For Bush, it's from bad to worse

[#juan]

Please read the article. The last paragraph is surprising

For Bush, it's from bad to worse

By ALAN FREEMAN

Saturday, October 15, 2005 Posted at 1:45 AM EDT

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Washington — His choice for the U.S. Supreme Court is being pilloried by his closest political allies. His top political strategist is facing possible indictment by a grand jury. His party's leaders in Congress are being investigated for money laundering and possible stock manipulation. The war in Iraq continues its bloody course, hurricane recovery is stumbling and gas prices keep soaring.

Everywhere President George W. Bush turns, he faces political turmoil.

“There is deep trouble for this administration,” said Cal Jilson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Texas. “It's been a downhill slide since shortly after his re-election.”

Less than a year after Mr. Bush crowed about the political capital he had earned with his second-term election victory, that capital has all but dissipated, along with his popularity.

Advertisements
click here

Several new opinion polls this week confirm a continuing drop in Mr. Bush's approval ratings, with Pew Research Center reporting that only 38 per cent of Americans now approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing as President compared with 40 per cent in September and 50 per cent last January. Fifty-six per cent expressed disapproval in the latest survey.

“Bush's numbers are going from bad to worse and there is no silver lining,” according to the Pew Center's Andrew Kohut.

Nothing demonstrates Mr. Bush's weakened political state better than the angry reaction of his ideological kin on the Christian right to the nomination of his White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

They have savaged her as incompetent to sit on the nation's highest court and not to be trusted to vote with the ideological right on contentious issues such as gay rights and abortion, even though the Dallas lawyer is an evangelical Christian active in a church that takes a strong anti-abortion stand. Even some Republican senators are hinting they may not support her name at hearings next month.

“If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the President of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her,” columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote.

What is most surprising is that the bulk of the criticism of the Miers nomination is coming not from the Democrats but from some of Mr. Bush's most loyal stalwarts.

“They expected something and it wasn't delivered,” said Stephen Hess, professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University. “They had their list of candidates and she wasn't on their list. They feel that he owes them.”

Adding to those political woes is the investigation into the role of Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's long-time strategist and right-hand man, in the possible leaking of the name of an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, made his fourth appearance before a grand-jury investigation into the leak yesterday amid speculation that the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, may be close to laying charges.

Other prominent Republicans have legal problems of their own. Tom DeLay, the Texas Congressman who was forced to step down as the House majority leader, is due to appear in an Austin, Tex., court on Oct. 21 to face charges of conspiracy and money laundering in connection with allegations of campaign finance wrongdoing.

In another case, investigators from the Securities and Exchange Commission have subpoenaed the personal records of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist over his sale of stock in Hospital Corp. of America, the family-controlled hospital firm.

Senator Frist is reported to have sold millions of dollars' worth of company stock from a blind trust just days before the shares fell 9 per cent after the company warned that it would miss its profit target. Investigators are looking into the possibility of insider trading.

All of this news bodes badly for Republican Party chances in mid-term elections, but they are still more than a year away. And observers say Mr. Bush's problems have been seen before.

“It's always the case in a second term that fault lines open and cracks appear,” Mr. Hess said. “Much of what we're seeing here is second-term-itis. It's happened to pretty much all second-term presidents,” he added, noting that the latest scandals still pale compared to the Iran-Contra scandal of Ronald Reagan's second term and the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal that plagued Bill Clinton's last term.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

Bush's problems pale in comparison to the blow job scandal because the press hasn't after him. They pandered to Reagan this way as well, which is about the only reason he got out of the White House without going to prison and Bush Sr. got to serve a single term as president.

The Republicans chased Clinton for a decade though. They made up false stories and fed them to the press. They lied, they cheated. In the end all that they had on him was that he let Monica have her way with him.

If the press would have reported honestly on Reagan, he would have been removed from office. If they report honestly on Bush, he will be removed from office. The thing is that the press is notoriously biased to the right, so thery are unlikely to do their job.

