Comments on: Does Bush have ‘presenile dementia’?

By: Bruce Bendinger

Bruce Bendinger — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:14:50 +0000

wow - I’m the guy who did that video - interesting to see how it’s worked its way through the Inernet and blogosphere. Looking back, I have a few observations.
1. Don’t think it changed a vote 2. Almost a million views - makes you think, doesn’t it? Yet hardly anyone ever followed up to the source. 3. Never could get the mainstream media to look into this - had a mention in the Manchester Guardian - that was about it. 4. There was some other buzz out there - Bush speaking in tongues - other medications - wonder if it was true?

ChicagoBruce

By: Clendenin

Clendenin — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:33:11 +0000

Erika/grumpypilgrim: Erika, you may be exactly right about Bush and his character. In general, and probably to a fault, I am a person who is always looking for the good in people, and therefore, I tend to find it. I do think he has been president under some tough situations and for sure I believe he has made many mistakes. If we were wealthy, would we think differently about things? Probably, not that this makes it right. I am deffinately ready for a breath of fresh air. It’s hard to see anyone running that I think fits that bill. I suppose all we can do is vote for the person we think will do the best for our country and the world. My vote as my previous posts indicate will not be for a democrat or a republican. Wasted vote? I hope not.
Pilgrim, I do think he has been under heavy attack from the left and the media. And he may deserve most of it. If it were a demacrat in office I am sure he would be under heavy attack for whatever polocy as well. Your comment about your dissatisfaction over afganistan is understandable. I rarely have been one to post my opinions online, but I do love to hear different opinions and I trust that I will never have a closed mind on any subject!
I will leave it at this and say that I have enjoyed the conversation……and since I will probably never meet you……………..Have a GREAT life!

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:26:01 +0000

Thank you, Clendenin, for following up. My apologies if I misread your first comment, but it seemed to me you said several things about Bush, his war policies, and the left-wing’s criticism of him, that just don’t hold up to scrutiny, so I took issue with them. For example, you said Bush has protected us from further terrorist attacks, that his Christianity means something to you and that he is a person of undeniable character. I take issue with all of these assertions, for reasons I have already mentioned. I do agree with you that Bush should have stopped after invading Afganistan, but it is hard to understand why you would support him after his cornucopia of stupid and self-serving decisions that led to his invasion of Iraq. Personally, I cannot find sufficient satisfaction from his invasion of Afganistan to overlook his disastrous invasion of Iraq.

By: Erika Price

Erika Price — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:44:10 +0000

Clendenin: You defintely seem to have thought things through, and have reasoning and consideration behind you positions, and I don’t have a qualm whatsoever except for one detail: you say that Bush’s Christianity “means something”, and your general message givens the impression that, oh well, at least Bush means well. I could misread your tone, of course. But you express a cynicism of politics at the same time- only the wealthy can become president, as you point out. And as grumpy points out, following the money gives us good reason to suspect that Bush doesn’t have misguided-yet-well-meaning motives.

He sure exudes that air, doesn’t he? With his everyman demeanor and his family values and unpretentious sense of humor. People want to have a beer with him. People see him as an unfortunate sap, not a malicious man. But with your fine-tuned sense of antipartisanship and political cynicism, Clendenin, you know that Bush doesn’t come from that everyman background that makes up his “image”. And we have no evidence for that good-spirited, moral Christian side of him that means well but fouls things up- except, of course, for the fact that he plays that part very well.

By: Clendenin

Clendenin — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:38:34 +0000

My pal grumpypilgrim: You obviously only read what you wanted to read because my last statement clearly said that had it been up to me we would have quit after Afganistan. How much clearer can I be? I think Iraq was a mistake as well. As one who has actually lived in the middle east in Saudi Arabia, I understand muslims fairly well. I knew that the Sunnis, Sheites, and Kurds would never agree on anything and that it would very probably be a disaster after the initial conflict was over. Most Americans do not understand the Muslims not only hate the West they also hate each other very, very much.

Yes, I agree money is to be watched and that yes much of what happens is because of it. Again…….you are bent on making your point about Bush/Cheney and…..so be it. I also made it clear that we nead to get away from the “money” and this two party system that is so glued to the “money”.

If we keep the status quo that the Democrats and Republicans give us, then we all deserve exactly what we will get.

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:26:06 +0000

Clendenin writes: “As to the wether Bush has done a good job protecting us since the 9/11 attacks, I just disagree. With all his faults, I think he has tried hard to do what he thought was right and that homeland security has been as good as could be expected.”

As with all politics, Clendenin, it helps to follow the money. Two U.S. industries have earned obscene profits as a result of Bush’s invasion of Iraq: the oil industry and the defense industry. Bush comes from the oil industry and Cheney comes from the defense industry. Do you think this is a coincidence or do you think Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq because they knew it would be a gigantic financial windfall for their pals? Before you answer this question, go see the documentary, “Iraq For Sale,” which highlights just a fraction of the tidal wave of money that has flooded into the pockets of Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton.

