You Have My Support, Mr. President

I thought that, too, at first. Then decided it was his new George Washington-esque (Father of your Country) look, done for subliminal effect, LOL.

I thought the reporters were pretty disrepectful, especially that dude from MSNBC, Jim (?) what's-his-face.

 

Wasn't he asked once?? He didn't really give an answer. He should have just said, "There is no reason not to." If the committee thinks their stories aren't going to be straight, there is something seriously wrong with their intellect. By this time, even if they are lying, they are going to say the same thing ... I don't see any great benefit to them testifying either separately or together ... But if it will make people happy, then go for it ..

 

He was asked twice. (There was a follow-up question asked after his first non-answer.)

 

My Mom used to say, if you told the truth, you didn't have to be careful.

 

The only problem I see, if they both do indeed tell the truth, is the same problem one sees in the Bible.

The 4 gospels were written by 4 men who had witnessed the events in Jesus' life. They each wrote about them in their own perspective. Since none of the gospels matches up, word for word, exactly like the others, they are said by outsiders to be false. Now, we know they are all absolute truth, but written from different points of view. But, had all the writers written their accounts together, a lot of the criticisms about the gospels would be put to rest.

Anything said from a different point of view by Cheney or Bush that even remotely looks contradictory would be construed as a lie by those who want to see Bush and Cheney fail.

It's like when you go into an interview with police. You always want to take your lawyer with you as well as anyone else who may have witnessed anything. Witnesses are used all the time to discredit one another just because their accounts of a crime seem contradictory when actually they are just seen in two different perspectives.

Bush did indeed dodge the question though. I forget who asked it, but when Bush didn't answer that point the journalist interrupted and asked that specific point again. Bush still dodged the question, and when the journalist tried again the ask that specific question his microphone was taken away and Bush looked away and quickly started talking about something else before calling on the next reporter. I still say it was a smart move not to fully answer that question. That reporter was trying to make him seem shady.

 

Of course, if they did testify separately and did contradict each other about a material fact, we would still have Bush II supporters who would come and, based on an analogy to Gospel Truth, explain that it wasn't really a contradiction...they were each just telling the truth from their own perspectives.

 

I have always heard good things about Pat Toomey. I never hear anything about Senator Specter except near election time. Senator Specter's ads are vicious and I really doubt the credibility of these political ads.

Senator Specter goes way back to the time of the Warren Commission.

 

Some of us in PA would take almost anybody other than Specter.

 

I was saddened to hear Rush Limbaugh give about 15 minutes of air time to Specter today. I hope Toomey whips him in the primary. When is the primary, PA Jim? </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, as long as you stick with guys like Bush and Limbaugh, you will continue to be saddened by their cheap political actions. It would be better, IMO, to be saddened by what they are doing to our country, and come over to the right side.

The primary will be April 27th. With Bush's help, Specter will likely be re-elected and continue his work to continue abortion. How can you support these guys?

 

Months ago, I suggested that conservative Christians would be angry about the liberal policies of the Bush administration, but when push came to shove, they'd line up to vote the way they are told.

Remember, I said it first.

 

Yes, I remember, and had little doubt that you were right. One person at a time it seems to be happening here on the BB.

 

I am amazed that the establishment of the Party...along with "conservative" voices such as Limbaugh's...would support a liberal over a conservative in the primaries.

Of course, they supported Bush II over Keyes.

The establishment's support of liberal Republicans, such as Bush II, who has increased social spending more than Clinton did through his newfound compassionate "conservatism," has truly transformed the Republican party...and not in a good way.

 

What did he say or do that changed your mind? I heard nothing new from him.

 

Ken, that was a good e-mail to the President. We're on the right course and he's doing a good job of handling these difficult times. Let's hope he'll continue to get the majority support he needs so we can keep on moving forward with what needs to be done.

LTG Vines had a few comments a couple of days ago that are relevant. Here's the report that was released by the American Forces Press Service:

I understand it, I relate to it, and I believe it.

 

What did he say or do that changed your mind? I heard nothing new from him. </font>[/QUOTE]I was dizzy from the Bush Kool-Aid (for a moment). I have since recanted, and will vote CP or not vote at all. I'm sick of all of it. Everything is a ploy to take our minds off of the fact that our borders STILL are wide open and we are just sitting ducks waiting for the next terrorist attack and American jobs are STILL being shipped off shore.

 

.
I understand...I've been affected by the kool-aid also.

 

lol