Secret Bush Tapes

[Styles 0]

Here's a little more detailed article from the Washington Post (bold mine):

 

Secret Tapes Not Meant to Harm, Writer Says

Ex-Bush Adviser Contends He Recorded Their Conversations for 'Historic' Purposes

 

By Lois Romano and Mike Allen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A02

 

A former adviser to George W. Bush said yesterday that he secretly taped Bush over a two-year period when the latter was running for president for "historic" purposes, and that he had planned eventually to give the recordings to Bush for his archives.

 

Doug Wead, 58, an author and onetime religious adviser to Bush, said in a telephone interview that after excerpts from the tapes appeared yesterday in the New York Times, he was approached by a Bush intermediary suggesting that he turn over the recordings sooner rather than later.

 

But Wead -- who used the conversations for his new book, "The Raising of a President" -- said that no one from the White House has expressed anger at him for revealing portions of the tape. Asked whether Bush would view the actions as an act of treachery from a trusted friend, Wead said, "It depends on what else is on the tapes. . . . Ninety percent of the tapes have not been heard. He can see that my motive was not to try to hurt him.

 

"If I released all the tapes, it would be an act of betrayal," Wead said. "Most of them have never seen the light of day and never will."

 

The excerpts obtained by the Times and ABC show the aspiring president privately as he likes to portray himself publicly: very religious, very conservative -- and tolerant. Bush also seems to infer on one tape that he has tried marijuana, which he has never admitted publicly. Wead, who worked briefly in the White House for Bush's father, spoke to George W. Bush regularly by phone from 1998 through the 2000 presidential campaign, recording most of those conversations. The recordings show the evolution of Bush's political thinking on dealing with the religious right, as well as how he would handle rumors about his drinking and drug use.

 

"The cocaine thing, let me tell you my strategy on that," Bush said on the tape, according to a transcript posted on ABC's "Good Morning America" Web site. "Rather than saying no -- I think it's time for someone to draw the line and look people in the eye and say, you know, 'I'm not going to participate in ugly rumors about me and blame my opponent,' and hold the line. Stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on."

 

On the question of marijuana use, Bush says, "Do you want your little kid to say, 'Hey Daddy, President Bush tried marijuana; I think I will.' . . . I wouldn't answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

 

At another point, Bush said of the rumors about him: "It's unbelievable. They just float sewer out there."

 

Response from the White House yesterday about the tapes was low-key, with senior aides declining to comment or criticize Wead. White House officials said yesterday that Bush did not know he was being recorded, but did not dispute the authenticity of the tapes. Press secretary Scott McClellan characterized the conversations as "casual conversations that then-Governor Bush was having with someone he thought was a friend."

 

Both Wead and the White House said Wead and Bush have not talked in several years. Asked whether he had recorded anyone else, Wead said, "I don't want to go there at all. I am hoping I can legally get rid of some of these." He said he made the tapes in Texas, where it is legal to record telephone conversations as long as one party is aware of it.Wead now lives in Haymarket, Va.

 

Wead is well-connected in the evangelical community and served a stint in the George H.W. Bush administration as a liaison to the religious right. But he was pushed out of the elder Bush's White House after he wrote a letter complaining that representatives of the gay community had been invited to the White House for a bill signing.

 

During the 2000 presidential campaign, aides to then-Gov. Bush were wary of Wead. Wead told The Washington Post in 2000 that top Bush political adviser Karl Rove made it clear to Wead that he did not approve of Wead's interference. About the same time, a close Bush adviser told The Post that Wead was not close to Bush.

 

Nonetheless, Bush continued to call Wead from the road, Wead told The Post in 1999 and 2000. Wead said at the time that he was making notes of Bush's conversations, but did not mention to The Post that he was also taping them.

 

Yesterday, Wead said in the interview that he began just taking notes, and initially started recording Bush so that he could remember their conversations in case the candidate wanted him to follow up on anything. He also said that he thought Bush might ask him to write a quick biography to counter what the candidate fretted would be negative biographies.

 

"He's a figure of history, like a Churchill," added Wead. "I see him as a pivotal figure. I love him."

 

Wead's newly published book is about the parents of presidents, not just Bush. He said that he had never intended the tapes to become public, but that his publisher, Simon & Schuster, asked to hear them for libel reasons. He said after he played them for his editors, he was contacted by the Times and agreed to play portions for a reporter.

