DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on October 28, 2007, 01:42:31 PM
-
Evangelical movement shows deep rifts
Love affair with Bush has largely ended, sharpening latent internal divisions By David D. Kirkpatrick
The New York Times
Updated: 3:55 a.m. ET Oct 28, 2007
The hundred-foot white cross atop the Immanuel Baptist Church in downtown Wichita, Kan., casts a shadow over a neighborhood of payday lenders, pawnbrokers and pornographic video stores. To its parishioners, this has long been the front line of the culture war. Immanuel has stood for Southern Baptist traditionalism for more than half a century. Until recently, its pastor, Terry Fox, was the Jerry Falwell of the Sunflower State ? the public face of the conservative Christian political movement in a place where that made him a very big deal.
With flushed red cheeks and a pudgy, dimpled chin, Fox roared down from Immanuel?s pulpit about the wickedness of abortion, evolution and homosexuality. He mobilized hundreds of Kansas pastors... For years, Fox flaunted his allegiance to the Republican Party, urging fellow pastors to make the same ?confession? and calling them ?sissies? if they didn?t. ?We are the religious right,? he liked to say. ?One, we are religious. Two, we are right.?
His congregation, for the most part, applauded. Immanuel and Wichita?s other big churches were seedbeds of the conservative Christian activism that burst forth three decades ago. In the 1980s, when theological conservatives pushed the moderates out of the Southern Baptist Convention, Immanuel and Fox were both at the forefront...And Fox?s confrontational style packed ever more like-minded believers into the pews. He more than doubled Immanuel?s official membership to more than 6,000 and planted the giant cross on its roof.
So when Fox announced to his flock one Sunday in August last year that it was his final appearance in the pulpit, the news startled evangelical activists from Atlanta to Grand Rapids. Fox told the congregation that he was quitting so he could work full time on ?cultural issues.? Within days, The Wichita Eagle reported that Fox left under pressure. The board of deacons had told him that his activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. ?It just wasn?t pertinent,? Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook later told me.
The Full article is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21508301/
-
I'm not so sure the evangelical right ever had a love affair with Bush
I would think they gravitate to the Republican Party the same way that Blacks gravitate to the Democrat party.
It is the point on the spectrum on issues that the party represents , not the person carrying the banner.
Odds are the religious right will still vote Republican and Blacks will still vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is.
-
I'm not so sure the evangelical right ever had a love affair with Bush
I disagree. There were quite a few letters and posts on forums I've read that went something along the lines of "President Bush was sent from God."
Of course I cannot charecterize the entire Christian right, but I think there was a sense of being let down or taken for granted.
Then again I've never really understood that side of the spectrum. I read some of the aftermath of the 2006 election on a Catholic forum and the ultra-conservative Catholics thought the entire pro-life movement was over because Rick Santorum lost (or got his ass-kicked, depending upon point of view ;) ).
-
Your arguments in disagreement is non persuasive. You seem to imply that political movements of which the religious right is certainly one are personality cults. They aren't. How can they be. Icons change. I haven't seen much change in the root philosophies.
My best guess is the author of the peice seized an opportunity for snark. Much like your remarks about Santorum were a seized opportunity for snark.
My guess is conservative Catholics did not give up the fight against abortion simply because Santorum lost or had his ass kicked depending on your need for affirmation.
-
What about James Dobson's third party iniitative? Any power behind that? Will disillusioned RRers flock to this?
-
Wow. The price is high for humor in here.
All Catholics are pro-life in some degree.
As I said, I cannot really characterize the entire Christian right and I certainly don't think that they are a personality cult. I do believe that they (or some of them) feel let down by what was (in their perception) supposed to be golden years for them. Consider that they had a Republican Congress and President, who was ideologically one of them to a degree.
I am not saying that religious conservatism is dying, I daresay it will outlast the GOP and Democrats. I am merely suggesting that there are those amongst their ranks who are unhappy with what took place with the GOP in charge of pretty much everything. Now, maybe they had far too high of expectations...that is a fair debate to be had. Maybe they will turnout in droves to vote Republican next primary season and November...I suspect that they might as long as the candidate is not Giuliani.
Yet, is it really unfair to say that they are disappointed with Bush or the GOP ties in general? I don't know, we'd have to ask them. I suspect they tend towards Southern college football fans and when the team is winning the coach is untouchable, but when the team is losing - it is time to put up a website about how dumb the guy is.
