Fact Check: Bush Vague on Details

[Republican_Legion]

WASHINGTON — President Bush set energy self-sufficiency goals Tuesday night that would still leave the country vulnerable to unstable oil sources. He also declared he is helping more people get health care, despite a rising number of uninsured. Whether promoting a plan to "save Social Security" or describing Iraqi security forces as "increasingly capable of defeating the enemy," Bush skipped over some complex realities in his State of the Union speech.
FULL STORY http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183399,00.html

The rise of illegal aliens is the main reason there is more uninsured.
Invaders don't deserve benifets. More americans are also moving up in the world and dont need as much benifets or none at all.

[Rhino]

He didn't say he was helping more people get health care. He said "Our government has a responsibility to help provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility" (emphasis added), which of course is more accurate. But since when is the Associated Press interested in being accurate? They do mention this later in the article, but use independent figures from another source to back their claim, which of course guarantees different results. You could do that all day and come up with tons of different answers, which of course the AP did deliberately to support their claims. And of course they failed to mention that the overwhelming majority of people without health care turn it down voluntarily.

He can't reduce oil dependence if Congress won't cooperate, simple as that.

The rest is all political blather and sour grapes.

[Republican_Legion]

He can't reduce oil dependence if Congress won't cooperate, simple as that.

And thats why the GOP should never endorse RINOs.
The alaska drilling thing was defeated because of RINOs like 'Jim Leache'.

[The Hard Truth]

He didn't say he was helping more people get health care. He said "Our government has a responsibility to help provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility" (emphasis added), which of course is more accurate. But since when is the Associated Press interested in being accurate?

Your quote is inaccurate. Bush did not use the word "help".

His exact statement was "Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility."

The U.S. Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to "provide health care for the poor and the elderly".

[The Hard Truth]

And thats why the GOP should never endorse RINOs. The alaska drilling thing was defeated because of RINOs like 'Jim Leache'.

If the GOP got rid of all the RINO's, Bush would be one of the first to go, since he is one of the biggest RINO's in history.

But Bush and the other RINO's control the party at the national level, so we know there isn't going to be a much needed "house cleaning" in D.C. any time soon.

Bush has also been instrumental in helping RINO's get elected/re-elected, while giving more conservative Repubs the shaft.

[Rhino]

Your quote is inaccurate. Bush did not use the word "help"Yes, he did.

Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. Our government has a responsibility to help provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility.(my emphasis added)

Transcript found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183390,00.html

[The Hard Truth]

Yes, he did.

(my emphasis added)

Transcript found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183390,00.html

No, he didn't.

Here is the direct quote from the official White House website:

"Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And yet in that very same paragraph, this:
"For all Americans -- for all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need."

It appears as if you are both right. :smirky:

[Republican_Legion]

No, he didn't.

Here is the direct quote from the official White House website:

"Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html


I really hate it when he said this


"We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them."

[Rhino]

No, he didn't.

Here is the direct quote from the official White House website:LOL! Ain't that cute! I wonder who really got it right. Guess we need the video!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

LOL! Ain't that cute! I wonder who really got it right. Guess we need the video!

C-SPAN: STATE OF THE UNION (http://www.c-span.org/executive/stateoftheunion.asp)

I listened to it/watched it -- the transcript referenced by Hard Truth was correct, but he ALSO says what I quoted.

[Rhino]

Yep. CBS had the transcript the same way Fox did. Strange how so many can listen to the same speech and come up with a different transcript.

However, I will go back to my original point. At no time did he say he was helping more people get health care, as the original link says. He said we need to improve access to care and reduce costs, and he asked for Congress' help with that.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bush Vague on Details. Of course President Bush was vague on details in his State of the Union Address. That address is to present broad goals, not details. Details come later, either from the president or from Congress.

A few years ago he did present a detailed, and conservative, Social Security program, but it has never been implemented.

He has proposed a conservative approach to solve the health care problem - health savings accounts - but it has not been implemented.

The worst part of the speech was what he left out - opening up ANWR for oil drilling. That and nuclear energy - which he did support - are essential for energy independence.

BTW, the official White House transcript is as The Hard Truth stated. I guess that he can be right once.

[omegatrump]

If the GOP got rid of all the RINO's, Bush would be one of the first to go, since he is one of the biggest RINO's in history.

But Bush and the other RINO's control the party at the national level, so we know there isn't going to be a much needed "house cleaning" in D.C. any time soon.

Bush has also been instrumental in helping RINO's get elected/re-elected, while giving more conservative Repubs the shaft.

NT it appears that The Hard Truth was right on about six issues in just the above 3 paragraphs. LOL The Clinton / Bush new party slogan should be "Rino's R Us".

[Rhino]

Bush is not as conservative as I'd like on some issues, to be sure, but he's hardly one of the biggest RINOs in history. There are plenty of examples of bigger RINOs than him. For those of us who'd prefer a more conservative candidate, well, we're at the mercy of the party nomination process, and we are stuck with considering the alternative, the dem candidate. Unfortunate, but true.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Those people who claim that President Bush is a RINO or equate President Bush with that scum-bag extreme leftist, BJ Clinton, are either totally uninformed or are trolls deliberately making outrageously false statements to disrupt this forum. I suspect the latter because no one could possibly be so uninformed. Consequently, I shall no longer be feeding those trolls. Maybe it's time for the troll hook.:trollhook

[Republican_Legion]

I dont think GWB is a Liberal but I do think he is a Moderate.
The GOP ran a Conservative candidate named Ronald Reagan in 1980.
The GOP ran Moderate candidate in 2000 and the MSM/DNC actually think he is far right.

The further left we go the democrats/MSM will still continue to call our GOP politicans 'Far Right'. If we lose in 2008 because of a major RINO like McCain or Guiliani then too bad for the GOP because they need to learn better to not endorse Liberals.

Look here: http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=32051 If the GOP runs a candidate like that for 08 then I'm voting 3rd party, Sorry can't let the party be hijacked by Liberals who are basicly as bad as hitlery.

[omegatrump]

I dont think GWB is a Liberal but I do think he is a Moderate.
The GOP ran a Conservative candidate named Ronald Reagan in 1980.
The GOP ran Moderate candidate in 2000 and the MSM/DNC actually think he is far right.

The further left we go the democrats/MSM will still continue to call our GOP politicans 'Far Right'. If we lose in 2008 because of a major RINO like McCain or Guiliani then too bad for the GOP because they need to learn better to not endorse Liberals.

Look here: http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=32051 If the GOP runs a candidate like that for 08 then I'm voting 3rd party, Sorry can't let the party be hijacked by Liberals who are basicly as bad as hitlery.

The only thing that will stop the GOP in it's Toboggan ride into Liberalism, is for the few conservatives that remain in the party to stand up and say that's enough. The liberal line,"you have to vote for the party, or you'll get what the DNC sends up", is just that, a Liberal line. If we keep voting for the party, we will get what the DNC sends up.

The DNC is working hard to send us up, a McCain, or Giuliano. It is the pressure to liberalize that is put on the process by the Libs that keeps pushing the bench mark lower and lower.

The DNC has gravity on their side. Gravity pulls all things to the bottom, including the Conservatives when they go to sleep.

The bottom feeders in both parties have no lofty vision. Just maintain the status quo.