Accountability: A word Bush doesn't know

Politics International Politics
1

SEATTLE (Reuters) - The company that made the Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington-area sniper killings and a gun shop that lost track of the firearm agreed to pay $2.5 million to victims in what lawyers said on Thursday was an unprecedented settlement.

The payout for eight victims of the October 2002 shootings was the first of its kind by a gun manufacturer accused of negligent distribution of firearms, said Daniel Vice, an attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of the victims.

Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, which makes the civilian version of the military M-16 rifle, agreed to pay $550,000 to the families of six victims and two survivors of the shootings.

The Bull’s Eye Gun Shop in Tacoma, Washington, near Seattle, also agreed to pay $2 million. Bull’s Eye has said that the Bushmaster rifle used in the shootings disappeared from its shop.

“This has now set a precedent nationwide that gunmakers and gun dealers will be held responsible if they continue to sell guns to criminals,” Vice said.

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … gunshop_dc

When I read this story, I started to wonder if Bush will ever be held accountable for numerous lives which have been and continue to be lost in this never ending tragedy which is happening in Iraq.

I tried to imagine how much money each soldier’s family should be paid for having a lost a loved one simply because the leader of their country lied to the world and sent them to a far off land where they were murdered because of that lie but I simply couldn’t come up with a price which would be sufficient enough.

The difficulty I faced when trying to come up with a dollar figure is that I obviously think a human life is worth a hell of a lot more than Bush does which is why he has no trouble sending people off to die for a war which was based on a lie. It is clear that Bush regards American soldiers with utter disregard. They are the unfortunate victims forced to do what Bush seemed incapable of doing himself so long ago: to go and fight in a foreign land.

Bush was a coward during the days of Vietnam but he is the brave warrior when it comes to sending others off to fight for him.

Bush is a lying, hypocritical coward and all who support him should be shipped over to Iraq to face the dangers along with the soldiers who are now there. As a matter of fact, I would bet that many of Bush’s strongest supporters on this forum would not be so willing to support Bush if they themselves faced being sent to Iraq.

2

On this forum and in the United States. The Chickenhawks don’t stop with the White House. It’s one thing to be opposed to being sent to war. It’s another to support other people being sent off when you yourself were too scared to go.

My stepfather, a staunch Bush hater, proudly wears his Vietnam vet patch “If you weren’t there, shut up.”

I’d suggest Bush take that advice.

3

Utter crap. Are you saying that only soldiers and retired soldiers are fit to be President of the US? Do you think the US should have a civilian or a military government? :unamused:

That’s pathetic. Why don’t you Kerry-supporting hypocrites want to allow the vets against Kerry to have their say?

Doh… What has Bush stated re Kerry’s service? Bush has stated repeatedly that Kerry served honorably and even more honorably than Bush himself. Are you saying that Bush should stop making these statements?

How can you be so uninformed?

4

Wow, Tigerman. You seem to have trouble reading posts these days. Perhaps time to have those peepers checked out.
ImaniOU was pointing out, as was I, that Bush and his supporters think it’s more than acceptable to send folks off to war as long as they themselves don’t get sent to fight.
You like Bush, it’s clear, but the man was a COWARD when it came to Vietnam. Kerry was not. You can spin the story anyway you please but the fact remains that Bush didn’t go and fight and Kerry did.
Your warrior king, Bush, allowed others to fight a battle that he lacked the balls to go and do but now he willling sends others to war. That is pathetic!!

Why is she a hypocrite? She is not the one who thinks war is good when others are fighting but was afraid to go herself and fight. That is your buddy Bush. He is the ultimate hypocrite. Why can’t you brain-dead Republicans see that? I guess it’s because you’re too blinded by your love of Bush.

How can you be so blind?

5

Not at all. The chickenhawk argument is flawed. The POTUS is the CIC of the US armed forces. As such, it is the responsibility of the POTUS to deploy the US military in times of war. Are you suggesting that because Bush did not fight in a war that he is not suitable to deploy US troops in a war?

In any event, Bush did serve in the guard. Are you suggesting that because he didn’t go to Vietnam that he is unqualified to serve as POTUS? Are you suggesting that only those with combat experience are suitable to serve as POTUS?

What about Gore? He didn’t see combat. You probably voted for Gore in 2000. How could you? Gore saw no combat.

And what about Edwards? He received draft deferments like many other people at that time. Is he unfit to serve as VPOTUS?

Nonsense. How do you know that is what Bush or any of his supporters believe? I don’t believe that.

So Edwards too was a coward?