Does that post meet with your approval more?
-
In a nutshell the title of the post was nonsense.
There is no love affair with Bush. There is a calculated alignment with the party and candidate who as a rule will best serve their agenda. Simple as that. Every election cycle we see the same old posturing about how the religious right is unhappy with the payback they receive for their support. And every election cycle they come back and vote republican. For the simple reason that the democrats are further from their agenda than the GOP will ever be.
On a personal note, i am not in favor of any interest group or voting bloc hijacking the agenda of any big tent party. Whether it be the religious right for the GOP or the nutroots for the Dems.
-
Embedded in BT's responses here IS a cult of personality, in this way: the only defense he can think of (with Sirs) is to tout Bush's "honor" in the face of detractions based solidly on his incompetent performance. Either from faulty conception or flawed execution, Bush's foreign policy gambles have made the world a much more dangerous place. And the best the Bushies can do is mount a pathetic "Bush bashing" counter-mantra in the face of these withering criticisms. Pathetic.
-
Domer
Did you even read my reply?
How long has the religious right been around?
Did the precede Bush's ascendance?
Are they active only at the federal level?
The answer to those questions show the fallacy of your reply.
-
The key here is reading between the lines, as I invited: "embedded" I said. Do you deny that you and Sirs are Bushies who resort to the "Bush bashing" mantra when pressed?
-
Sounds to me like you are changing the parameters of the argument.
I say the religious right never had a love affair with GW Bush. I also say the religious right is more interested in furthering their own agenda than being part of some cargo cult concerning Bush.
And because i believe that way i believe the article and it's title were fallacious on its face.
And if you insist o reading between the lines. this certainly is no defense of Bush, it an indictment against sloppy journalism and the equally sloppy snarky posts it has generated.
-
Bush has, or had, a kind of personality cult here in my area.
Very fervent believers wanted someone spiritual and moral in office, and they were so glad to get Bush, who spoke their evangelical language.
Then the Towers. Enormous blow, and this bound Bush to them more. Even Brass and I cast aside our previous "not too impressed" feelings and got behind him.
You couldn't turn on a religious radio or TV show without hearing prayers for and praise of Bush. Faith-based initiatives---huge. The war.
And in 2004, a lady at the pediatrician's office got mad at me because I was wearing a Kerry button, and she had a Bush button on. As she weighed my son she spat, "You...you're just a Bush basher!" I hadn't said anything. The more criticism he got the more people loved him. He was being persecuted by the unrighteous, was the impression I got from listening. The war was ordained by God. I heard people say that when they were asked about it. They thought this was all foretold (Left Behind) and Biblical. And the president was who God put here to lead us in our hard times.
People believe what they need to believe to get them through hard times. I think people imbued Bush with some qualities he probably doesn't really have.
Some people I know voted for Kerry, even ones who went to the Pentecostal church. They felt bad about doing so (abortion) but had brothers or sons in Iraq and were not happy with state of affairs here at home.
If they ever did see him as sent by God to help us through a rough time, they didn't anymore, at least that is my impression.
-
Even Brass and I cast aside our previous "not too impressed" feelings and got behind him.
ROFLMAO
I'm pretty sure it didn't take you more than a day to start blaming Bush for the attack. I think Brass started the conspiracy theories the same day.
-
The key here is reading between the lines, as I invited: "embedded" I said. Do you deny that you and Sirs are Bushies who resort to the "Bush bashing" mantra when pressed?
Yes, consider it denied as so premiced above
-
Even Brass and I cast aside our previous "not too impressed" feelings and got behind him.
ROFLMAO
I'm pretty sure it didn't take you more than a day to start blaming Bush for the attack. I think Brass started the conspiracy theories the same day.
That's not true and not at all fair.
But, you can believe what you want.
-
That's not true and not at all fair.
So, you weren't on the "Bush was reading books to kids while planes were flying into buildings" train the following day?
I don't remember Knutty being alone.
-
That's not true and not at all fair.
So, you weren't on the "Bush was reading books to kids while planes were flying into buildings" train the following day?
I don't remember Knutty being alone.