 

On the tapes, Bush touts John D. Ashcroft as a possible running mate or attorney general, maintains that primary opponent John McCain "will wear thin" over time, and refers to another opponent, Steve Forbes, as "mean-spirited," according to the Times.

 

The conversations spend much time on Bush's religious beliefs and his courting of the evangelical right. At one point, according to the Times report, Bush seemed concerned that evangelicals wanted him to come out publicly against homosexuality.

 

"I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Bush said after meeting high-profile Texas preacher James Robison.

 

The future president said he told Robison, " 'Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?' "

 

Referring to one conservative group, Bush said, "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

 

Wead said he first met George W. Bush in 1987, when George H.W. Bush was running for president, and Wead was a liaison with the religious community. "Apparently George W. was auditing some of the memos I was sending to his father," Wead told public television's "Frontline." "I knew that his father was vetting my memos with somebody. I suspected it was Billy Graham. It had to be someone sharp who understood evangelical Christianity. . . . George W. said, 'I've been reading your memorandum. Good stuff, Wead. I'm taking you over. You report to me.' So that was that."

 

It's legal in Texas to record if ONE party is aware? Well, gee that doesn't sounds very fair. Its obvious this guy is using this to make a buck on his book, and sounds like your typical evangelical extremist, possibly shunned because the President isn't as outspoken against gays as he would like. Ridiculous not the less.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I honestly don't care about Bush's pot use, as I don't care about any other politician's. Even in the context of his family values campaign, I still have to try very hard to care.

 

But the local news report about this was incredibly funny. They talked to the head of the San Francisco Republican Party (now there's a futile cause if I've ever heard of one) and he said "There's nothing in these tapes that says he did pot. He said he made some youthful indescretions and he doesn't want kids doing them. He doesn't say he's done pot."

 

I swear I'm not making that up.

 

Of course, Bush does sound in private just as he sounds in public. That's a good thing.

If you're curious about Bush in "private" go listen to him buddy-buddy with Carl Cameron of Fox News in that video clip. The best part is when the live feed starts rolling on national TV they stop talking about each other's families and wives and how Cameron's wife is campaigning for Bush, and suddently start acting like two serious people who only know each other on a professional level.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And fuck his one-time "friend".

-=Mike

You know, I wouldn't laugh at this line. But that these tapes says nothing that almost nobody didn't already assume (or worse, hello cocaine,) and that you respond to these tapes in such a method but stood by SwiftVets through thick and thin and all their namecalling..

 

Well, LOL.

 

 

But Wead is a fuckhead, if only for being a tool between the religious right and Washington.

 

Bush touts John D. Ashcroft as a possible running mate

 

[Guest MikeSC]

the guy also said he only released 10% of the recordings to the public, so you never know what is on the rest.

 

Also, I think the tape exposes Bush's faith as cold, political calculation at the least.

Ah, so one cannot be Christian in your world without hating gays? One cannot court a group without kissing their collective ass?

 

Sad. Just sad.

No, because then later on when you write the book about what's on the rest of the tapes nobody will care to buy it.

Because the psychotic Bush-haters wouldn't buy the book if they knew what was in it beforehand.

 

No chance AT ALL.

If you're curious about Bush in "private" go listen to him buddy-buddy with Carl Cameron of Fox News in that video clip. The best part is when the live feed starts rolling on national TV they stop talking about each other's families and wives and how Cameron's wife is campaigning for Bush, and suddently start acting like two serious people who only know each other on a professional level.

I suppose you have a point to this. I wish you'd have made it, but I'm sure you think you have something solid here.

You know, I wouldn't laugh at this line. But that these tapes says nothing that almost nobody didn't already assume (or worse, hello cocaine,) and that you respond to these tapes in such a method but stood by SwiftVets through thick and thin and all their namecalling..

The SBVT, much as you wish to proclaim otherwise, have yet to be proven wrong (BTW, Kerry has STILL yet to release his records --- odd, huh?). They had a problem with what Kerry said about them when he came back to America and slandered the vets in Vietnam.

 

When has Bush ever uttered one word about his shitbrick of a "friend"?

 

I hope the book deal is worth it, because he gave up his soul for it.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The SBVT, much as you wish to proclaim otherwise, have yet to be proven wrong

For that matter, they still have yet to be proven right.