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

the latest scandals still pale compared to the Iran-Contra scandal of Ronald Reagan's second term and the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal that plagued Bill Clinton's last term.

The media witchhunt for Clinton was a scandal in itself, worse than anything Clinton may have done, - not to mention the things that it transpired he didn't do - but it doesn't surprise me that this guy Hess takes the view he does. He probably taught the media how to harrass Clinton.

 

[#juan]

The media witchhunt for Clinton was a scandal in itself,

You're right there. The news media should report the news, not make the news.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The Bush years: Outrage, after outrage, after ...
Asked to name the Outrage of the Week, how could anyone possibly choose?

By Molly Ivins
Published October 13, 2005


AUSTIN, Texas -- On one of those television gong shows that passes for journalism, the panelists used to have to pick an Outrage of the Week. Then, each performer would wax indignant about his or her choice for 60 seconds or so. If someone asked me to name the Outrage of the Week about now, I'd have a coronary. How could anyone possibly choose?

I suppose the frontrunner is the anti-torture amendment. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) proposed an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military.

This may strike you as a "goes without saying" proposition-the amendment passed the Senate 90 to 9. The United States has been signing anti-torture treaties under Democrats and Republicans for at least 50 years. But the Bush administration actually managed to find some weasel words to create a loophole in this longstanding commitment to civilized behavior.

According to the Bushies, if the United States is holding a prisoner on foreign soil, our soldiers can still subject him or her to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment-the very forms of torture used by the soldiers who were later prosecuted for their conduct at Abu Ghraib. Does this make any sense, moral or common?

So deeply does President Bush feel our country, despite all its treaty commitments, has a right to torture that he has threatened to veto the bill if it passes. This would the first time in five years he has ever vetoed anything. Think about it: Five years of stupefying pork, ideological nonsense, dumb administrative ideas, fiscal idiocy, misbegotten energy programs-and the first thing the man vetoes is a bill to pay our soldiers because it carries an amendment saying, once again, that this country does not torture prisoners.

This is the United States of America. It is our country, not George W. Bush's personal property. The United States of America still stands for the rights of man, for freedom, dignity and justice. We do not torture helpless prisoners. Our soldiers are not the Nazi Waffen SS, not the North Vietnamese who tortured McCain and others for years on end, not bestial Argentinean fascists, not the Khmer Rouge.

Remember, we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was such a horrible brute that he tortured people. This is beyond disgusting. The House Republicans, who have no shame, will try to weaken McCain's amendment. They need to hear from decent Republicans all over this country. Don't leave this hideous stain on your party's name. This is not what America stands for. We've had more loathsome and more dangerous enemies than Al Qaeda and managed to defeat them without resorting to torture.

And leading the charge in the House will be Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), that pillar of moral rectitude and Christian mercy. Wait a minute: Didn't DeLay have to step down from his leadership position after he got indicted? Well, yes, but some step-downs are more down than others. There was "The Hammer" in full glory Friday, twisting arms and working the floor on behalf of a real cutie of a bill to benefit the oil companies.

Even Republicans revolted. As Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) said, "We are enriching people, but we are not doing anything to give the little guy a break."

I have become inured to Bush's idea of foreign policy. But the policy does result in some lovely ironies. On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the highly respected head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Quite apart from whether you support Bush or not, ElBaradei and the IAEA deserve the honor-they have been both diligent and effective.

ElBaradei was right when he repeatedly warned the Bush administration that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction and has said the day the United States invaded "was the saddest in my life."

But you know our boy George: not for him the gracious, "Gee, you were right, and we were wrong after all." Nope, after ElBaradei was proved right, Bush tried to have him fired. And the man in charge of carrying out the campaign to have the guy fired for being right? John Bolton, now our ambassador to the United Nations.

Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Austin, Texas. E-mail: info@creators.com. Creators Syndicate

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Bush's flim-flam on faith
By Derrick Z. Jackson | October 15, 2005

BY THE TIME our holy-roller-in-chief leaves office, we will really be confused about the role of religion. That is how President Bush wants it, starting with his faith-based initiatives that were merely an excuse for gutting government programs. In recent weeks, this blessed agenda has bumped up against unavoidable hypocrisy.

The most obvious is the Supreme Court. Bush named John Roberts to the court under a massive smokescreen. In July, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, ''Judge Roberts has said in previous testimony that personal beliefs or views have no role whatsoever when it comes to decisions that judges make."

The ''no role" ploy was meant to fend off liberal critics and hide as much as possible from them about Roberts's personal feelings in his Senate hearings. But when Bush's new pick for the court, Harriet Miers, was criticized as a lightweight conservative by some on the far right, the White House performed what Bush himself called an ''outreach program" on Miers's religious bonafides.

James Dobson of Focus on the Family said Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, told him that Miers is ''an evangelical Christian" who attends ''a very conservative church which is almost universally prolife." Asked about his ''outreach program," Bush said, ''They want to know Harriet Miers's background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."

The assertion of Miers's religiosity to buoy her nomination serves to highlight an even bigger conundrum. Today, the people of Iraq vote on a new constitution, one that Bush praised in August by saying ''Iraq will have a democratic constitution that honors women's rights, the rights of minorities." This conveniently ignores the fact that the Iraqi constitution says right up front that Islam is the official religion of the government and is a ''fundamental source of legislation." Many human rights watchers worry that such language, given how Islamic law is sometimes applied by men, will end up being used to oppress women.

Thus at home, Bush uses religion to hint broadly to supporters who want to do away with abortion rights that Miers is safe for a seat on our Supreme Court, even though the United States is a nation where the vast majority of Americans think abortion in varying degrees should be an option. Only 29 percent of Americans want to see the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion overturned, according to both a Pew poll in July and a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll in June.

The manipulation of religion is even worse (given the fatal consequences) for his adventures abroad. When journalist Bob Woodward asked Bush if he consulted with his former president father about invading Iraq, Bush said, ''He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher Father that I appeal to."

Last week in an address before the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush once again wrongly and willfully conflated Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were found, with 9/11, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. In doing so, he decried the ''evil" of terrorists who misuse religion.

''This ideology is very different from the religion of Islam," Bush said. ''This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency of totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom."

Bush added, ''Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life."

Two and a half years after the invasion, Bush has said nothing about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were sacrificed to serve his own political vision. There is no doubt that the blood of former dictator Saddam Hussein ran cold, with thousands of deaths on his hands. But with chaos still in the streets of Iraq, with car bombs taking out dozens of people every few days, and a constitution that does not even try to separate church and state, it remains frightfully unclear what Bush has taught us.

In the speech on his ''war on terror" last week, Bush had the gall to quote the part of the Koran that says ''killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity. . . . the time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends." He said this as a president who has exploited Christianity for his own political ends, in a presidency that has displayed a cold-blooded contempt for innocent Iraqis and democracy right here at home.

our holy-roller-in-chief

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

If the press would have reported honestly on Reagan, he would have been removed from office. If they report honestly on Bush, he will be removed from office. The thing is that the press is notoriously biased to the right, so thery are unlikely to do their job.

Biased to the right? First time I hear anyone say the press is biased to the right. It is almost always the opposite.

Here are some interesting press stats from 2002 ...

 

[Ocean Breeze]

President Bush Plays by His Own Rules By Bob Burnett
If you have ever played a competitive sport, you understand that there are actually two sets of rules. In regular games, there are formal rules and, usually, referees to ensure that all players abide by them; the competition is governed by an ethic: “It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.”
In irregular contests, pick-up games, there are informal rules—in some venues called “jungle” rules—and no referees; in this situation, the game is often reduced to doing whatever it takes to win. The contrast between the two is the difference between boxing, conducted by the Marques of Queensbury rules where fighters may only strike the head and upper body with their gloved hands, and extreme fighting, where anything goes.