You claim Bush “has done a good job protecting us since the 9/11 attacks,” but that question obviously cannot be adequately answered without addressing the cost/benefit of his effort. What return to you see from the hundreds of billions of dollars, the years of human effort, and the tens of thousands of destroyed lives Bush has spent to invade and occupy Iraq? Looking toward the future, how many future terrorists do you think will find motivation to kill Americans because of the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the millions of Iraqi refugees, caused by Bush’s unnecessary invasion? Before you say Bush “has done a good job,” you need to answer these questions.

By: Clendenin

Clendenin — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:14:24 +0000

Grumpypilgrim: You have to understand that I was comenting on the topic at hand as to wether or not G W is suffering from some kind of dementia. I brought up 9/11 only to say that he has been president unders some trying circumstances. Of course the people of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and if I had my way, we would have been done after Afganistan. I don’t blindly follow either the republican or demacrat platforms. If anything, I would assert that we are being ruled by the super weatlthy and that it is time for the middle class to abandon this two party system so entrenched in power. I generally vote populist or Libretarian, even if I dont agree with all of their platform just to try to swing us away from the present two party system.

As to the wether Bush has done a good job protecting us since the 9/11 attacks, I just disagree. With all his faults, I think he has tried hard to do what he thought was right and that homeland security has been as good as could be expected. We are still very vulnerable, as we all know. The media is filled with Islamist fanatic lunacy everyday, it does not just come from the present administration. Everyone wants to slant things their way, of course.

I do think that G W is a Christian and yes, that means something to me wether I agree with all his polocies or not. You can always question someones true commitment, but I will leave that to someone higher up than I.

If I could say anything or true value it would be that we really, really need to get away from our present two party system and try to change it so that someone who is not “super wealthy” has a shot a being the president of this great nation.

By: Blackbyrd2

Blackbyrd2 — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:01:52 +0000

Vicki: Well, I tried to do less to divide and more to unify. As it stands now, the neocons generally view the country as those who support Bush blindly, like they do, and terrorist loving traitors. Rove and the GOP have done a great job of dividing the country already. While I find it disturbing that so many are incapable of seeing anything but black and white, I want to try to fight this division. We (meaning the USA) can’t afford this kind of splintering. The instigation of that mindset alone should be a prosecutable crime, IMO. And the irony is not lost on me that Bush claims to be a uniter, not a divider, and yet his administration has done more to divide this country than anything since slavery. Although that irony IS usually lost on the neocons, for some reason, even as they act out that division.
I also noticed the comment about how ‘WE’ elected him. I figured if I noted that ‘I’ didn’t vote for him either time, everything else would get overlooked.

By: Vicki Baker

Vicki Baker — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:57:50 +0000

For those who think that we should obey him simply because he is our president,

I think you’re missing the intonation by those who use that term. It’s not “he’s our president”, it’s “he’s our president.”

By: Blackbyrd2

Blackbyrd2 — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:01:57 +0000

For those who think that we should obey him simply because he is our president, and that he should be above questioning, I would like to point out that it is our civic duty as patriots to question those we place in positions of power. Unquestioning obedience is great if you want to be a sheep, but the fact remains that whether or not you participate in your government, you are responsible for everything it does. If you fail to speak out when those in power abuse that power, you are as guilty as they are, and should face the same consequences.

I will say that we should respect the office, but that does not mean blind obedience and unswerving acceptance of the man’s every act and statement.

Many people are dead, and more will die, simply because he used his power for his own personal agenda. He has repeatedly undermined the Constitution of the US, which he swore to uphold and protect. It seems to me that oath-breaking is a serious business. Why else would we have them sworn?

To say that the ‘liberals’ are out of hand in their attacks is to imply that the attacks are unworthy not on their own merits, but because of the political nature of the people who are making the attacks. The problem with that (apart from the whole fallacious reasoning aspect) is that it isn’t simply ‘the liberals’ who are making the complaints and calling foul. It’s over two thirds of the American population, which includes a good portion of the ‘neocons’ who voted for the man.

You may disaree with the tone in which these complaints are tendered, but you can not simply dismiss them because of that.

It is a fact that he has lied. It is a fact that he has undermined various aspects of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. It is a fact that he has ignored, undercut and weakened the entire Constitutional model of government, essentially cutting two entire branches off the three branches of government by the profligate use of signing statements and by manipulating his way out of, or outright ignoring his lawful restrictions.

To leave these flagrant abuses unnoted, to stand by and by our silence grant him absolution and permission to continue, is to fail in our duty as American citizens. We fail him, we fail our country, and we fail each other.