[/quote
Sitting and reading at his proper level like a retarded deer caught in headlights isnt quite the same as planning the attacks. He was , however, the most benefitted by the 9/11 attakks and essentially admitted it by saying that 2001 was "But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me. We're so grateful to be living in this compound and I'm grateful to be working in this office. It's a joy to walk in here every morning, realizing that I'm the President of the greatest country on the face of the Earth." All that not withstanding that 3000 American lives were lost due to his incompetence.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011221-2.html
-
No, I was not saying that.
-
Before Juniorbush, a large number of the fundamentalists didn't vote at all, becausae "their kingdom was not of this world". If you are expecting Armageddon on Tuesday, and Jesus coming to rule over the just on Thursday, it hardly matters who runs this wick?d, wick?d world, does it?
But it seems as though Jesus, though expected to pop in at any minute, might continue to wait a tad longer as he seems to have done for, say, the past 2000 years, and in the meantime, Rove felt that these people could be induced to make the world a Better Place, by outlawing gay marriage (stoning them legally was pretty much out of the question, despite that's what they seem to think at least the OT God wants to happen). Also, it would be nice if some of their tax money could go to religious based charities, and something really must be done about all those abortions.
So that became the constituency that would guarantee Juniorbush's victory.
Not much seems possible to do to outlaw abortions on a national level. The votes aren't there. So better to concentrate on those states with a large number of fundamentalists. Gay marriage is not going to be outlawed by Constitutional amendment, either. So about all Juniorbush has done has been to allocate a few bucks to church charities rather than non religious ones.
There isn't much more that is possible, and Juniorbush has been way too busy with his war and undoing the ghastly mess he has made of it to give him much time for saving the world from the Devil.
The War in Iraq has caused a lot of pain among veterans and their families, and wars tend to corrupt everyone everywhere.
To his credit, Junorbush has given more goodies to the Fundies than Reagan ever did. Reagan did virtually nothing about abortions, gays, and funding for religious charities. Reagan was essentially a blowhard when it came to that sort of thing. He didn't abolish the dept of Education, either. It actually grew during his terms.
With NCLB, it grew even more under Juniorbush.
-
Before Juniorbush, a large number of the fundamentalists didn't vote at all, because "their kingdom was not of this world". If you are expecting Armageddon on Tuesday, and Jesus coming to rule over the just on Thursday, it hardly matters who runs this wick?d, wick?d world, does it?
Do you ever get annoyed when people talk about you as if you were not present?
I vote a lot , I always have , this is common in my fundi circles.
-
Plane,
Amish people are considered fundamentalists, and I heard many of them voted for the first time in a long time (for Bush).
-
Plane,
Amish people are considered fundamentalists, and I heard many of them voted for the first time in a long time (for Bush).
Were did you hear that from?
The Amish are not evangelical by a long shot, nor pentacostal , they do their own thing and are their own movement .
And I havent heard about them voteing.
When you say,"are considered fundamentalists" ,you don't mean "by "fundamendalists ,their movement is old and developed independant of ours.
-
The first "Pentecostals" in the modern sense appeared on the scene in 1901 in the city of Topeka, Kansas, with a handful of students conducted by Charles Fox Parham, a holiness teacher and former Methodist Pastor, with emphasis in the Pentecost's Baptism with the Spirit and glossolalia (speaking in tongues) of Acts 2. The first student who spoke in tongues was Agnes Ozman, on January 1, 1901, the first day of the twentieth century. Parham founded a church movement which he called the "Apostolic Faith", and begun a whirlwind revival tour of the America middle west to promote his exiting new experience.
It was not until 1906, however, that pentecostalism achieved worldwide attention through the "Azusa Street Revival" in Los Angeles, California, by the African-American preacher William Joseph Seymour. He learned about the tongues-attested baptism from Parham, and opened the historic meeting in April 1906 in a Black Holiness Church, a former African Methodist Episcopal church building at 312 Azusa Street in downtown Los Angeles.
