is just too real and too intractable for most people to want to consider, so they choose to simply deny it, ridicule anyone who tries to warn everyone, and even try to defend it as the only way it can be done in a complex world, especially a post 9/11 world.

        I'm not anti-capitalism, I'm anti-corporatism. Not many people even realize there is a distinction. Meanwhile, they are struggling to keep up, and they think it is just because "times are hard", not realizing that we made a shift in the mid 1990s towards corporatism, and the old capitalism that allowed us all to benefit economically is dead, and now it is only for the extremely wealthy, and they have consolidated power and wealth to the top half of one percent, and now they control production and capital.
      • JrtD, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1I think I know what you mean about the difference between anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism. I think the shift towards corporatism really started in the 1970's but accelerated under the next four presidents (Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. -- and, yes, I include Clinton). Deregulation hasn't really been deregulation; it's been regulation that favors one big business over all other businesses and government expenditures.

        I don't believe in picking a political team and sticking with it no matter what the players are doing on the field. But the Republicans haven't been giving me reasons to cheer them on lately .

        This "too big to fail" concept works for corporations now that pension funds are so totally tied into corporations' survival and profits. When large companies fail, pension funds suffer across the country. So artificial propping up of corporations continues. That won't change unless pension funds and expectations change.

  • vexingmodstwo, on 08/04/2008, -25/+11Thinkprogress. Spam. Buried.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -4/+7Yes. Any good citizen knows he should only get his news and information from approved news outlets.

      Fox News Channel. Weekly Standard. Washington Times.

      If you read anything else, you will be rounded up on or before the night of the long knives.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2It's about as good of a political news source as Perez Hilton.

        We get it, you only like bias when it's your bias being presented.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1Nah, PolishLogic, see, that's what happens when you adhere to an ideologically biased news source on either side -- I don't even know who perez hilton is (well, I thought it was a spoof on Paris), I get my news from the entire world of media.

        Of course, I have access to every wire service through my job, so I can read the same story from AP, Reuters, Washington Times, Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Itarr-Tass, Xinhua, AFP, Bloomberg, Fox news, CNN, et al, via an ODBC application right on my laptop.

        What people who get their news from a single source don't realize is that no source is without bias. If you read the same story from multiple sources you can often sift through all the bias and zero in on the Who, What, Where, When and Why that used to be the standard of news reporting, you know, the facts.

    • pintomp3, on 08/04/2008, -3/+5Head. Sand. Buried.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -3/+3Doesn't it just feel better to deny the problem?
    • DamienKarras, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1ThinkProgress reports news and links to actual articles on other reputable sites. FailyKos (and its ilk) just provide opinion.

      Yes, ThinkProgress may be a little biased, but most media is in this day and age.
  • RegalGSX, on 08/04/2008, -10/+3Yeah. but that was before Captain CooCoo Bananas lost his mind and the ability to complete short sentences.
  • ObamAmerican48, on 08/04/2008, -14/+29He broke it? He did more than that. He:

    ***** it
    kicked it
    ***** on it
    spit on it
    pissed on it
    dropped a bowling ball on it
    laughed at it
    mocked it
    screamed at it
    threatened it
    terrorized it
    sucker-punched it
    ran over it with a Mac truck
    dropped it off a cliff
    blew it up
    stabbed it
    cursed at it

    Any other extreme verbs? Bush did it all to America, and then some.
    • Rezistik, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2Wow that sounds like last weekend with my.....nvm.
    • steampunked, on 08/04/2008, -8/+2You sorry ObamaZombies are pathetic. Yes, McCain and Bush are both utter douchebags. You people are even bigger douchebags for thinking Obama (or any politician for that matter) is any different.

      Plug in to reality, lady. Obama ain't gonna do ***** for you, or any of the poor blacks, or the ***** trees, or the gays, or the poor Iraqis, or the whales (or did you nutjobs lose that cause somewhere along the way?), or the helpless ice at the end of the world, or your friend's obnoxious little yap-dog. And no, he's not going to give you a goddamn Prius.

      Listening to Obamamamama jawjack is eerily reminiscent of the horrid tent-revivals I have had the severe displeasure of being privy to - once upon a time.

