Can any of the 14 faculty members objecting to Mr Bush’s visit state ONE specific civil liberty THEY have lost since his presidency began? It is a smear to lump disagreements with the Iraq policy with policies having no proof in point. Please, name just ONE civil libery they have lost! ANYONE? Will anyone at Fox Pose the question?

There is a back-story at Furman involving presidential arrogance —
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/imperial-presidency-is-contagious/

What a shame that the faculty has neither integrity nor good manners. Perhaps a copy of the original Emily Post would improve their petty and childish behavior, and help them to learn civilized living.

It is a shame to see such a lack of respect for our President. We are all for free speech, but sometimes discretion and civility should take priority over expressing ourselves. The right of free speech was certainly abused when these faculty stood in opposition of Pres. Bush. Very un-American if I may say so.

I agree with Dale. I would like for someone to share with me ONE specific civil liberity they have lost since Bush took office. It seems to me that the only one that can say their civil liberities is under attack is My President.

r.d.

We did a preemptive attack on Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction and found none. The Germans and Russians and French said BEFORE the attack that their weren’t any WMD and they were right. Emily Post does not apply. Can you imagine someone saying that Hitler should be treated without any critique and without even silent objection? I know that Hitler is a lot worse than Bush, but he is the last leader who invaded a country preemptively. He said that Poland was planning to attack Germany. He made that up and invaded them and, guess what, his “intelligence” was wrong. Have you seen the deficit? It is approaching ten trillion dollars. True conservatives would be critical of this fact. At least silent objection.

I beg to disagree. Both our intel and British intel concurred on the existence of WMD’s. If you’re planning military action you do not rely on info provided by others. Our intelligence services and those of our closest allies were in complete agreement. They were wrong. I must however, draw attention to several other salient points that are frequently overlooked in the ‘Bush lied’ spew. 1) Iraq was in violation of UN inspection resolutions for at least a DECADE. Hussein had stymied all attempts by UN inspectors to examine possible stockpiles and had a history of deception as far as WMD’s are concerned. 2) As a matter of record, he used chemical agents in his war with Iran and on the Kurds in the north. 3) You make a point of mentioning Hitler. If you know anything at all about the Iraqi regime prior to the invasion, then you know that Hussein would place well in the “Top Ten most evil men of all time” list. Iraqis were volunteering by the score to be the one lucky enough to flip the switch. I must paraphrase a quote from history, though I’m unsure of the original author, ‘For evil to triumph, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing.’

R.D., I believe the there are plenty of other invasions since Hitler over the last sixty years that would make your point laughable. The most notable and applicable being Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. He signed a cease-fire agreement to fully comply with UN demands that he disclose his WMD stockpiles and programs immediately following the 1991 Gulf War. He didn’t do that. Once he busted that agreement, he opened himself and his country to possible re-attack. But, the UN to include the U.S. spent the next 12 years passing 17 resolutions asking him to come clean. When he didn’t, and the possibility of any material or programs that he might have involving WMD might fall into a terrorist’s hands came up, someone had to make a decision and say enough is enough. If those countries you cited really believed he didn’t have WMDs, why did they overwhelmingly pass a resolution asking him to divulge any info on his programs?

I do agree with you on your last point. The size and expenditures of our government makes me sick. President Bush did not do an effective job on controlling spending. But, the money we are spending on winning this overall war to include Iraq is worth. The millions we spend on studying mating habits of numerous animals is not.

Saddam did not invade Kuwait preemptively, to prevent an attack. We and Nazi Germany are the last two countries to invade a country to preempt at attack only to find out the intelligence was “wrong”. I’ll bet you guys defended the money spent on “star wars defense 20 years ago. Guess what that money is gone too. It went to the same guys who are now lining their pockets in Iraq. I agree don’t spend money on welfare or animal mating, but be a true fiscal conservative and say don’t spend any money that is not in the budget. PERIOD!!!! Unless conservatives begin to care about the deficit next time you will be defending the Jeb Bush and his boondongle. They are counting on the fact that you don’t care about the deficit. Democrats don’t care and liberals don’t care, but unless conservatives begin to care, nothing will be done. The buck stops with the president.

In the last three republican administrations we have had 4 times the deficit spending of ALL OF THE OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED. THAT IS GOING BACK TO GEORGE WASHINGTON!!! THAT INCLUDES TWO WORLD WARS. There is always an excuse. If you were running your household this way you and your offspring would be broke. Its like you sent 83 dollars to pay your gas bill and they withdrew 73000 dollars and you then YOU DEFENDED THEM. DUDES YOU JUST GOT YOUR POCKETS PICKED—AGAIN.

source for deficit FACTS: http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

Yes taxes will be higher under Obama or Clinton Thats not the freakin point. I am not on their side. Hold the president accountable for the deficit or it will happen YET again. ‘For evil to triumph, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing.’ C’mon good men. Do something.

One more time. Saddam Hussein broke the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement. That breach by Hussein means countries (like us) who signed the agreement with him reserve the right to RESUME HOSTILITIES. There was no pre-emption. This guy was actively targeting and occasionally firing at our aircraft trying to enforce 2 no-fly zones that the UN imposed on Iraq. He was openly signing $25,000 checks to families of homicide bombers in Palestine. His desire to work with terrorists and his history of using WMD is not something you simply ignore. He thumbed his nose for 12 years while the UN (to include us) tried to work nicely to him. Let me guess, he was just misunderstood right? Maybe if we had been nice to him, he’d be a pottery maker in Tikrit right now. Or maybe he could’ve been a social worker helping the inner city youth in Mosul. People with this mindset that if we just stick our heads in the sand everything will go away are scary. They are not dealing with reality, period!

As to the discussion about out-of-control spending. Yes, George Bush should have used that veto pen almost everyday. Does the sole responsibility lie with him or any President for that matter though? No. Congress controls the purse strings, not the executive branch. Its not just taxes that will be higher with Obama or Clinton. Spending will only increase and government will only get bigger, not smaller. Remember, revenues for the government went up under George Bush while he cut taxes. But spending also went up and that’s where we went wrong. What these 2 democrats are advocating through new programs and higher taxes is less money for the individual during a time with ballooning costs. How do you think the average person will be doing with less money in their pocket than they have now? I’m all for reducing governement and putting it back to work doing what its supposed to do. Provide a safe and secure environment for us to live in. Nothing more, nothing less.