So, I ask again… are you suggesting that only combat vets are suitable to serve as POTUS? Did you vote for Clinton instead of Bush Sr. in 1992? If yes, why? Clinton was a COWARD while Bush Sr. was a combat vet.

Hypocrisy?

There is no draft now. Those being sent now volunteered for duty. Surely you see a distinction between then and now?

Clinton the COWARD also deployed US forces. How is that OK but Bush’s actions are not?

Its hypocritical because on the one hand she state that Bush should shut up because he was not in Vietnam, while on the other hand she wants to keep the vets against Kerry silent. It isn’t too difficult to see the hypocrisy in such a stance.

6

Let’s follow Imaniou’s illogic to its logical conclusions. Those that do not have children in school do not get a say on our public education system. Those that are not sick get no say or vote on our health care system. And best of all, those that do not pay any taxes get no say in how any government money is spent at all. Wanna go down that road Imaniou?

Also, what exactly is Kerry’s great record in Vietnam. Four months (in combat sorta)? Better than Bush, I’ll give you that, but Kerry’s very own running mate Edwards did the same thing. Why isn’t anyone looking at Edward’s Vietnam Era record? The media has for Bush and Cheney.

7

“fred smith”[quote]Let’s follow Imaniou’s illogic to its logical conclusions. Those that do not have children in school do not get a say on our public education system. Those that are not sick get no say or vote on our health care system. And best of all, those that do not pay any taxes get no say in how any government money is spent at all. Wanna go down that road Imaniou?[/quote]

fred,
Why is that the logical conclusion to arrive at? Perhaps, a better conclusion to come to is that when certain people, ala Bush, start sending troops over to fight in an ill-conceived, and unjust war, yet they themselves have never gone to fight, perhaps the veteran understands better than the non-veteran what going to war entails and what are the consquences of invading another country.
Similarly, the parent with the child in school perhaps better understands the needs of the children attending there than does the tax-payer who is not too involved wtih what actually happening on a day to day basis in the classroom.

Seldom is the 2nd man in charge put under the same glare of the media lights as is the man who wil ultimately be running the country. (If he were, Cheney would have to have a hell of a lot more answers about his business dealings over the years).
I have heard little about Cheney’s military record (we all know why, don’t we) so that is proof that Bush’s record is much more important. After all, it is Bush who can decide whether the troops will be send to fight or not, and Cheney and Edwards (after Kerry gets elected) have no opportunity to do the same until and if they decide to run for the highest office themselves.

8

Are you saying that only veterans are qualified/suitable to be POTUS? I just want to be clear. Did you also think that Clinton was unqualified to serve as POTUS and to deploy the US military in Europe?

So, are you saying that the tax-payer who is not too involved with what actually happening on a day to day basis in the classroom should have no say in how his/her taxes are spent on education?

And, are you also saying that people who pay no taxes should not have any say as to how any taxes are spent?

Please clarify.

9

I will graciously allow Cable Guy to fall into the own illogical hole that he has dug for himself. No need to push. Just fall right on in Cable Guy.

10

Heck, fred… I don’t think CG will fall into that hole. He’s already jumped into it… :laughing:

11

What will it take to find people on the left who can actually think? Honestly, all of this shrill Bush bashing is based on so much brain washing that I really wonder if most lefties are capable of critical reasoning at all. Look at the absolutely inexcusable lapses into illogic in most of these arguments.

A thus B
B thus C
but no connection between C and D thus A + B = D? What the f***?

12

Fred, especially you should not argue with maths. :wink:

13

One minor mistake and Rascal never lets me forget. I think that is cruel adn inhuman and I shall have to think of an occasion to make life difficult for Rascal. Oh yes, Fred Smith has a memory like an elephant (and a torso like one too) and he will not forget this grave insult on no. Wonder if Broon Ale is thawed out yet. He is always good for plotting mayhem. hee hee hee

14

I am from a state that has one of the worst records for public school funding thanks to moneis coming solely from what voters allow. In my school district we lost all sorts of money for the schools which meant bus circulation was cut and stops for students were set so there was one stop to serve all students in a mile radius (what fun that was walking a mile to get to school in the snow, just to catch the bus and being punished for living in a single-parent family with a mother who had to leave for work extra early). Their voting also cost my school extracurricular activities (entire varsity sports teams having to carpool for 3 hours to matches because we could not afford to get a bus to take us), building improvements, technology updating, etc.

Who made up the largest percent of voters in my hometown (by far)? People in the 65 and older category who obviously didn’t have children going to school.

Well, the state of Ohio’s manner of financing schools has already been found unconstitutional. Who helped put together ads that showed the major differences between school districts full of young affluent parents and those full of elderly, retired people and people living in the foothills of the Appalachians? Parents who were tired of their children using 20-year-old history books in their leaking schools that were just one safety inspection short of being condemned.