      Oh, and ***** Obama.
      • greevar, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3Who said anything about Obama? Oh yeah, you did.
      • steampunked, on 08/04/2008, -2/+0Look, dullard, if you possessed more nuanced observational skills you would have observed that the OP's screen name is 'ObamAmerican48'.

        Go back to the playground.
    • DestroyFascism, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Raped it...
    • CHANNELOCK, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1looted it.
    • Darkkish, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1sharded it's epics?
  • LoneRanger85, on 08/04/2008, -25/+13What about the promise Clinton made to our troops in 1995 that they'd be out of Kosovo by Christmas. We're still there.

    You don't think freeing tens of millions of people from a brutal Islamic regime is a just cause? Why? Because they're brown people on the other side of the world?
    • malex, on 08/04/2008, -1/+11Actually, Saddam's government was secular.

      I would suggest reading a book or two about this war before you make any more extrapolations about why people might be critical of how the Bush administration handled it. "Assassin's Gate" is a particularly good one.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2or "The Pentagon's New Map" or "Hatred's Kingdom" or "The Soviet-Afghan War, How a Superpower fought and Lost, The Russian General Staff" or "The Sling and the Stone".
      • LoneRanger85, on 08/04/2008, -7/+2(for you digger kids, EXTRAPOLATION: to predict by projecting past experience or known data
      • malex, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1I was being generous.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1how generous were you being?

        I think you were being educational.

        Oh. My bad. I get it. You wanted to try to show people how easy it is to be informed, and you realized that most people just want to consume information and go along with the system out of fear of losing their nice little jobs.

        Or something like that.

        But, you weren't being dugg down, people seem to agree with you.
    • pwnerofnoobs, on 08/04/2008, -3/+3"Why? Because they're brown people on the other side of the world? "
      Admit it. You don't give a ***** about brown people. You're playing the race card the Mccain way.
      • bduddy, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1What? Did you even read the comment? That's the exact opposite of what he said...
      • LoneRanger85, on 08/04/2008, -4/+2Actually, I DO care about brown people. That's why I oppose Democrats. http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/
      • jaxcs, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2@LoneRanger
        What a child you are. Between 1970 to present day, this snarky blog page can only identify 13 significant events. Some of these significant events are as ground breaking as sponsoring a museum or organizing a committee.
    • MelvinSchlubman, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3> What about the promise Clinton made to our troops in 1995 that they'd be out of Kosovo by Christmas. We're still there.

      How many Americans have died in that war?
      How much of our treasury have we sunk into that?
      What has Kosovo done to America's standing in the world?

      > You don't think freeing tens of millions of people from a brutal Islamic regime is a just cause?

      Secular.
      What about the brutal regime of Robert Mugabe, and many others? Are you calling for American forces in those areas too?
    • jaxcs, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2Please, we all know this is about oil. Otherwise explain why we chose to liberate the unfortunate brown people in Iraq and ignored the unfortunate black people in the Sudan or the unfortunate yellow people in North Korea. There are plenty of dictators and tyrants in the world. Maybe it was about WMDs? Well, we never found any of those and as we have all learned, Bush created parallel intelligence agencies to support his pre determined facts.

      Face it you crazed weasel, Bush was a terrible president. He may be a republican but he's not a conservative. Our latest middle east misadventure was a terrible waste of people, resources and gave the country a 600 billion dollar deficit (in 8 years!).
  • DeFex, on 08/04/2008, -6/+3shame god is off on holiday retreat figuring out what to tell the pope about mars, Bush would be SO smited!
  • waggdogg, on 08/04/2008, -18/+9Everyone hates Bush because he keeps to his convictions.

    Everyone is going to love Obama because he is going to kiss ass.
    • thecwin, on 08/04/2008, -1/+6Someone who sticks to keeps to their convictions in the face of reason isn't a good leader. A good leader accepts when they have made a bad decision and adapts their plans to repair the damage.

      What politicians need to realise is that, even though they were elected, it's not their country for four years to do with as they please. They're still there to represent the public, and if the public want change, it's the elected official's responsibility to notice that and try to make an appropriate decision.