 

I hope the book deal is worth it, because he gave up his soul for it.

 

Here comes one of those long run-on questions that I hate to write but have to:

 

 

If we knew each other and were friends (a stretch, I know, but let's continue on it..), I was publically known as someone who kicked some bad habits, and a lot of people had already made some assumptions about what those were, and you said something that alluded that I may have tried (not regularly used, but tried) something that was nowhere near as bad as what a lot of people thought I was doing, exactly how damning is that?

 

A breach of trust? Sure. Black-hearted backstabbing? I disagree.

 

If this was being revealed about any regular person in the country, you wouldn't give a shit. Even if it was about someone famous instead of an average Joe, like a professional athelete or a world-famous movie star, you still wouldn't give a shit. The only reason this guy "gave up his soul" in your opinion is because he's causing political damage to a Republican.

[NoCalMike 0]

Dunno how the SBVT got into this, but those guys are the ones throwing around silly accusations, thus the burden of proof is on them, obviously.

[Guest MikeSC]

The SBVT, much as you wish to proclaim otherwise, have yet to be proven wrong

For that matter, they still have yet to be proven right.

Kerry has already had to go back on his Cambodia story. And he claimed he released all of his records, only to later admit that he did not --- and has not. Nobody argues any longer that Kerry did not get Purple Hearts for some real sketchy "injuries".

I hope the book deal is worth it, because he gave up his soul for it.

Here comes one of those long run-on questions that I hate to write but have to:

 

If we knew each other and were friends (a stretch, I know, but let's continue on it..), I was publically known as someone who kicked some bad habits, and a lot of people had already made some assumptions about what those were, and you said something that alluded that I may have tried (not regularly used, but tried) something that was nowhere near as bad as what a lot of people thought I was doing, exactly how damning is that?

You don't see anything wrong with secretly taping a "friend" (Bush was unaware of it, let's keep it in mind) for years and then releasing the tapes without even informing your "friend" that you taped him in the first place?

 

Pretty low.

If this was being revealed about any regular person in the country, you wouldn't give a shit. Even if it was about someone famous instead of an average Joe, like a professional athelete or a world-famous movie star, you still wouldn't give a shit. The only reason this guy "gave up his soul" in your opinion is because he's causing political damage to a Republican.

He hasn't caused an iota of damage to Bush.

 

Linda Tripp was DEMONIZED by people like you for considerably less. Considerably less.

Dunno how the SBVT got into this, but those guys are the ones throwing around silly accusations, thus the burden of proof is on them, obviously.

Kerry had to change his Cambodia story. Kerry had to admit that he hasn't released all of his records.

 

SBVT hasn't had to change one single aspect of his story.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

The tapes were recorded from 1998 to 2000. Either the guy's psychic or the Karl Rove P.R. machine got an earlier start than I'd previously thought.

 

I think he means, "now that Bush BECAME president, I think he's a historic figure and that's why I'm releasing these tapes."

I think you're wrong.

 

He was answering a question about why he recorded them in the first place, not why he released them.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Nobody argues any longer that Kerry did not get Purple Hearts for some real sketchy "injuries".

PROOF?

 

 

None!

 

What'd I tell ya!? Yes, while Kerry was forced to try and come up to some solid conclusion on his ever-changing Cambodia story, there hasn't been any documents or articles revealed that collaborate a good many of their stories. In fact, the evidence points the other way, craftily covered up with the claim that Kerry wrote everything that ever collaborated what happened in the war involving himself and everyone near him.

 

Linda Tripp was DEMONIZED by people like you for considerably less. Considerably less.

 

Would you please care to tell me the differences? Wikipedia's entry makes it sound like she recorded them while at work and without the knowledge of either party, I can't see how that's "considerably less."

[SuperJerk 0]

Nobody argues any longer that Kerry did not get Purple Hearts for some real sketchy "injuries".

PROOF?

 

 

None!

 

What'd I tell ya!? Yes, while Kerry was forced to try and come up to some solid conclusion on his ever-changing Cambodia story, there hasn't been any documents or articles revealed that collaborate a good many of their stories. In fact, the evidence points the other way, craftily covered up with the claim that Kerry wrote everything that ever collaborated what happened in the war involving himself and everyone near him.

http://factcheck.org/article231.html

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

While we're on the subject, check out this new attack ad on the AARP from the folks who brought you SBVT (ad from American Spectator site):

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

hahaha. Is the image on the right the same one from the "Bible = BANNED" ad the GOP sent out?

