George W. Bush is actually going to speak at an "investment" summit in the Cayman Islands only 5 days until the Presidential Election. This could mean bad news for Mitt Romney Come November 6th. MSNBC's Jonathan Alter weighs in on if Bush actually knows what he's doing to Romney.
What's the worst thing George "
Bush, ranked as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history by the Siena Research Institute of Siena College in 2010, is heading to the Cayman Islands. He's scheduled to deliver the keynote address at the Cayman Alternative Investment Summit on Grand Cayman on November 1, just five days before Election Day!
Bush's appearance, of course, will put the spotlight (again) on:
- Romney's offshore investments in tax havens like the Cayman Islands
- Romney's tax plan, which have been described as Bush on steroids
As you'll recall, Bush presided over the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, was the first former president since Richard Nixon to skip his party's first political convention after leaving office. And unlike Democrat Bill Clinton, he won't be actively campaigning for his party's presidential nominee during this year's campaign.
Why did Bush accept an invitation that obviously stabs Romney in the back? Maybe he's read the latest polls.
Leave a Comment:
big phucking DEAL-W. BUSH GIVES UP ON MITT ROMNEY?
who is w. bush to give up on ANYBODY?
to all repubs AND FOX NEWS:
i didn't see Jimmy Carter listed in the rankings as the worst President, AS you all love to say.
take a NOTE REPUBS/CONSERVATIVES/BAGGERS: george w. bush WILL GO DOWN as one of the very worst Presidents in the history of the USA.
Two of a kind.....giving up on each other. Two good to be true.
LOL
well also betting Bush is doing it cause that's about the only place he can go out side of the USA with out being arrested.
I hope they throw a shoe at him!!!
Res ipsa loquitur--a Latin phrase used in the legal profession.
Translated: The thing speaks for itself.
President Obama or should we call him Mr. Liar in Chief, as well as Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton
U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.
The account sharply conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.
Two senior U.S. officials said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The officials said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.
Further, an official said, "No one ... believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob -- no one.
I would like to know where I could find that information. If you're going to say that you have to be able to back it up. I would really like to read the opinions though if you have them.
From day one, the Obama administration was aware that the September 11 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack, despite offering up conflicting explanations in the weeks since.
Unnamed officials confirm to Fox News that the White House knew that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were behind the murder of four Americans in Libya, but only today did US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly acknowledge the truth.
Secretary Panetta now admits that the Pentagon knew within hours of the assault on America’s Benghazi consulate that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead that it was an act of terrorism.
The Obama administration has altered their explanation repeatedly in the weeks since Mr. Stevens and three others were killed on September 11, 2012 while on assignment in Libya. On Thursday, the Defense Department confirmed the attack as having been hatched by terrorists, despite earlier statements made by the White House that suggested an anti-American film produced in the US had triggered a spontaneous assault.
"The reason I think it pretty clearly was a terrorist attack is because a group of terrorists obviously conducted that attack on the consulate and against our individuals," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. "What terrorists were involved I think still remains to be determined by the investigation. But it clearly was a group of terrorists who conducted that attack against that facility."
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested earlier in the week that the attack in Benghazi may have been hatched by an al-Qaeda affiliate, yet another drastic change of heart from an Obama appointee this week.
In New York City on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton told attendees at a special United Nations meeting that the September 11 assault first thought by the White House to be a spontaneous response to an Anti-Islam film made in America could have been orchestrated by extremists in North Africa, specifically those subscribed to an off-shoot of al-Qaeda.
“For some time, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries,” Clinton told the crowd this week. “Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”
Secretary Clinton’s address was delivered at a United Nations meeting on instability in the Sahel, the region of Africa that includes Mali and, apparently, terrorist operatives conducting assaults on Americans for al-Qaeda.
Immediately following the September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration all but confirmed their suspicious than “Innocence of Muslims,” an America-made film that mocked Islamic prophet Mohammed, was likely to blame for the violence. The movie was believed to have sparked protests in Cairo earlier in the day, which the White House then suggested spread to Libya and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Both the State Department and the White House initially hinted that the film was to blame for the Benghazi raid, and on September 16 Susan E. Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations, directly linked the movie with the mayhem.
Days later, what was once a “spontaneous” response was reconsidered by many as something more.
“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy,” National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen told Congress on September 19.
The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said it’s “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” Nearly a week later on September 26, Carney altered the official explanation to say, “it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”
Carney’s reluctance to identify the assault as the act of terrorists could easily be explained as the White House’s unwillingness to admit a defeat in their War in Terror, not just on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks but so close to the November presidential elections. The United States has so far invested a substantial amount of men and money into efforts to allegedly free the Libyan people from the regime of fallen former leader Muammar Gaddafi, but now it appears as a man considered a ruthless dictator by Washington has only been replaced by rampant terrorism courtesy of al-Qaeda affiliates.
Now Secretary Clinton says that the assault was more than just an act of violent extremism and that the men behind the mob attack may have ties to America’s most notorious foe: al-Qaeda.
"We’re working with the Libyan government and other partners to find those responsible for the attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi and bring them to justice.But we are also expanding our counterterrorism partnerships to help countries meet their own growing threats,” she added at the UN meeting. “ We’re taking aim at the support structure of al-Qaida and its affiliates – closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering their ideology and denying them recruits."
two weeks after the attack, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION KNOWS THAT IT WAS TERROR.
meanwhile, W. bush is STILL blaming the iraqi war, THE WAR THAT HE LIED ABOUT TO GET US INTO, ON BAD INTELLIGENCE.
