It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Administration Admits It Was Wrong

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Today George Bush announced that he will capitulate to the demands of senator Harry Reid. Two weeks ago, the Bush administration, unilaterally and without consulting the Democratic leadership, chose to replace a worn couch in the White House with a new one. Howard Dean brought the president’s plan to secretly slip the “white Christian couch” into the White House without any consultation from the Democrats on how this new couch would reflect America.
Reid went further pointing out the decor of the White House must remain balanced, and without consulting him and his fellow Democratic leadership, it would not be possible. MoveOn.org has just released an ad depicting the white leather couch in the foreground with multi-colored smaller chairs in the background being ignored by an elephant choosing to sit on the white couch instead. “This isn’t about redecorating,” an unnamed MoveOn source said. “This is about the Bush administration demonstrating time and time again they do not care about the voice of the people and they will change all aspects of our government to fit their warmongering white Christian agenda.”
Bush released a public apology and returned the couch, calling Tom DeLay and Harry Reid into bipartisan talks about what the new couch should look like. Negotiations are expected to end sometime early next week, when the senate will be asked to vote their approval by a supermajority (60+ votes) before the couch is actually purchased.
Members of both parties are coming up with plans for the future battle deciding where the couch will be placed.



Note: This is satire. The links are real, but the nouns and dialogue were changed to protect the guilty


edited to us bold font on the disclaimer

[edit on 13-7-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
While it's interesting satire (redecorating = new lifetime apointments to Supreme Court), don't you think one should take all of America into account (and that's not the couch).


Plus this is a "nice" article indicating good natured bi-partisan efforts.

Bush Meets With Senators About Supreme Court
Tuesday, July 12, 2005



WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers who have spoken to President Bush about possible choices for a Supreme Court nominee appear to be very pleased with the level of consultation the president is extending to them.

The seven Democrats who made up one side of the "Gang of 14" responsible for circumventing an end to the filibuster process on Bush's appellate court nominees met Tuesday afternoon about Bush's upcoming decision and emerged with a positive outlook.


Is this not a good thing? I don't know that I'd mock the effort on either side. Maybe I misunderstood though.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Warmonging and Christian agenda?
I don't see how you could consider Bush a warmonger. If Bush was a Muslim, would you think he has a Muslim agenda?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBurns
I don't see how you could consider Bush a warmonger.


You're kidding right? I guess Bush IS a Muslim then because he has fought more wars in the last four years than any other country has in the last decade. So does this make Bush a Muslim Islamic Fanatic?


[edit on 7/16/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBurns
Warmonging and Christian agenda?
I don't see how you could consider Bush a warmonger. If Bush was a Muslim, would you think he has a Muslim agenda?


I dunno, it would depend on MoveOn.org. None of what I quoted I actually believe, I do, however, believe groups like MoveOn.org and DailyKos believe that. I also believe Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others want to capitolize on that belief as best they can by making statements very similar to those I just made up. I mean, we got attacked, and I heard people in my office saysing, "I knew George Bush would get us into a war." WTF?! We get attacked, and we don't bend over and take it so Bush is a warmonger? I disagree, completely, but people do feel that way, and these politicians are trying to take advantage of that divide. Both sides do it, and it's exploitation. It's like getting a retarded kid to be a suicide bomber because he doesn't know better. The polarity exists, and it creates blind spots in people who don't see it, and the politicians who do take advantage of that turning people into mindless sacks of anger repeating their party's talking points. Both sides are guilty of that, and it really sucks.

Now, Rant asked if it wasn't better to get the input from all the American people in choosing a supreme court justice. I disagreed with that article I linked to. I read through it and thought the idea was completely rediculous. So I threw it up there; in my opinion, being a conservative, the liberals make my case for me. First, I do not think our founding fathers are infallable like many do. Get back to the core of the constitution because it was perfect. Sorry, but I'm not into ancestor worship.

However, no, all the people shouldn't have a second time to give thier input on a court justice. They had their opportunity with the election. The people chose. They wanted Bush. If you look back at all of Clinton's appointments, they were voted by 70%+ margins in the senate. If you look a little bit further back to when a republican was in charge, their conservative choice was attacked on every level, from being sued to having his mental abilities questioned (Justice Thomas). So why does this only happen when republicans are in office? Because the Democrats are fair in their choices? Was Ruth Bader Ginsburg a moderate? I don't think so! The climate on the extreme left, from everything I read on DU, Kos, and MoveOn, is one of pure hatrid. George Bush could run into a burning building and save an infant, and he would be vilified for it. It's amusing to read, but, in my opinion, sad that they're convincing people that George Bush is the most evil thing to walk the earth, eclipsing Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Nero, and Kain combined, by a long shot.

Now these two statements may seem to be a dichotomy. They are not, however. They are my interpretation of what is going on in politics. Yeah, I see a lot wrong with my party, but I see a lot more wrong with my opposition. That's why I've chosen the party I chose.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Very well put JungleJake.
Believe me when I say my party is FAR from perfect.




he has fought more wars


He is not fighting the wars alone. Shouldn't you have said "we have fought more wars"?



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join