[Guest MikeSC]

Nobody argues any longer that Kerry did not get Purple Hearts for some real sketchy "injuries".

PROOF?

 

 

None!

Eyewitness testimony tends to be admissible in court.

 

Just saying.

What'd I tell ya!? Yes, while Kerry was forced to try and come up to some solid conclusion on his ever-changing Cambodia story, there hasn't been any documents or articles revealed that collaborate a good many of their stories.

They were there. They reported on what they saw. Again, eyewitness testimony tends to hold up nicely in court.

In fact, the evidence points the other way, craftily covered up with the claim that Kerry wrote everything that ever collaborated what happened in the war involving himself and everyone near him.

And considering that he pulled off thre purple hearts without one moment in a hospital. Considering that his COMMANDING OFFICER corroborated most of the SBVT reports.

 

If you wish to ignore that on behalf of a man who lied about releasing all of his records (he hasn't), lied about a promise to do so (promised on MTP when he poo-pooed the Iraqi elections), and had to admit lying about a memory that was "seared" into his brain, feel free.

Linda Tripp was DEMONIZED by people like you for considerably less. Considerably less.

Would you please care to tell me the differences? Wikipedia's entry makes it sound like she recorded them while at work and without the knowledge of either party, I can't see how that's "considerably less."

She has stated, repeatedly, she feared legal problems due to being asked to lie under oath. Bush's "friend's" reason to release tapes he taped over two years is...what?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

She has stated, repeatedly, she feared legal problems due to being asked to lie under oath. Bush's "friend's" reason to release tapes he taped over two years is...what?

 

Dolla dolla bill, y'all.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Eyewitness testimony tends to be admissible in court.

 

Just saying.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

They were there. They reported on what they saw. Again, eyewitness testimony tends to hold up nicely in court.

 

Election season attack ads, however, do not.

 

This isn't really about what did or didn't happen or who saw whom do what. This is about what the public saw, and what the public saw wasn't court testimony, what the public saw was election season attack ads, where you can get away saying anything you want about a candidate.

 

She has stated, repeatedly, she feared legal problems due to being asked to lie under oath.

 

About what? I'm genuinely asking you as a favor here since I actively ignored Monicagate. A mix of being a young teenager and feeling that although he probably was having an affair, there wasn't any reason to give half a shit about it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

While we're on the subject, check out this new attack ad on the AARP from the folks who brought you SBVT...

Didn't know there were that many old gay people that wanted to get married...

[Guest MikeSC]

Eyewitness testimony tends to be admissible in court.

 

Just saying.

That doesn't answer the question.

We have two versions of a story. One from a guy who has lied about being in Cambodia, lied about releasing his records, lied about crimes in Vietnam, etc. One from guys whose group received money from a Republican. In a he said/she said type of situation, Kerry doesn't have the personal integrity to resolve the question.

 

He COULD have released all of his records --- but he opted not to.

They were there. They reported on what they saw. Again, eyewitness testimony tends to hold up nicely in court.

 

Election season attack ads, however, do not.

 

This isn't really about what did or didn't happen or who saw whom do what. This is about what the public saw, and what the public saw wasn't court testimony, what the public saw was election season attack ads, where you can get away saying anything you want about a candidate.

Seeing as how the book was predicated on sworn affidavits, you're actually incorrect.

She has stated, repeatedly, she feared legal problems due to being asked to lie under oath.

About what? I'm genuinely asking you as a favor here since I actively ignored Monicagate. A mix of being a young teenager and feeling that although he probably was having an affair, there wasn't any reason to give half a shit about it.

She says she was being asked to state that nothing was happening between Monica and Bill.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Seeing as how the book was predicated on sworn affidavits, you're actually incorrect.

 

Many of the alledged eye witnesses, including Kerry's commanding officer, have been discredited or retracted their story.

 

 

One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

 

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

 

What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

 

In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:

 

George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

 

In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:

 

Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

 

Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John  F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

 

Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

 

credit: http://factcheck.org/article231.html

 

I read the Boston Globe story myself around the time it was published.

 

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

 

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

 

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

 

Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . .  were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

 

A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

 

The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post   reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."