Former President George W. Bush should be held accountable for the deaths of US and Iraqis alike for starting a war under false pretenses!
I agree, I wrote a paper in English 101 on the war. He lied to us all. He told his cabinet to find a way to tie it back to Saddam he didn't care how.
You have proof of that? Other countries were receiving the same intelligence. Due to collaboration between countries, they thought there was a need to act. There were reports that Sadam liked to brag about having nukes and he wanted people to believe he had them and play a cat and mouse game.
Doing this "Keynote" speaking six days before seems to me he believes he will win. The tax cuts would enable more money for the one percent to to "hide" their money in the Caymans and other off-shore banks.
I'm sure the Bush Family has a lot of money stored there and they all love him because of it.
I wonder how long ago he agreed to speak at this event.
I hope it backfires... as long as there is media coverage.
Quinnipiac Pollster Admits that Polls Oversampling Democrats Just Might Not Accurately Predict the Election
In the conversation, Brown defended Quinnipiac’s sampling techniques but admitted that he did not believe that Democrats would outnumber Republicans to that degree in Florida come November. Pressed by Hewitt, the pollster said he believed that was a “probably unlikely” scenario.
LMAO thanks for the laughs.
but your crap is just that crap! just a set up for the after election LOSS! then you weenies will be whining.
LOL oh whining is a per-existing condition in which your handles/enables will drop you as soon as your usefulness is done which will be in 39 and a wake up.
Well the Re pubs are running from Romney maybe Bush is to . But it all seems to calculated right before the election.
What President Obamas Has Time For
The View
David Letterman
Pimp With a Limp
Things President Obama Has No time for
Meeting with Benjamin Netanayu
First time a President In 20 years that a Sitting President Did Not have Time for Any Heads Of States
Disgraceful!!!
You crack me up. What part of the "Republican Party destroys America" don't you understand? You and your ilk are always trying to tell Pres. Obama how to run the country, what he should do and shouldn't do. LMAO Tell me, were you screaming at Bush when he lost millions of jobs for our citizens? Did you become a millionaire under his 8 years of trickle down economics? Did you approve of all the casualties and wounded vets due to the war where there were NO wmd's? America has had it with your like and NO, we don't listen to you, it's a waste of time.
Typical Obama Supporter
Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
After blaming Bush for starting two wars “on a credit card” and saying that we had to spend money to prop up fledgling industries during the recession, Letterman asked of the debt: “Now, do you remember what that number was? Was it $10 trillion?”
The Washington Post notes that the debt is growing so fast there is no such thing as a precise recollection, but Obama certainly could have said, “closer to $16 trillion.”
Instead, the president seemingly let the group continue to think our national debt is roughly $6 trillion less than it is, saying simply: “I don’t remember what the number was, precisely.”
Bush will always be looked at by historians as the worst POTUS of all times. He was dancing with joy to be in a place of honor for all Republicans, the place rich people can get away with ripping off America. It fits him and his kind perfectly.
There was a good reason why Romney didn't include Little Bush as His Convention.
Do you really want to Remind Everyone about the Bush Failure on 9/11 ?
How about The Crash of Wall Street ? I Didn't think So.
Hey Pat, apart from the stimulus, which did work, most of the additional debt came about by accounting for the last 4 years of the wars' cost - don't forget that your boy Bush had stopped counting those figures into the annual income/expenditure figures for his entire second term - as well as the Bush tax cuts which were not paid for.
Hey Grave
Did President Obama EXTEND the Tax Cuts???
Now they are the Obama tax Cuts!!!!
Well, it seems that W doesn't like to be snubbed by his fellow right-wingers, and has decided to strike back. While W has said he stopped drinking, he apparently still has a temper, and has retaliated by committing to keynote the conference just before the election. What a wonderful 'gotcha'. Not that the conference is really big news, but for W to focus on off-shore investment, a subject Romney does not want mentioned, mirrors the elevator endorsement. His heart was never with Romney.
So, as it appears more and more likely that Romney's effort for election will fail, W has decided to twist the knife, to make it hurt a bit more. I can see the purported religious challenger cursing everybody, just because he feels he deserves to be president.
As Romney said, he's rich and famous, and it's great! He was destined for the presidency. But even his own can't stand him. Nor can I.
I wonder where "Special Ed" hides his money?
Well Bush will be vacationing in the Caymen Islands 5 days before the debates, that tells me something, he is telling voters this is how we live, he's going to count his money along with Romney's, showing us" here we are & the money too". He's telling us mitts money is here take it from a republican "it's here"
First I want to thank you Ed for all you do to expose the Republicans for what and who they really are. I've always been political and always like hearing both sides of the story before passing judgement but more and more I'm getting to point that I don't even want to hear the Republican side of things any longer. The lies, the cheating on elections, the disregard for Seniors, Veterans, people needing some help during difficult times (which they caused btw) and all the other phony crap they are slinging around fills me with disgust. I wanted to send you a link to a video that puts it all in perspective for me and has become my battle cry. The link to the video is... and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Keep up the good work and thank you.
to elected republicans- OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN AT FIRST WE PRACTISE TO DECIEVE!!!! All of you guys need to resign and let the real AMERICAN REPUBLICANS come back in the sceen..Even your base is ashammed of you.you'll never be able to show your face here in the USA again,sotake romney with you,,the Camen Ilasnds may want all you outsourcers