There are lots of things American tax dollars go to that are not necessarily approved by the people who are earning them…the war in Iraq for instance…or better yet, all of the welfare being collected by major businesses while they turn over profits in the billions. I certainly didn’t vote for those.

15

Cry me a River Imaniou:

What a sad tale but unfortunately while you are being easily led by the nose on these issues to believe it is always a question of inadequate funding. This is precisely the same kind of sob tale that we used to drum out on a regular basis when I was working with the public relations department of a major urban school district. We did it to ensure that taxpayers coughed up more cash for referendums to increase funding all the while shutting down any effort to raise questions about how such monies were spent.

I have no doubt that there is true need in these areas BUT there is more than enough federal and grant money sloshing around. Problem is that on average 52 cents on the dollar goes to administrative costs. Why? If this hits 12 cents on the dollar in a private company, restructuring occurs? Take DC then where 76 cents on the dollar go to administration. Public funds for DC public school systems total US$7,000 to US$9,000 per student (as opposed to private mostly religious, mostly Catholic schools which average US$1,500 to US$3,000 per student). So instead of whining about bad conditions, why don’t you do something about it? Why don’t you vote Republican and inject some competition and oversight into how this money is spent. Democrats have controlled education and the teachers unions and the federal and state workers unions for the last 60 years. What are you going to do about it? Vote Republican and demand reform. Vote Republican and push school vouchers? When you get good and sick of being led around by the nose for another how many years, you might actually vote for the right party, the only party, that has actually “talked about” doing something about this. George Bush is a sad disappointment for me in this area. Why he allowed Teddy Kennedy (that fat bastard) of all people to railroad him into “cooperative efforts” is beyond me.

F*** the teacher’s unions. F*** the federal and state workers unions. Shouldn’t the welfare of our children be the foremost concern. It apparently is for you, but I sense that you will not do enough to educate yourself about the issue to actually think that your vote might matter. It will continue to be a matter of “insufficient” funding all the while even more money goes down the drain of corrupt, bureaucratic and uncaring school and state officials. Great job!

16

Great post, fred.

But, I have a feeling it will be disregarded… because, you know, Republicans don’t care about the disadvantaged. :unamused:

If these idiots who swallow the Dem’s characterization of Republicans could ever, for just a moment, look at the problem objectively, they might have their eyes opened.

Even if they insisted on regarding Republicans as uncaring bastards, they should have enough intelligence to understand that it is in the interest of Republicans to help the disadvantaged rather than to keep them permanently in a disadvantaged position.

What advantage do the Republicans gain from the permanant underclass created by the liberal social plans of the past decades? NONE.

Contrastingly, the Dems gain from having a permanent underclass… the permanent underclass almost ALWAYS votes Democrap.

How in the world is this so difficult for some people to see?

17

Its not only underclass blacks who have been decieved, but poor whites as well.

Time to reconsider, folks.

18

Amen Tigerman:

Where are the highest rates of homelessness? In cities like San Francisco and New York where “well-intentioned” rent controls have ensured a lack of sufficient housing.

Let’s also do away with HUD completely. Why build disastrous crime-ridden housing projects that become centers for drug dealing, prostitutiion and other nasty behavior when the cost per unit is US$100,000. Hell, just buy these people a home and give it to them or better yet spend this money on Section 8 subsidies for people who cannot afford rent. That way those that do behave responsibly to buy a home are not “penalized” for doing so when remaining poor would have gotten them one for free.

Also, why not devolve all welfare decisions to the states rather than squandering tons of money on administrative costs in Washington? Cannot Albany and Sacramento handle these decisions just as well as Washington DC? It would remove money from DC, reduce lobbying and cut out yet more administrative waste by sending this one step closer to the source of the need.

Why not? Well, Democrats? Why not? Er because man the Republicans are all about greed? Give me a break you brainwashed sheep. Why not think for yourself and ask yourself why these policies are not being implemented? Why not, when welfare reform was such a great success. If rent control and housing projects, much touted by Democrats have failed, why not try the Republican approach? You’ve had 40 years of failure. When is enough enough?

19

Just as it took Nixon to go to China, it took Clinton to dismantle the old welfare system. Funny to see Tigerman and Fred chatter away as if they were pulled from an mid-1980s time capsule. If Republicans can’t even read well enough to get through a newspaper article or two, what good are they?

20

Funny that MFGR’s “facts” are as usuall nothing of the sort.

Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before signing on in the face of a 2/3rds majority. Wrong again MFGR, but nothing short of what we have come to expect from you. haha