 

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

 

Yup.

 

Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.”  However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 .  The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

 

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

 

This one's my favorite.

 

Also appearing in the ad is  Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

 

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

 

Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

 

Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want

 

Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US.

 

As far as I'm concerned, they can take their sworn affidavits and shove them up their collective asses.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Seeing as how the book was predicated on sworn affidavits, you're actually incorrect.

There's far more incorrect shit in the book than they had anywhere else. I will not go into it with you because we've ran around it time and time again and now that the election is over there's little reason to.

 

She says she was being asked to state that nothing was happening between Monica and Bill.

 

Oh...

[Gary Floyd 0]

I don't care what's on the tapes, or if Bush smoked pot. I just hope he says something like "Boobies" on the tapes

[Guest MikeSC]

Seeing as how the book was predicated on sworn affidavits, you're actually incorrect.

There's far more incorrect shit in the book than they had anywhere else. I will not go into it with you because we've ran around it time and time again and now that the election is over there's little reason to.

Do so.

 

"They didn't serve on Kerry's boat" --- well, except for that Gardner fella, who was Kerry's gunner and served with Kerry longer than anybody.

 

Oh, and the knowledge that swift boats didn't operate ALONE is apparently lost on folks.

 

Kerry could answer a lot of questions by releasing the records he claimed he released long ago during the campaign --- but later admitted he did not.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This poll is kinda funny, and I didn't think it warranted its own thread:

 

http://starrcenter.washcoll.edu/poll/gw_poll_results.pdf

 

Q12. If G.W. Bush ran against George Washington today, for whom would you vote?

 

Republicans

Washington 28%

Bush 62%

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well George W., err, Washington, did look to be a bit on the fairy side, what with that hair and all. I bet he went to Valley Forge just to be close to all those men.

 

"Hold me closer Thomas, you wouldn't want me to freeze now, would you?..."

 

[Boon 0]

My beef w/ Washington is that he didn't really want to be President, especially for as long as he was. I think he gets a wrap as a great President b/c he was the first and therefore the model for the next dozen or so Presidents, by default. Not to say that he didn't do good things, but I don't buy this notion that he was the best ever.

 

A 2002 ranking from the Siena Research Institute ranks Washington as #4, behind F. Roosevelt #1, Lincoln #2 and T. Roosevelt #3.

[Guest MikeSC]

This poll is kinda funny, and I didn't think it warranted its own thread:

 

http://starrcenter.washcoll.edu/poll/gw_poll_results.pdf

 

Q12. If G.W. Bush ran against George Washington today, for whom would you vote?

 

Republicans

Washington 28%

Bush 62%

http://www.clovisnews.com/trails/greatest.html

 

Apparently, Clinton is greater than FDR and Washington.

 

Do you really want to argue that conservatives are the only ones without appreciation for history?

My beef w/ Washington is that he didn't really want to be President, especially for as long as he was. I think he gets a wrap as a great President b/c he was the first and therefore the model for the next dozen or so Presidents, by default. Not to say that he didn't do good things, but I don't buy this notion that he was the best ever.

Washington could have become a king, if he desired. He did not.

 

The Presidential cabinet? Washington invented the idea. It was definitely not mentioned in the Constitution last time I checked.

-=Mike

[Boon 0]

Washington could have become a king, if he desired. He did not.

Yeah- I get that. I'm just saying he gets props for doing something he didn't even want to do. Just seems kinda weak, to me.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Do you really want to argue that conservatives are the only ones without appreciation for history?

 

Yeah, cuz that's what I said.

[Guest MikeSC]

Do you really want to argue that conservatives are the only ones without appreciation for history?

 

Yeah, cuz that's what I said.

Then you're a fucking idiot.

-=Mike

...Notice that Clinton was ranked ahead of FDR, Truman, etc? I thought not...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Do you really want to argue that conservatives are the only ones without appreciation for history?

 

Yeah, cuz that's what I said.

Then you're a fucking idiot.

-=Mike

...Notice that Clinton was ranked ahead of FDR, Truman, etc? I thought not...

Sarcasm is lost on some people I guess.

 

You put in words in my mouth in your previous post. Thanks for the unwarranted flame though, sweetie!

 

-=Smitty

...Loves how you insult other people's intelligence constantly but your principle debate tactic is...wait for it...

 

Name calling.