      Ideally, if an elected official, even a president, decided he could no longer truthfully represent the views of the country, he would step down and allow a new one to be elected. Unfortunately, the system currently isn't capable of this type of snap election, as far as I am aware.
  • bhavinp, on 08/04/2008, -7/+2REALLY!??!?! I DID NOT KNOW THAT!
  • phyr3x, on 08/04/2008, -5/+9He didn't make a promise. He "promisitized the American peoples." Too bad he is not very good at using the "innernets", otherwise he could have just used "duh Google" to find this quote and "rememberize" it. However, in reality he would probably hastily proceed to "forgetificate" the quote and go ride mountain bikes with Lance Armstrong on his Crawford Ranch while American blood ensures our supply of Middle Eastern oil.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4But he will claim to not play golf in order to support the war widows and mothers of dead soldiers.


      (even though he's been photographed and filmed playing golf many times since making that remark.)

      George Bush is a true american hero. He read "my pet goat" when told that America was under attack. He held a megaphone and made empty threats on the rubble of the WTC a few days later. He has been actively pursuing our attackers ever since, except for that 5 years when he got distracted and went after Saddam because he tried to kill his daddy.
  • poprocksandsoda, on 08/04/2008, -14/+7You were awake on 9/11 weren't you?
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3yes. But, unlike you, I didn't ***** my pants and cower in my basement.

      I happened to be driving to my office at 17th and H st, a block from the white house. My father happened to be staying on the 20th floor in the World Trade Center Marriott, and my sister happened to be working at an architecture firm at Duane and West Broadway, 3 or 4 blocks north of the WTC complex.


      Where were you? In kansas?
      • poprocksandsoda, on 08/04/2008, -4/+1Your story means nothing to your argument.
      • poprocksandsoda, on 08/04/2008, -4/+1Oh and I also had an office on 17th in DC next to the Wachovia. Small world.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3The wachovia is at 17th and I, next to CVS. Was your "office" CVS? Or was it the Cocoran Art School? Or the ice cream shop?

        Sorry. I actually live in the DC area. You obviously don't.

        The other banks on 17th near the white house are Citibank, Chevy Chase and oh, it's not a bank, but the closest to the white house is a Pot Belly sandwich shop.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3Oh, and by the way, the Wachovia was a First Union until some time in 2002.
    • pyronik, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1shhh, that detail sorta throws a wrench in it
  • doublehead, on 08/04/2008, -4/+27But the big promise Bush made was "to uphold the Constitution" and we know how well that went.
    • DigDugDigger, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2He upholds the one he crafted.
    • pyronik, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1compared to liberal activist judges, bush is a pillar of the constitution
      • StarlessKnight, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Question: If a judge isn't activist, what are they? (Note: the Constitution says the Judicial is suppose to strike down unconstitutional law, which would require--get this--taking action--or, to use the vernacular, being activist)

        Is your concern with judges that "legislate from the bench?"
      • pyronik, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1semantics, you know what i mean. Yes they legistlate from the bench, taking the feel good liberal interpretation of everything in the constitution making ***** up as you go. See 9th circuit court of appeals
  • DD2CC2U, on 08/04/2008, -11/+8McCain = Bush = 3x
  • rumblestrut, on 08/04/2008, -8/+3Why are we still talking about this guy?
  • shaneomac27, on 08/04/2008, -11/+4he also wasnt planning on retarted overweight stupid moronic lazy americans to vote in a ***** load of foolish democrats into the house. good move America, look at our economy now!
  • santixar, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2Isn't that the job of a politician?
  • Seann7656, on 08/04/2008, -3/+28I'm guilty of voting for him. He was much more promising at the time and he told us what we wanted to hear. Too bad he didn't hold up to any of it...

    The Republican party has betrayed me yet again with McCain as our candidate. They have lost touch with the true values and principles.

    If I had to vote today. It would be Obama.
    • Barackalypse, on 08/04/2008, -3/+3So you have learned nothing then, you're still believing what the candidates are telling you instead of looking at how they are voting. How many major legistlative items Bush supported has Obama voted for? Patriot Act, FISA with telcom immunity, Border Security Act, every single Iraq war funding bill with no withdrawal dates, and now he's suddenly fine with offshore drilling in exchange for some alternative energy stuff.
      • RiseInside, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1If what you say is true, then I fear for the security of the free world. Considering politics, I don't know what is the truth or a lie, and I worry that the candidate most qualified for change carries the same agenda as the Bush and his administration.
      • arobicha, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1Then what do you suggest? We vote for somebody who stands for something true and righteous?