What happened at Azusa Street has fascinated church historians: For over three years, the Azusa Street "Apostolic Faith Mission" conducted three services a day, seven days a week, where thousands of seekers received the tongues baptism. At that time of color segregation in the United States, the phenomenon of Blacks and Whites worshiping together under a Black pastor seemed incredible to many observers. Indeed, the color line was washed away in the Blood of Christ, in Los Angeles, "the American Jerusalem", as it called by Frank Bartleman, where the people from all ethnic minorities were represented at Azusa Street.
http://www.religion-cults.com/spirit/pentecostal.htm
Southern Baptist roots go all the way back to the Reformation in England in the sixteenth century. Various dissenters called for purification of the church and a return to the New Testament Christian example. These dissenters also called for strict accountability in their covenant with God. One of the prominent dissenters who arose in the seventeenth century was John Smyth. Smyth was a strong proponent of adult baptism and 1609 went as far as to rebaptize himself and others. Smyth's action was a sign of the first English Baptist church. Smyth also introduced the Arminian view that God's grace is for everyone and not just predestined individuals. 6 .
By 1644, due to the efforts of Thomas Helwys and Smyth, there were 50 Baptist churches. Some Baptists were General Baptists because they believed people choose to be saved and they saw atonement, as general not just limited. Others were referred to as Particular Baptists because they thought redemption was limited to a chosen few. Both groups strengthened the Baptist movement in England. 7 .
As the English Baptists struggled with recognition, some began to come to America. They came to America, like other counterparts, to escape religious persecution in England. Roger Williams was one of the Baptists to come over and in 1639 he established the First Baptist Church in America in Providence, Rhode Island. Baptists were even persecuted in the New World because of their idea of baptism. By the early eighteenth century Baptists had a strong standing in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 8 .
By the mid eighteenth century Baptist numbers grew even more due to the Great Awakening pioneered by Jonathan Edwards. In 1755, a man named Shubael Stearns headed to North Carolina to spread Baptist belief and this led to the establishment of 42 churches in the North Carolina area. Stearns' people believed in emotional conversion, membership in a community where one was accountable, and adult baptism by immersion. They were referred to as Separate Baptists. The Regular Baptists who resided primarily in the north were more urbane and valued education more. The Separates had great success in less civilized frontier regions of the south in recruiting members. 9 .
By 1790, liberty for Baptists had been won and they now began to organize and expand. At this time Baptists organized missionary societies to spread the Christian lifestyle to others. It was these mission societies that led to other organizational structures that would eventually define and make a denomination of Southern Baptists. In 1814, a convention for organizing the first national Baptist missionary society was held in Philadelphia. 10 .
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html
What I hope to do first in this essay is to describe in a nutshell, from one Old Order Amish minister's point of view, what it means to be Amish, both in spirit and in substance. I then hope, secondly, to trace, within the tides of history, the sources of the Amish faith and life. And thirdly, I would like to hint at some of the developments, from the 1690s or so, up to around 1720, where I attempt to weigh the significance of some of the major leaders who helped determine the outcomes of the great Swiss Brethren Division of the 1690s. (And indeed, it was the great Swiss Brethren -- and not only an Amish -- Division!)
Here is a quick overview of my findings: Certain Low Country Mennonite doctrines from the era of Menno Simons and Dirk Philips were picked up by certain Swiss Brethren Anabaptist groups, probably via the ongoing series of Anabaptist conferences held in the Strasbourg area. Certain of these doctrines slowly found acceptance especially among some Alsatian Swiss Brethren. These very doctrines were then formally promoted through the publication of Menno Simons' Fundamentbuch Foundation Book) in 1575, and of the Dordrecht Confession in 1664 (both publications issued in German translation). Some Swiss Brethren accepted these new doctrines; other Swiss Brethren rejected these new doctrines, believing them to clash with traditional Swiss Brethren views on the nature of the church, on the nature of congregational discipline, and on the nature of leadership and authority within the church.
I also would like to suggest that the original Amish impulse, as precipitated by Jakob Ammann himself, and others, before 1693, evolved and gelled by 1698, was set in its classical literary form in 1698 and 1720 by Uli Ammann, and resulted in continuity of the Amish idea and substance within Amish history from then on.
The Essence of the Amish Faith. I would like to begin with an interpretation of what it means to be Amish, brought together by the Old Order Amish minister, Eli E. Gingerich of Middlebury, Indiana. Several times in the year 1986 Gingerich and I had reflected on these questions, and by October 7 of that year he was ready with a four-point synthesis of what he believed lay at the center of the Amish idea. Here is his summary:
(1) First and foremost, is the inner renewal. At the heart of the Christian life is seeking and having peace with God through the atonement of Jesus Christ for our sins. It is the (spiritual) new birth (John 3:3), the most important of all: the renewing and change of the mind and spirit, in Christ, as the means of grasping and fulfilling the will of God (Rom. 12:1-2).
