Col,

I'm going to put emotion aside here for a second and tell you what I feel honestly, k?

I feel it is Bush bashing, but I'm OK with that. I'm among the majority that is VERY unhappy with this president.

HOWEVER, when you make EVERYTHING out to be Bush's fault, you're going over the top. You blame him for things that happened before he ever took office. A perfect example is the recent discussion on lead. Granted, Bush may be allowing free trade to bring these products in, but he is simply following a path his predecessors set before him. China has had most favored trade nation status since Nixon, and NAFTA and GATT were signed in by Clinton.

The truth is, presidents have been betraying this nation for longer than I've been alive. Possibly longer than YOU'VE been alive, depending on how old you are.

If you looked back at all your posts, then you should have realized what an obsession you have with Bush.  Myself and others have shown how you misrepesent headlines, and do not take into account any other point of view except that "it's Bushs fault" countless times.  You blame Bush for just about everything that goes on in the world no matter how ridiculous it is.

You have repeatedly given democrats a pass, and as I predicted are now making excuses for their poor poll numbers (which is something else you make excuses for) and poor performance.  You are still quoting a mayors conference when we have showed that your "facts" are outdated and incorrect, but you still continue to cite them as accurate.  The same goes for the 40 million uninsured nonsense even though that has been debunked and broken down.

This is why nobody takes you seriously.

OK, I will give it a try, emotionless as well.

I have to agree with Gideon. You do tend to blame Bush directly for things that even he has no full control over. The problem is you make it seem as if he is not actually looking at these probelms directly when in reality that is why we have several Gov't agencies, Depts and offices. Some problems in this country can also be solved and blamed on the local Gov't but again you refuse or dismiss this and jump straight to Bush as if he claimed to be the end to all probelsm in this country when we all know that's impossible. A perfect example is the pipeline in New York. Just because the Gov't is responsible for certain parts of the infrastructure does not mean Bush is directly responsible for every infrastructure in the country. You never pointed towards the inspection people who should have given warning, you never pointed to the money that already existed to fix these problems, you never pointed to the Mayor or New York or the Governor for that matter. In any disaster situation there are many people responsible but you chose to give them all a pass and go directly to Bush as if he somehow directly oversees these problems.

If you focused you articles on voicing the problems, addressing the reason it was not prevented, pointing at all those responsible (including Bush if necessary) and describing a solution to prevent this from happening; then maybe your articles would get more positive replies, more people involved and less “it is just Bush Bashing”. But when you present the article blaming Bush as the first line or the title, and not acknowledging that there is enough blame to go around and having title for you blogg say "Bush Truth", you can't expect to get less than “it is just Bush Bashing” replies.

I'll give you an example of this. I went to the DU.com site the day the black labrador, that helped find people on 9/11, died. I found an article on that site talking about the dogs death due to cancer from breathing the air at ground zero. I wrote an article about it here. I read thru the replies where every so far was saying their goodbyes to the dog, untill I came across a person who said the dog did more good for this country than Bush has. I found it sad that on an article dedicated to the memory of a brave dog was being tainted by comparing him to Bush. Then someone else said that it was Bush's fault the dog died because he failed to give help to those who needed it, it was something about not giving the dog some kind of healthcare to save its life or something. I could not believe that someone had actually found a way to blame the death of the on Bush. I'm even more sorry to say that I could only think of you when I saw this, blaming Bush for every tragedy, every problem, every inconvenience in this country as if Bush was some kind of God that could see all, know all.

I don't expect you to understand or accept my point of view of your style. Its part of what the US is all about, choice of opinion.

I think that Col. Gene is perfectly within his rights to continually post blogs about President Bush and what he has done, or failed to do. You said it yourself - this is called "Bush Truth." It's not meant to be about anything else! It's not an obsession - if you read a PC Magazine, would you expect to be reading about fishing? NO! So if you subscribe to this blog site, "Bush Truth," you should EXPECT to read about Bush, and the truth around him.

Now, when Gene goes onto other sites, then it becomes a bit more obvious that there is indeed an obsession there. But usually, he only shows up in places where Bush is indeed one of those who should be sharing the blame.

We don't take away his right to cry about Bush 24/7. He wondered why we claim he bashes Bush all the time and we told him why. Obssesion? Of course. He has never written anything good about Bush on a blogg called Bush truth. Where is the article that states the Bush truth about Bush approving the minimum wage bill? Where's the article about Bush approving funding to build the fence at the border? these are Bush truths as well but not reported by he who claims to show the Bush Truth in his articles?

What about the many points he claimed rebutted several times by many of the JU people on this site? How come if he is so anti-Bush as his articles show all of those who oppose, dislike, want impeached and basically hate Bush are not here backing his articles in full force?

If anything his blogg tittle should be "Bush Truth by Michael Moore".

Perhaps Gene believes in relative truth, and what is true for you is not necessarily true for him?

But you can't even do that here. You won't even listen to the answers you asked for. In the end you wanted to understand why so many here think you are "bashing Bash" all the time. We responded and instead of looking at it and maybe acepting to be a bit wrong you chose to stand you ground and think that everyone else is wrong. You won't bend a little even if your life depended on it. Tak about a guy that doesn't know the meaning of the word compromise.

But, we all know that Bush is a hard worker, and he WOULD have mucked things up, regardless.

Of coruse you have.  You twist and misrepresent headlines and reports all the time to make it more suit your agenda.  Myself and others have called you on this many times, but reading your others posts here, you just don't get it.

Look at how you are twisting your last post.  Bush never said Saddam was part of Sept. 11. We have debunked this how many times in your blogs, yet you still continue.  It's all just rehashed DNC talking points over and over.




Good.  The problem is you don't want tax increases.  You want tax increases on a certain class of people. 

what's the matter with Satin? it feels silky against the skin, it breathes, it cleans easy with cold water. Although for ultimate comfort I prefer silk.

Of course you are, how can you even say that when you won't even mention the names of other people in most of your bloggs. Hell if anything you make it seem as if the entire US Gov't is coposed of a single man or even worse, you make it seem as if Bush is actually a dictator and Congress has no power what so ever.

Heh, I guess Col has something against satin as well, its probably Bush's fault too.