        You've learned nothing either.
      • RiseInside, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0I didn't suggest that--you just assumed I did. Just like you assume every candidate in politics is incapable of doing something right. The system we live in has been molded by politics, and in order for it to "change" it must be undone with politics...or a revolution.
    • Blue7Alien, on 08/04/2008, -1/+5The funny thing is the Republican party was created to abolish slavery.
      • reed311, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3You are right, but the Dems and Reps switched sides over the years. The Republican Party was created as a left-wing party to the Democrats right-wing approach. Over time, they switched places. The Reps are now right-wing and the Dems are now "left-wing" (more like moderate to slightly right wing, though).
    • Klisk, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2Originally I wanted to vote for Hillary.

      Now there's only Obama, and I'm tempted to either not vote... Or to vote for McCain instead. I really hate Obama. He's a liar and doesn't practice what he preaches.
      • Seann7656, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1And Hillary doesn't lie? That's exactly what the Clinton's are known for. But nonetheless, I did prefer her over Obama. Obama is a bit too elitist for my more moderate tastes.

        I Honestly don't know If I'm going to even vote or not right now either.
  • MBellan, on 08/04/2008, -3/+4Jokes on you.
  • amoebajo, on 08/04/2008, -4/+7"Read my lips - no new taxes."
  • PrometheusBorn, on 08/04/2008, -2/+3I don't think the real lesson here is that Bush sucks, we already knew that.

    What we should learn, is that just because someone speaks some great truths at times (he was dead on with taht statement in 2000), doesn't mean they're worth crap.

    So stop listening to these politicians words and vote on action.
  • Skywise, on 08/04/2008, -11/+3And the cause was just. It was morons like ThinkProgress that were screaming NINE years ago that something had to be done about Iraq because hundreds of thousands of children were starving there. So the US worked with the UN to allow Hussein to sell oil for food and he turned around and used it to fund military development instead. Bush knew WE caused the problem, so Bush did the right thing and knew that WE had to fix it. Is that just?! Oh no... ThinkProgress wants us to run away and hide and let the populace starve ... but hey... then they'd be "right".
    • EffZee, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2I agree, the best way to get rid of starving children is to bomb them.
      /s
  • DD2CC2U, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4Bush is like a 4th string quarterback. He was put in the game to win but fumbled the ball away. In the case of the United States, Bush screwed up on every single chance he had to score.
  • richito, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1no shock...no awe...
  • lmp49, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1dammit Bush, you pinky swore
  • Shugii, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Why the hell is this news? Who the hell was surprised by this?
  • nanboya, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7It's taken 8 years for the American public to finally catch on?
    • DestroyFascism, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Fast aren't they...

      If Washington was Paris, it would be no more...
  • zephalim, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2So help him God.
  • yog888, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1Obama will too, it's not a news'
  • OC73, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Bush owns you.
  • laketahoe32, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2You realize what that piece of ***** did first thing after the SELECTION (as opposed to election-Al Gore actually won the final recount of Florida.)

    Number one, he proceeded to make speeches about how bad the economy was (before he actually TOOK (being the operative word) office at a time when there was still a surplus in the treasury. However, he fixed that by...

    The ***** phony electricity crisis that happened IMMEDIATELY after he TOOK office which effectively STOLE the entire surplus of the treasury (and you wonder why that ***** Cheney fought so hard to keep the minutes of his energy meetings secret)

    Bush is a huge piece of *****.