(2) Not only peace with God, but also peace with fellow believers. First of all, we find ourselves as humans at the crux of living as individuals under God, as well as blending together in relation to Christ and his church. Our way of life must be keyed to strengthening both of these relationships, the divine and the human (1 John 5:1).
(3) Simplicity, and mutual service. Thirdly, to fulfill this set of relationships, we need to uphold a simple life-style where we more or less depend on each other. And the more of this we can maintain, the better the community. And here, modern gadgetry and the so-called progress within general society can so often get in the way of both simplicity, and the art of relating, one to another. Furthermore, in this regard, we need to guard against being a stumbling block to anyone -- on the outside, as well as in the congregation -- but rather are to be an example of one who cares for and considers others (Phil. 2:1-18; Rom. 14:1-15:7).
(4) Separation from the world. Fourthly, the sum result of the above points brings with it, by definition, a separation from the world. But the spirit of inner renewal must of necessity precede the outer elements of separation, otherwise separation becomes merely an empty ritual.
Although in Eli Gingerich's view the above four points were the primary points, he then went on to add other elements .....http://www.goshen.edu/facultypubs/GROSS.html
-
Backtracking to a year earlier, the first time Gingerich and I talked about the question of what lies central within the Amish faith, I had taken him quite by surprise with the rather abrupt question: "What are the primary motifs, the central truths, that make up the Amish faith?"
Gingerich, a bit puzzled, proved himself equal to the challenge, began to smile and, after a long pause, said very slowly:
I think I know what you mean. Some might say, appropriate attire; and that would be beside the point. For how one dresses -- although separation is certainly important -- does not lie at the center of our Amish faith; to make dress central would be a legalism.
He paused, once again, before continuing, "At the center of faith," he said,
is of course the Bible; is the New Testament; is the spiritual new birth; better, is Jesus Christ himself: His Sermon on the Mount, his sacrifice on the cross for our sins, the resurrection. This is the very foundation -- the primary motif, to use your words -- of the whole of faith. But this is not what you mean.
Again, a long pause -- upon which this elderly Amish minister spoke the following words: deliberately, meticulously -- as if, while speaking, he were thinking through, word for word, each phrase of each sentence:
"Getting along with one another" is one way I might say it: At the center of our faith lies the desire and aim to live simply and in peace with one another. In our human weakness we do not always accomplish this, of course, yet this is our goal in life. Our prayers and sermons and hymns all undergird this, our need of relying on God for adequate spiritual strength to -- yes -- love one another; submit under each other, in the fear of the Lord; get along with one another. In Jesus' own words: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:34, 35).[3]
http://www.goshen.edu/facultypubs/GROSS.html
-
Ahhhh... here is the one that I was looking for , on topic....
http://www.religionnews.com/ArticleofWeek102804.html
It has been said that the Old Order Amish pray Republican even if they don't vote Republican. But with the presidential race remaining tight in the final days before the Nov. 2 election, GOP campaign organizers in battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are hoping to turn Amish social concerns into real support for George W. Bush at the ballot box.
.......................
The Amish, as well as their spiritual cousins the Hutterites and Old Order Mennonites, have long resisted political involvement as a way to "not be conformed to this world," as the Apostle Paul wrote. But in recent years, Republican-touted issues involving "traditional family values" have found a receptive audience in some of those groups, whose religious and cultural beliefs emphasize family and community.
.........................
Kraybill, a professor at Elizabethtown (Pa.) College, expects a higher percentage of Amish to vote in this election but estimates it will remain in single digits. Nevertheless, he said, Amish leaders are concerned.
....................
Single digits?
-
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/NAR/051215amis.html
Why the Amish are classified as fundamentalists.
-
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/NAR/051215amis.html
Why the Amish are classified as fundamentalists.
?Fundamentalism can best be thought of as a religious meaning system that relies exclusively upon a sacred text.?
Ok I like that, but what churches would not qualify for Fundamentalism under this definition?
-
Ok I like that, but what churches would not qualify for Fundamentalism under this definition?
Catholicism and most mainstream Protestants don't rely completely on text.