When we question the actions of the Bush administration, it’s useful to keep this distinction in mind, as George Bush and company talk as if they abide by the political version of the Marques of Queensbury rules but actually play by jungle ethics where anything goes—Bush rules.

Two recent news stories graphically illustrate the nature of Bush rules. It’s been well documented that the administration was indifferent to the tragedy wrought by Hurricane Katrina, until there was an enormous public outcry. What hasn’t been talked about is the contrast between this occasion and their response to Hurricane Frances in September of 2004. Two months before the presidential election, Frances was threatening Florida, with its 27 electoral votes, and the Bush administration leaped into action. The National Guard was mobilized and a federal-state-nonprofit task force was launched—before Frances hit.

Bush rules dictated that the administration had to perform well in this time of crisis, because it represented a political opportunity. Katrina didn’t command the same urgency as it didn’t occur in an election year—Bush was making speeches in California on the day the hurricane hit the Gulf Coast.

Bush rules have also governed the White House response to the outcry over the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The president told the press that he wanted “to get to the bottom” of the leak scandal; his press secretary, Scott McClellan commented, “The president has set … the highest of standards for people in his administration…If anyone in this administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration.” Since those comments, we learned that top administration officials—including key presidential adviser, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney’s chief-of-staff, Scooter Libby—were involved. Yet, no one was punished by the White House. Moreover, according to a July 24 New York Times story and comments made by political commentator, George Stephanopolous on Oct. 2, the president and vice-president were deeply involved in the discussions about Valerie Plame, before her identity was revealed by conservative columnist Bob Novak.

(Federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, questioned Bush for 70 minutes on June 24, 2004; at the time, legal observers remarked on how unusual this was and opined that it indicated a suspicion that the Plame leak occurred at a high level in the administration.)

The hypocrisy of Bush rules might be dismissed as political business-as-usual if it were Richard Nixon who was president; “Tricky Dick” was known to be a slippery character, more interested in political gain than in the common good. However, George W. Bush has made a huge issue of his personal integrity. When he was first nominated to run for president, he made it a point to distinguish his morality from that of Bill Clinton and, by implication, Al Gore.

“Behind every goal I’ve talked about tonight is a great hope for our country … we must usher in an era of responsibility. And our nation’s leaders are responsible to confront problems, not pass them onto others. And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, that president himself must be responsible. So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.”

Bush promised to bring honor and responsibility to the presidency. Moreover, he claimed to be a Christian; not a superficial believer like Clinton, but a “born again” Christian. His profession of faith bolstered his declaration of integrity.

Americans know a lot about Christianity as more than 80 percent identify with that religion. We understand that orthodox Christians do not lie, put their personal fortune above the common good, or believe that the ends justify the means. Proper Christians operate by the ethical equivalent of the Marques of Queensbury rules. Most believe that it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.

But George W. Bush plays by his own rules. As Americans watch this administration unravel—as the electorate begins to understand the folly of the Iraq occupation, the fantasy of homeland security, and the abandonment of governance in the pursuit of political gain—one wonders which realization will come first: Will it be that Bush the President is incapable of leading the United States, or will it be that Bush the man doesn’t deserve to be called a Christian?

some excellent articles coming out now..... could be the start of more "truths".....(or as truthful as one can expect in politics.)

 

[Jo Canadian]

:lol: Art for Arts sake

 

[Ocean Breeze]

:lol: Art for Arts sake

shucks...........the emperor lost his clothes... :wink:

(skinny bugger ,ain't he?? :wink:

 

[#juan]

Bush's ratings dropping still.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/17/poll.bush/

The surprising thing is that it is reported by CNN.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

He's in major political trouble. It's way too early for him to become a lame duck too...a position he has already been in for months. This does not bode well for he Republicans either in the upcoming mid-terms or the '08 presidential race. That makes me happy.

