Gee, and to think he could have spent all of that time playing basketball

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ds-hours-comforting-families-fallen-soldiers/

Report: Bush Spent Hundreds of Hours Comforting Families of Fallen Soldiers
President Bush headed to Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Monday to comfort wounded soldiers, the public part of a private campaign that has included more than 4,000 letters to family members

FOXNews.com

Monday, December 22, 2008

President Bush headed to Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Monday to meet with wounded soldiers ahead of the Christmas holiday, but that's only the latest activity in a wide-ranging effort the president has made to comfort the families of the fallen.

According to The Washington Times, the self-described "comforter in chief" said it's his duty as president to try to help as "best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish."

The Times notes that people familiar with Bush's routine say he has written letters personally to every one of the families of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. The task has taken a toll, and Bush has relied on his wife, Laura, for emotional support, he said.

"I lean on the Almighty and Laura," the president told the Times. "She has been very reassuring, very calming."

Vice President Cheney has also met with family members of soldiers who have died.

Bush has met with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, often during private sessions, White House spokesman Carlton Carroll told the newspaper.

The Times said the first lady was in on many of those meetings and also felt the heart-wrenching pain of such moments.

Click here to read The Washington Times article on Bush's meetings with wounded soldiers and families of those killed in action.
Click to expand...
 
A good man in a tough position with nothing but antithesis about him, HIstory would have (still might) proved him a decent President until his last 6 months.
 
So we now see what he's willing to do for the troops, while giving Billions to his buddies.

I wish I were more impressed.:(
 
My girlfriend and I spent the last weekend with amputees at Ft. Benning. We were just there to show appreciation, write letters and send mail for them. We didn't mention politics, but some of them brought up the subject. Most of them didn't have a high regard for the Cheneyburton administration, to say the least.
It's kind of tough getting your arm and/or leg blown off on EM pay, then having to deal with the VA, when you know private mercenaries are doing the same jobs at X times your wage, plus much better benefits.
 
I wanted Ron Paul, but maybe Obama will do...
Hell, he's got an advantage to start with-
no place to go but up!
"It's all uphill from here".
 
Gonz said:
A good man in a tough position with nothing but antithesis about him, HIstory would have (still might) proved him a decent President until his last 6 months.
Click to expand...

Until his last six months??? Where you been?? And President Bush is supposed to be a leader. A leader, leads. President Bush has not been a leader other than the few weeks immediately succeeding the attacks on September 11, 2001.

President Bush is a conflicting personality.
He is, I believe, honest, to a fault.
But as a non-leader, he is either too stupid or too stubborn to realize the damage he and his administration has done to this country. And the buck does stop with him.

President Bush has taken us to a lower ground than was seen since the great depression. He vehemently denied the country was in a recession for nearly a year and then, only admitted it when we were in such dire straits it required a seven hundred billion dollar bailout and that hasn't worked. Not only has it not worked, but the financial institutions that were loaned money refuse to tell the grantor what it was used for. Meantime, institutions such as AIG continue to have lavish conventions and seminars, on us !!!

Please tell me, what accomplishments have come from this administration that are praiseworthy. Which ones will give President Bush a favorable place in history? This last six week attempt by President Bush to cement his legacy in a favorable light is doing nothing but producing incriminating evidence on his administration of illegal acts and showing President Bush as a buffoon.

The gauntlet has been thrown. The challenge is out there.
What accomplishments has President Bush got to swing his way to a favorable position in the history books ?
 
He cut taxes, bringing us out of a recession.

He managed the Sept 11 attacks outstandingly.

He's managed to keep any more attacks from occuring on US soil.

Granted, there are fiascos, like the Medicare Drug program (which was the left's ideal until a Republican did it), this whole bailout thing (every cent of it) and his refusal to keep Congress in check by using the veto.

HE came into office lookin gto balance right & left. Too bad. Had he used conservative ideology, we'd be far better off. Instead, following his own centrist ideals, he handed too much, domestically, to the left.
 
Gonz said:
He cut taxes, bringing us out of a recession.
He managed the Sept 11 attacks outstandingly.
He's managed to keep any more attacks from occuring on US soil.
Granted, there are fiascos, like the Medicare Drug program (which was the left's ideal until a Republican did it), this whole bailout thing (every cent of it) and his refusal to keep Congress in check by using the veto.
HE came into office lookin gto balance right & left. Too bad. Had he used conservative ideology, we'd be far better off. Instead, following his own centrist ideals, he handed too much, domestically, to the left.
Click to expand...

We were not in a recession when Bush took office but something republicans tried to spin. The United States was experiencing record levels of prosperity, 22 million new jobs and record tax revenues.

I agree Bush did a masterful job of leading in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, a task many try, erroneously, to attribute to Mayor Guliani.

As to no further attacks on American soil, that is debatable whether President Bush can legitimately make this claim. The few reported "terrorists attacks" were not organized and it is unknown whether those plots were uncovered as a direct result of security procedures implemented by President Bush or from normal intelligence and confidential informant sources.