-
Good point, Plane. I thought that myself when I read it.
I guess it's a matter of how very much it is emphasized and colors their whole lives.
And whether personal interpretation of the Bible is allowed.
I don't see how it can be avoided, myself.
-
Before Juniorbush, a large number of the fundamentalists didn't vote at all, because "their kingdom was not of this world". If you are expecting Armageddon on Tuesday, and Jesus coming to rule over the just on Thursday, it hardly matters who runs this wick?d, wick?d world, does it?
Do you ever get annoyed when people talk about you as if you were not present?
I vote a lot , I always have , this is common in my fundi circles.
==================================================================
I did not say you, I said many, not ALL.
You don't seem to be a true fundamentalist, either.
You don't seem to believe that all the animals fitted on the Ark, or that the world was created 6000 years ago.
You don't seem to want to stone gays and children who are rude to their parents, just to name a few examples.
-
You give a description of the Baptists Plane, but not the Southern Baptists.
The Southern Baptist church formed strictly due to the racism that separated the North and South in the United States preceeding the Civil War. The Methodist Church faced a similar split (indeed the Southern Methodist Church formed around the same time).
Despite the rosy view of ethnic diversity amongst Pentacostals above, they and the Southern Baptists officially taught and practiced racial segregation until around the 1950's and 1960's. The "curse of Ham" and the "mark of Cain" were official doctrines of both churches for quite some time.
In fairness, today both groups have mostly changed from that past. But it is interesting to note that at one time the Southern Baptists taught that there were two heavens, one for whites and one for non-whites. It goes to show how time and culture influence churches.
-
You give a description of the Baptists Plane, but not the Southern Baptists.
The Southern Baptist church formed strictly due to the racism that separated the North and South in the United States preceeding the Civil War. The Methodist Church faced a similar split (indeed the Southern Methodist Church formed around the same time).
Despite the rosy view of ethnic diversity amongst Pentacostals above, they and the Southern Baptists officially taught and practiced racial segregation until around the 1950's and 1960's. The "curse of Ham" and the "mark of Cain" were official doctrines of both churches for quite some time.
In fairness, today both groups have mostly changed from that past. But it is interesting to note that at one time the Southern Baptists taught that there were two heavens, one for whites and one for non-whites. It goes to show how time and culture influence churches.
You didn't know that the Pentacostals were founded by a Black church?
Or that integation is common in Pentacostal churches?
I am a bit fuzzy on the two heavens thing , where could I read up on it?
-
You don't seem to be a true fundamentalist, either.
You don't seem to believe that all the animals fitted on the Ark, or that the world was created 6000 years ago.
You don't seem to want to stone gays and children who are rude to their parents, just to name a few examples.
Where are you meeting these people?
-
Naw, you don't need to stone them, just take away their iPods, color TVs, laptops, game systems, books (oops, they don't READ anymore, do they?)...shall I go on?
Are THESE the future leaders of tomorrow?
-
Naw, you don't need to stone them, just take away their iPods, color TVs, laptops, game systems, books (oops, they don't READ anymore, do they?)...shall I go on?
Then they stone youAre THESE the future leaders of tomorrow?
Yes and the followers too.
-
That's not true and not at all fair.
So, you weren't on the "Bush was reading books to kids while planes were flying into buildings" train the following day?
I don't remember Knutty being alone.
I totally missed this thread back when but since it mentions me by name I thought I'd follow up on it.
For the record, I was not part of any online forums on 9.11. I joined some time later.
On 9.11, I gave Bush a pass. I believed he had no foreknowledge nor any of the ensuing theories that I have embraced since. I still hold that Bush had no foreknowledge and consider him merely a pawn as McClellan has described him.
It was not till I heard of the invasion of Afghanistan that I started checking out stuff and finding out how there were nothing but oil people in Bush's "administration" and that there was a pipeline that some oil company had been wanting to build there forever and a day and the guy they were going to install as the puppet there after "deposing the taliban" was actually the broker of the deals that failed for the pipeline.
In the days following 9.11. I still hated Bush but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I let go and gave him the chance to follow the right paths and he failed to take any of the correct paths.
The drumbeat to invade Iraq sealed it for me. He was worthless and had squandered every opportunity to make the world a better place for all in favor of a better place for some and a much horrible place for MANY.