 

[Nascar_James]

Bush's ratings dropping still.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/17/poll.bush/

The surprising thing is that it is reported by CNN.

Why surprising? CNN is known for being a left leaning news source.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

Only in your mind, Nascar Nero.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

He's in major political trouble. It's way too early for him to become a lame duck too...a position he has already been in for months. This does not bode well for he Republicans either in the upcoming mid-terms or the '08 presidential race. That makes me happy.

Well Rev, don't count your chickens just yet. The Republicans may actually gain some senate seats in next years elections, and get a filibuster majority. They only need 5 more. No matter what, they will surely keep their majority. The Democrats only have 44 seats now. They need to get 51 for a majority. Will not happen.

As for the 2008 Presidential Election, that is over 3 years away and anything can happen in 3 years ... and usually does...

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Washington on Tenterhooks Over Leak Case
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Wrapping up a two-year investigation that a growing number of legal analysts expect to yield indictments of at least one, and possibly two, of the George W. Bush administration's most powerful men as early as this week, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has Washington on pins and needles.

As the witness list and accounts of recent testimony before Fitzgerald's grand jury make clear, the prosecutor appears to have set his sights on both Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for their alleged roles in leaking the identity of a covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer, Valerie Plame.

The administration's right-wing defenders are preparing for the worst, arguing that, as asserted by another prominent neo-conservative, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the prosecutor is part of a "comprehensive strategy of criminalisation ...implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives".

Whoever is indicted by the grand jury, which must complete its work by the end of next week, would almost certainly have to resign.

If Rove or Libby, such an indictment would not only constitute a serious political embarrassment to an administration whose popularity is already at its lowest ebb. Given the two men's central operational roles, it would also almost certainly add to the disarray that has enveloped the White House since Hurricane Katrina more than six weeks ago.

While Rove has long been considered "Bush's brain" -- Bush himself refers to him as "Boy Genius" -- Libby, perhaps the single most influential neo-conservative inside the administration, oversees the exceptionally large and influential staff of the most powerful vice president in U.S. history.

Both men were also part of the high-level White House Iraq Group (WHIG) that was formally convened in September 2002, apparently to coordinate efforts to rally the country behind the eventual decision to go to war in Iraq. Fitzgerald reportedly has subpoenaed the group's records and taken testimony from its members.

The leak was apparently part of a White House-orchestrated effort to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a retired ambassador who was sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. He disclosed his mission and his findings that the reports were false in a Jul. 6, 2003 New York Times column that accused the administration of taking the country to war under false pretenses.

Eight days later, the Washington Post published a piece by right-wing columnist Robert Novak that reported Plame's relationship to Wilson and her alleged role in the decision to send her husband on the mission. At the same time, several other Washington reporters said they had been contacted by administration officials regarding Plame's identity.

After Novak's disclosure, the CIA referred the case to the Justice Department under a 1982 law that makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert U.S. officer. Under pressure from critics who charged that, as a Bush appointee, he had a conflict of interest in pursuing the case, former Attorney-General John Ashcroft subsequently appointed Fitzgerald as an independent special prosecutor in late 2003.

The White House had insisted until relatively recently that neither Rove nor Libby had ever spoken to reporters about Plame. However, that position became untenable with the disclosure earlier this summer by a Time magazine reporter who testified that he had communications with both men about Wilson just before the Novak column. Since then, the White House and Bush, who had said early in the case that he would fire anyone involved in the leak, have repeatedly refused all comment.

Fitzgerald's investigation and the grand jury's proceedings have been secret, although lawyers who have represented various witnesses have occasionally told reporters what their clients have been asked. Fitzgerald himself has declined to make any public comments about the investigation, so that it remains unclear even now whether he will indeed ask for indictments and, if so, what they will be.

