Looks like Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives" is nothing more than BS.

[Addendum]

Founding members of SBVT include Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (retired), a former commander of Swift boat forces; Houston attorney John O'Neill, an officer who became commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 several months after Kerry's departure in 1969 and who appeared opposite Kerry in a televised 1971 debate between them on The Dick Cavett Show; and 13 other named veterans. Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. SBVT counts, in total, 16 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members

 

[lazur]

ummm, yeah, it's "referenced", but there's no link to the actual letter. how do we know what was said in it? he could have been genuinely happy with the experience and still thought favorably of bush when leaving, but that doesn't mean that the things he's accusing the administration of didn't happen. that's a weak argument.

So, did you read the book? I mean, the article only references the book, as it does the letter, but you're okay with not reading the book and just believing the article, but when it comes to the letter (also referenced by the article), you have to read that to believe it?

Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[maxwell's demon]

I guess it depends on what you *think* you're being lied to about? I mean, if you don't really know the truth (or the whole story), how can you know you're being lied to?

by the fact that the rationale seems to continually shift

 

[lazur]

Founding members of SBVT include Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (retired), a former commander of Swift boat forces; Houston attorney John O'Neill, an officer who became commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 several months after Kerry's departure in 1969 and who appeared opposite Kerry in a televised 1971 debate between them on The Dick Cavett Show; and 13 other named veterans. Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. SBVT counts, in total, 16 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members

The photo Kerry used has 20 officers in it (including himself). Of those 20, 16 were opposed to Kerry.

 

[sinewave]

So, did you read the book? I mean, the article only references the book, as it does the letter, but you're okay with not reading the book and just believing the article, but when it comes to the letter (also referenced by the article), you have to read that to believe it?

Sounds like a double standard to me.

i read snippets from the book and saw a couple of interviews with the guy.

 

[Addendum]

They didn't convince me. So it's pointless.

 

[lazur]

by the fact that the rationale seems to continually shift

Or it could be considered "adaptive", as many wartime situations are.

Depends on how you look at it, I guess.

 

[lazur]

i read snippets from the book and saw a couple of interviews with the guy.

You bought the book? Interesting indeed ... and convenient.

Snow read from what he called a "very warm letter" Kuo wrote to Bush when he left the White House. Kuo told the president he was proud of what the initiative had accomplished and said "it's your staff's keen awareness of your unwavering support for this initiative that's made the difference."

Snow concluded that the reports on the book "seem at odds with what he was saying inside the building at the time he departed."

Tony Snow has a copy of the letter and read part of it to the audience. You could always write to him and ask him to share it. I mean, since Kuo hasn't denied the existence of the letter, I'm assuming that the letter therefore exists.

Or are you saying that there is no such letter?

 

[maxwell's demon]

Or it could be considered "adaptive", as many wartime situations are.

Depends on how you look at it, I guess.

once again, it's how much 'benefit of the doubt' are you willing to grant.

what i do sometimes, is i take a step back. I ignore all rhetoric, regardless of content. All jsutificiations, all defenses, all of it.

I step back and i just ask myself,"how are the hard physical resources being re-allocated?"
From where are the physical resources coming, and to where are they going? are they going to the hands of the many or the few?

you're a rational guy, Lazur. do you ever do that? sometimes i find it helps to cut through a lot of the BS from ALL sides.

 

[Addendum]

People can do something called "change their minds". It wouldn't be unnatural for someone to leave a slaughterhouse as a vegetarian when they weren't one before they entered.

But then, that's being a flip-flopper.

 

[sinewave]

You bought the book? Interesting indeed ... and convenient.



Tony Snow has a copy of the letter and read part of it to the audience. You could always write to him and ask him to share it. I mean, since Kuo hasn't denied the existence of the letter, I'm assuming that the letter therefore exists.

Or are you saying that there is no such letter?

no, i didn't buy the book. there's portions of it out on the web, like many other books.

so, your argument is that since kuo expressed gratitude towards bush as he left office then he must be lying because now he's got a book out that details his experiences with bush administration officials and how they ridiculed many of the evangelical christian leaders behind their backs? the small portion of the letter that snowe read from doesn't sound very detailed. how do we know that he didn't raise any concerns in that letter? how do we know he wasn't just expressing his gratitude for being given the job opportunity. i'm sure he took plenty of good things from his job, but that doesn't mean the allegations he's presenting didn't happen. you're quick to label this guy a liar yet don't think of bush as one. that makes me seriously question your judgement.

 

[lazur]

so, your argument is that since kuo expressed gratitude towards bush as he left office then he must be lying because now he's got a book out that details his experiences with bush administration officials and how they ridiculed many of the evangelical christian leaders behind their backs?

Umm, no, he didn't just "express gratitude". He PRAISED the very thing his book then criticized. He CONTRADICTED his letter with the book.

Saying to someone, "Thanks for employing me, you were great to work for" is much different than "Wow, your policies were really great, good job", after which he basically said "Your policies suck" in the book.

I can't believe you're engaging in blind partisanship and completely ignoring this very obvious contradiction from this guy. Then again, I do believe it. With you, it's pretty normal.

 

[lazur]

once again, it's how much 'benefit of the doubt' are you willing to grant.

what i do sometimes, is i take a step back. I ignore all rhetoric, regardless of content. All jsutificiations, all defenses, all of it.

I step back and i just ask myself,"how are the hard physical resources being re-allocated?"
From where are the physical resources coming, and to where are they going? are they going to the hands of the many or the few?

you're a rational guy, Lazur. do you ever do that? sometimes i find it helps to cut through a lot of the BS from ALL sides.

