Look at his Friends

There is a Japanese proverb that says, “When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.” There are many people in our country who have not seen George W. Bush for the person he is. So maybe it will help to take a look at his friends.

Bush took with him from Texas to the White House a cadre of friends who had been with him for years including Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Scott McClellan, Karen Hughes, Margaret Spellings, etc. Once in Washington, he gathered around him Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell among others. In addition, he allied himself with Vladimir Putin after “Look[ing] the man in the eye” and “[getting] a sense of his soul.”

Now, as seen through the proverb, which I believe is very applicable in most cases, how should one judge Bush? Among this group of friends and hand-picked associates and advisers are liars, connivers, deceivers, law breakers, alleged murderers, etc. They have engineered a war that has killed more than 3000 Americans, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, destroyed the moral authority of the U.S., and made the world a more dangerous place. They have repeatedly broken the law in the name of “fighting terrorism” and sent proxies to pay their penalties. They have obfuscated, altered and blatantly hidden information that would hinder their march toward their twisted political goals. They have consistently and openly repudiated the will, needs, and safety of the majority for the benefit of their wealthy friends and supporters.

So, looking at his friends, what is the character of George W. Bush?


Reluctant says:

You do a lot of name calling without any evidence. You call them liars, connivers (which I say… uh yeah… they are in Politics/Washington), law breakers and alleged murderers, but don’t give any references.

Come on… where’s the evidence of such dastardly friends?

Centrist says:

Dan, do you live in the same world I do? Where on earth do you get your news from? For a few citations you can refer to: 1) [deceivers] the Defense Department’s Inspector General’s report on pre-war intelligence and how it was manipulated under direction from the Veep’s office–that’s their own guy; 2) [law breakers] the fact that the White House has agreed to conform to FISA rules for domestic wire-tapping–why? because the way they were doing it was illegal; 3) [liars] Gonzalez stated before Congress he would never remove a USA for political reasons–the paper trail contradicts this; 4) [alleged murderers] this was primarily aimed at Putin whom many accuse of ordering hits on opposition journalists and former KGB agents, but additionally many in the Bush administration are being targeted for indictment for war crimes in various countries around the world ( see http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070311/19lawfare.htm). Moreover, I think that faking a justification for a war that has killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis could be legally proven as negligent homicide.

Reluctant says:

I believe we live in the same world… but perhaps not the same country. In my country, people are innocent until proven guilty. Each point of “evidence” you indicate is merely an allegation and one brought on by the extreme left at that.

I will leave it at that. It’s obvious that you are unwilling to look at other’s points of view. You continue to get your news from the extreme left and discount any other source.

Centrist says:

Dan, I’m not convicting them; I’m simply stating what I think. Thank goodness I live in the same country you do where the media is free to report on the dastardly deeds of government officials and where I am free to call them what I think they are.

Regarding the evidence I bring up, the murder thing is legally pretty flimsy; I’ll leave that in the hands of God. The DOD IG’s (I wouldn’t call him “the extreme left”) report is available for all to see at http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdf. The statements by Gonzales and everything surrounding his firing of 8 USAs is public knolwedge as is the wire-tapping issue.

I get my new primarily from U.S. News & World Report, Yahoo! and Reuters on the Internet, and NPR. Before you go off on NPR’s liberal bias, take a look at these two stories: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180 & http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/12/29/02. I’m very willing to look at others’ points of view. And the conclusion I draw is the one that seems most solid and reasonable to me. Try NPR for a week (not from Mar. 22-30; it’s pledge week); you’ll never go back.

Just curious, what centrist outlets do you get your news from?

Centrist says:

Another thing about the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra, this doesn’t mean that accusations cannot be levied. In fact, no one would ever be “proven guilty” if we didn’t have the right to investigate, accuse, indict and try. According to your reasoning, because Bill Clinton was never “proven guilty” of his high crimes and misdemeanors, he’s “innocent” and we should ignore all the allegations and evidence against him. Does that also go for OJ Simpson, Al Capone, etc., etc.? Our freedom of speech is an integral part of our judicial system as well as our democracy.

Centrist says:

Paul Wolfowitz, one of the original neo-cons and former deputy Secretary of War under Rumsfeld, admitted today that he used his influence as the new head of the World Bank to get his girlfriend and inordinate raise and a promotion, along with a temporary position at the State Department. And the snowball keeps growing . . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.