Many analysts believe the evidentiary requirements of the 1982 law, the Intelligence Identities Act, may be too difficult to prove in this case. If indictments are forthcoming, most legal observers say they could involve the unauthorised disclosure of classified information, obstruction of justice, or perjury or conspiracy to commit such acts.

A conspiracy charge could be particularly devastating because it could put more high-level figures at risk.

The speculation has become particularly intense over the last few days. On Oct. 14, Rove made his fourth appearance before the grand jury in what many commentators suggested was probably an eleventh-hour effort to explain certain contradictions in his previous testimony.

But his plight was eclipsed by a series of appearances before the grand jury of Judith Miller, a controversial New York Times reporter, who had spent nearly 90 days in jail rather than comply with Fitzgerald's demand to disclose how she came to know of Plame's identity.

Faced with the possibility of another contempt citation that would have extended her time in jail, Miller negotiated a deal with Fitzgerald to confine her testimony to conversations she had with Libby after he personally assured her that he had no objection to her testifying.

Miller's account of her testimony, published in Sunday's Times, made clear that Libby told her about Plame's employment in the CIA at least two weeks before Wilson's article appeared. And while Miller wrote that Libby had not identified Plame by name, other notations in her notebook suggest that he had. Indeed, Miller's lawyer told a television interviewer Sunday that "the central and essentially only figure who had information (on Plame) was Libby".

More ominous for the administration was Miller's disclosure that Fitzgerald had asked repeatedly about whether she thought Cheney himself had authorised or knew about Libby's exchanges with her regarding Plame. She thought not.

Wilson's mission to Niger is believed to have originated with a request by Cheney to further investigate a Feb. 12, 2002, Defence Intelligence Agency report, apparently based on documents initially circulated by Italy's military intelligence (SISMI). According to Miller, Cheney asked both the CIA and the Pentagon to investigate further.

After some deliberation in which Plame, an expert on nuclear proliferation, may have played a role, the CIA sent Wilson to Niger in late February, while the Pentagon sent Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., then-deputy commander of the U.S. European Command at roughly the same time. Fulford separately reached the same conclusion as Wilson -- that the yellowcake transaction was highly unlikely.

Wilson was debriefed by the CIA on his return in early March, while Fulford filed a written report. But whether their conclusions made it up the chain of command remains a mystery.

Cheney's office has insisted that it never heard anything from the CIA about Wilson's mission. Fulford's report reached the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then-Gen. Richard Myers, according to official records, although Myers himself said he had "no recollection" of it and no idea whether he passed it along to Cheney.

Cheney, whose initial curiosity set off this flurry of travel and reporting, however, appears to have lost interest in the results by Mar. 24 when he appeared on three national public-affairs television programmes and on each one asserted for the first time that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear-weapons production.

The Nigerien documents about the yellowcake deal whose existence was first reported by SISMI were determined by the International Atomic Energy Agency to have been crude forgeries on the eve of the U.S. invasion. No investigation into their provenance -- either by Congress or a grand jury -- has been undertaken.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: For Bush, it's from b

The indictments are coming, James. If Bush stays out of jail and manages not to be be impeached, those will still kill the Republicans in the polls. The scandals aren't all Bush's either. People are looking at Delay and wondering how many of their Republican congressmen are just as crooked.

Try to spin it however you want, the Republicans are in more trouble than they've been in since Nixon.

 

[GL Schmitt]

Re: RE: For Bush, it's from b

. . . Try to spin it however you want, the Republicans are in more trouble than they've been in since Nixon.

And like Nixon, have dragged the Ameican public -- civilian and military -- into it with them, right up to their chins.

 

[Nascar_James]

Out of jail? For what? Going after the terrorists?

hah ... that's a good one , Rev.

In case you've forgotten Rev, we are still at war.

He should be given an award instead for arresting or killing many of the terrorists.

 

[Andygal]

Reply with quote
Out of jail? For what? Going after the terrorists?

For illegally invading another country, for killing countles Iraqi civillians, for commiting election fraud, the list goes on and on and on.