There are to many other reasons for President Bush to not be remembered favorably in history.
 
Bush, hell- just a decoy.
It's Cheney, dammit- behind the curtain and pulling the strings, like the Wizard of Oz
 
Frank Probity said:
We were not in a recession when Bush took office but something republicans tried to spin. The United States was experiencing record levels of prosperity, 22 million new jobs and record tax revenues.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could explain the three quarters of NEGATIVE growth in 2001 which satisfy the official classic definition of a recession.

This from money.cnn.com (note that I chose the Liberal site purposely)

gdp_chart_revised_731.gif
 
You might use THIS to support your premise but it doesn't bode well for you at all. The NBER seems to have assigned two recessions to Bush without ever satisfying the recession requirements at all.

On top of that, there is this little tidbit:

For example, in the 2001 "recession", why does the NBER say it started in March, under Bush, and not in 2000, under Clinton? The first quarter of negative real growth was actually the third quarter of 2000, under President Clinton. It showed -0.5% growth contraction, annualized. But the NBER said no recession. When it again showed -0.5% growth six months later, under Bush, the NBER said recession.


In 2007, the final revision of the estimate of fourth quarter growth was slightly negative: -0.2%. The NBER now says that was a recession. One quarter of -0.5% under Clinton, not a recession. One quarter of -0.2% under Bush, a recession.
Click to expand...

Go figure.
 
Frank Probity said:
As to no further attacks on American soil, that is debatable whether President Bush can legitimately make this claim. The few reported "terrorists attacks" were not organized and it is unknown whether those plots were uncovered as a direct result of security procedures implemented by President Bush or from normal intelligence and confidential informant sources.
Click to expand...

These few reported "terrorists attacks?"

1. Richard Reid, December 2001

2. Jose Padilla, May 2002

3. Lackawanna Six, September 2002

4. Iyman Faris, May 2003

5. Virginia "Jihad" Network, June 2003

6. Dhiren Barot, August 2004

7. James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj, August 2004

8. Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, August 2004

9. Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat, June 2005

10. Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, Hammad Riaz Samana, and Kevin James, August 2005

11. Michael C. Reynolds, December 5, 2005

12. Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, Zand Wassim Mazloum, February 2006

13. Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, April 2006

14. Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine, June 2006

15. Assem Hammoud, July 2006

16. Liquid Explosives Plot, August 2006

17. Fort Dix Plot, May 2007

18. JFK Plot, June 2007

19. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, March 2007


Not to mention the instances of "homegrown jihadis" who try to do their part by driving vehicles onto crowded university quads, or who, with their ties to terrorist networks try to smuggle explosives in their vehicle's trunk across state lines. :shrug:


Are you of the opinion that the GWoT is just a "bumpersticker slogan?" One of those 9-11 conspiracy troofers who believes the Eeevilll Shrub was the true mastermind behind the attacks on this country? :rolleyes:



It won’t be too long before GWB’s genuine humbleness and simplicity are fondly remembered as he is replaced by the insufferable pomposity, arrogance, and conceit of the High Lord Obamination.
 
As to no further attacks on American soil, that is debatable whether President Bush can legitimately make this claim. The few reported "terrorists attacks" were not organized and it is unknown whether those plots were uncovered as a direct result of security procedures implemented by President Bush or from normal intelligence and confidential informant sources.
Click to expand...

Actually there hasn't been any real benefit or useful intelligence gathered by Bush's repeated attacks on our Constitution and the freedoms that it guarantees.

Everything pretty much proves his policies to have been a disaster. Wasting or soldiers lives and taxpayer dollars fighting a war in a country that was not known for terrorism but was portrayed as an emergency because of the laughable WMD claims. All the while increasing the threat of terrorism against us.

The Messiah GWB's incompetence, arrogance, conceit, corruption, and blatant stupidity has left the republican party shredded. It's given them surprising losses across the board and a clear mandate from the people for intelligent leadership.
 
Cerise said:
These few reported "terrorists attacks?"

Not to mention the instances of "homegrown jihadis" who try to do their part by driving vehicles onto crowded university quads, or who, with their ties to terrorist networks try to smuggle explosives in their vehicle's trunk across state lines.
Click to expand...

[QUOTE: Frank Probity: "As to no further attacks on American soil, that is debatable whether President Bush can legitimately make this claim. The few reported "terrorists attacks" were not organized and it is unknown whether those plots were uncovered as a direct result of security procedures implemented by President Bush or from normal intelligence and confidential informant sources."

From the Heritage Foundation article cited: "A review of publicly available information on at least 19 terrorist conspiracies thwarted by U.S. law enforcement suggests that the truth lies somewhere in between these two arguments."
 
Please note the following quote: "For the first time, the federal government is intervening in the process." says Robert Hall, an economist at Stanford University and the conservative Hoover Institution who since 1978 has chaired the NBER panel of seven prominent economists who make the actual decision.

As Paul Harvey would say: and now, for the rest of the story:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm

My apology for not knowing how to post the article in its entirety. One day I'll learn the procedure. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top