Of COURSE I step back. I think, if you take a sincere look here, you'll find that I don't sit here and praise everything Bush does. What I do is CALL people on the BLIND criticism they give Bush in these situations. With this whole discussion, for example, I never once said it didn't go down the way this guy says. I simply said DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS based on some guy's book, ESPECIALLY because the guy was singing a completely different tune on the same topic not too long ago.

 

[sinewave]

Umm, no, he didn't just "express gratitude". He PRAISED the very thing his book then criticized. He CONTRADICTED his letter with the book.

Saying to someone, "Thanks for employing me, you were great to work for" is much different than "Wow, your policies were really great, good job", after which he basically said "Your policies suck" in the book.

I can't believe you're engaging in blind partisanship and completely ignoring this very obvious contradiction from this guy. Then again, I do believe it. With you, it's pretty normal.

unless either of us have read the book and letter we can't say for sure what this guy experienced. claiminng i'm engaging in blind partisanship is rather hypocritical since you're taking the bush administration's side without knowing the facts yourself. besides, how would it be blind partisanship if i tend to believe the word of this guy over the bush administration's, even though both are christian conservative?

 

[Cyclops]

I love it when you guys say that two-faced duplicity is a Republican thing. It's a POLITICIAN thing. Republicans do it, democrats do it, they all do it. It's only because the republicans are in power that their duplicity gets noticed more often. That and we're a society that loves to try our hardest to bring the president down.

So yes, it's probably true that Dubya's administration was using these faith-based initiatives for political gain. Gee, what a shock. Politicians using people for political gain. That kinda stuff never happens.

 

[sinewave]

I love it when you guys say that two-faced duplicity is a Republican thing. It's a POLITICIAN thing. Republicans do it, democrats do it, they all do it. It's only because the republicans are in power that their duplicity gets noticed more often. That and we're a society that loves to try our hardest to bring the president down.

So yes, it's probably true that Dubya's administration was using these faith-based initiatives for political gain. Gee, what a shock. Politicians using people for political gain. That kinda stuff never happens.

so wise, so above it all...

 

[Cyclops]

You bet. One tends to get a more comprehensive view of politics I find when you can see both sides as the self-serving scumbags that they are.

 

[chosen1]

Why do people hate this president? I've watched every interview and despite the war this president seems pretty passionate about doing whats right.

My works as a cook in a resturant in washington and he met the president. Bush actually walked back in the kitchen and shook the hands of all the staff there. My friend had about a ten minute conversation w/ him as far as what he was studying in school and his views on certain polocies. He said that the president was for real nice not actor nice.

Is it just popular to hate this man??

 

[Darthphere]

Bush is a Reptilian, so of COURSE he played the religious zealots like a violin!

jag

One of us, one of us.

 

[sinewave]

You bet. One tends to get a more comprehensive view of politics I find when you can see both sides as the self-serving scumbags that they are.

sure, there's corruptions and *****e-baggery in both parties, but from my experience the republicans are a lot better at it. i don't like the depths they sink to to stay in power or smear the other side. just to be clear, i'm not calling all republicans slimey, but there seems to be way too many like that running our government right now.

 

[lazur]

unless either of us have read the book and letter we can't say for sure what this guy experienced. claiminng i'm engaging in blind partisanship is rather hypocritical since you're taking the bush administration's side without knowing the facts yourself. besides, how would it be blind partisanship if i tend to believe the word of this guy over the bush administration's, even though both are christian conservative?

See, this is where you're completely off the track. You sit here and say "you're taking the bush administration's side without knowing the facts yourself", which is complete bull*****.

I *never* took the Bush administration's side. ALL I DID was ask people like you not to AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME guilt where there MAY be none based on a book written by a guy who contradicted himself on the subject.

But I can see that asking people NOT to jump to conclusions is the wrong thing to do, expecially when it provides ANY kind of political ammo (however unfounded and/or unproven) to use against Bush.

Go figure.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Hmm, did anyone who is replying actually read the article? Bush himself isn't mentioned at all. There's one reference to Rove by the author, which he pretty much contradicted in his departure letter. And the other guy who said something wound up apologizing for what he said.

I'm not seeing anything more than one guy making a claim he himself contradicted earlier on. Sounds like nothing more than a guy trying to sell a "controversial" book that is anything but controversial.

But I love how the Bush detractors not *only* eat this stuff up like it's God's word (no pun intended), but also attribute what the guy's saying *directly* to Bush, when it has nothing at all to do with him in the first place.

But hey, any reason to b*tch and whine about "the republicans" is okay on this board, even if it does actually lack in substance ... so carry on.

it seriously sounds like you're taking a side.


meh.

 

[lazur]

sure, there's corruptions and *****e-baggery in both parties, but from my experience the republicans are a lot better at it. i don't like the depths they sink to to stay in power or smear the other side. just to be clear, i'm not calling all republicans slimey, but there seems to be way too many like that running our government right now.

Haven't you ever noticed that WHOMEVER is in charge is also corrupt, regardless of political party?

And you're wrong - people are people are people, regardles of political party. Being a democrat does not diminish or reduce one's chance of being "corrupt". If anything, I'd venture a guess that it increases given that democrats also reject "religious" principles - aka much of the "morality" our country was founded upon. That's not to say that all democrats are without morality, but a good many are self-admittedly "amoral", which clearly blurs the lines between "right" and "wrong".

Again, that doesn't mean they all break the law (or that most of them do), but it does shed some light on how they perceive what's right and what's wrong as it relates to "mainstream society".

 

[lazur]

it seriously sounds like you're taking a side.


meh.

Questioning the validity of a claim is not "taking a side". A little discernment on your part would do you well.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Questioning the validity of a claim is not "taking a side". A little discernment on your part would do you well.

perhaps this claim would be more valid if you applied this to your own conduct.

just saying is all.

P.S. I've always thought your named was pronounced "lah-soor" am I correct? or is it like "laser" but all l337-ified?