    McCain is also a piece of ***** with a far worse disposition and temper than Bush (who can best be described as an angry, ignorant dry drunk (although dry drunk is debatable from the stories circulating about Bush's various returns to heavy drinking.
    • ghendric, on 08/04/2008, -3/+2***** Al Gore! He's the biggest, self made millionaire off of the tax payers money, hypocrite on the planet. That duchebag needs an enema.. His whole global warming ***** is nothing more than a big pile of *****. The whole global waring crap is just another way to control our lives and to tax us into oblivion.
  • GardenDoor, on 08/04/2008, -4/+3I'm not a fan of Bush, but I will say this: He was the perfect president to have at this point in history. Americans would be crying like little babies living in fear about nuclear weapons in Iraq. Also as horrible as it sounds, 9/11 was a huge wake up call which led to much greater security and American citizens taking security into their own hands and not relying on the police and government to do it all. It stripped away the naivety and helped formulate more aware and prepared citizens. And if you guys think any of the other candidates running at the same time as Bush would have done a better job, you're nuts. Bush has dealt with more huge issues than any other president in history. Once again, I think he has definitely run his course, and we need someone new, but for the time, he was needed.

    What do they say, it takes an average of ~20 years to accurately judge a president?. I have a feeling in 20 years from now, people will be glad he was president at this time in history. That's not to say he was a good president, just that he was needed at this point in time.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4Hitler was the perfect president to be elected just before the Reichstag fire, as well.

      Any other candidate would not have invaded poland, and Germans would be in fear of drunk polish guys who happened to be nearby after the reichstag was torched by Gestapo henchmen.


      Bush didn't deal with more huge issues than any other president in history, *****. Lincoln dealt with the MOST ENORMOUS issue in American history, besides the actual revolution. He presided over the splitting of a nation and a civil war to preserve the union. idiot. ideologue.

      Bush has presided over the most divisive and potentially destructive reactions to an enemy that intends to provoke us and draw us into wars in order to do what it did to the soviet union (at our behest and under our training), which is to cause it's collapse.
      • MedicDave29, on 08/04/2008, -2/+0The token "Bush is like Hitler" and "Bush is responsible for all the evils of the world" reply.
    • MoundOfManure3, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2Yeah....no.
      What are you talking about? Bush hasnt dealt with a singal issue in the past 8 years. He has stumbled through his terms in office by fear mongering the public into a failed war. A failed economy. And a failed governement that has abandonded the values it was sworn to observe by letting this president trample on the freedoms that inherently made it great.
      Bush was NOT the perfect president for this time. He could and would never be the perfect president for anytime.
      He was, to be honest...a douche.
      And he will go down in history as a failure of a human being who couldnt even catch a guy hiding in a cave.
      ***** bush.

    • jaxcs, on 08/04/2008, -2/+3Bush CREATED more issues than any president in history. Fixed that for you.
    • ladysherwood, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1it makes me so sad that there are not just a few people, but about 1/3 or more of the voting public that still hold true that Bush saved us from WMD, that he rallied the public & protected us from further harm.
      He took our freedoms.
      He made us afraid.
      He told every American many many lies.
      Keeping us afraid has been the M.O. of this administration, and by the statement you've just made, he's still got a fair share of us scared of our shadow, hoping the government will save us.

      Wake up and smell the coffee. This presidency will have been one of the greatest blights on humanity. In my eyes it already is.
  • StevoJD, on 08/04/2008, -3/+4"8 Years Ago, Obama Made a Promise to America. He Broke it."

    August 3, 2016

    All politicians are the same, let's just hope Obama actually does good. He's been slipping pretty bad lately.
    • indiancompanion, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Can you predict my future too?
  • socokoolaid, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Maybe if Bill Clinton followed through with his campaign vow of both terms for campaign finance reform, Bush may have never been elected.

    -- I know say nothing bad about good ol' Bill
  • Bjango, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4I pretty sure most people agree that George Bush fails.
  • evo8ftw, on 08/04/2008, -4/+24 more years 4 more years
  • Foot56, on 08/04/2008, -3/+1shaved>bush..... Oh that Bush... *quickly exits*
  • wshwe, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2Bush, Cheney and their inner circle are all pathological liars.
  • 12Iceman, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3And it took you this long to figure that out?
  • Farmer77, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4I bet his speech writer still remembers it. I don't think Bush does though.
    • greevar, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1He doesn't even remember where he left the launch keys to the nukes. What are you talking about?
  • nickbr00tality, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Dugg for McCain and Bush's expressions in the picture.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.