BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:12 AM

The New York Times offers a steaming condemnation of Bush's involvement with the firing of US Attorneys on improper grounds:

"Politics, Pure and Cynical


Published: March 14, 2007
We wish we'd been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability. This disaster is just part of the Bush administration's sordid history of waving the bloody bullhorn of 9/11 for the basest of motives: the perpetuation of power for power's sake.


Documents Regarding the Department of Justice Firings From the House Judiciary Committee Web SiteTime and again, President Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, Americans have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safer, but in the service of Vice President Dick Cheney's vision of a presidency so powerful that Congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove's fantasy of a permanent Republican majority.

In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism.

But these firings had nothing to do with national security — or officials' claims that the attorneys were fired for poor performance. This looks like a political purge, pure and simple, and President Bush and his White House are in the thick of it.

..." Full article , worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:04 AM

From "Political COrtex", a blog with left-leaning tendencies:

"To Impeach George Bush or Not to Impeach George Bush! That is the Question!
By Bob Kendall
03/13/2007 04:17:18 PM EST

Does the current Congress consider the Constitution a dead document? Ronald Roberts of Redmond, Washington, in a compelling letter to the Seattle Times editors on March 12, posed this impeachment necessity bluntly:
"Our legislators at both the federal and state level are equally bound by Article 6 of the United States Constitution to support it. To ignore the assault that has occurred is dereliction."

As for Democrats who have failed their constitution-bound duty to begin impeachment proceedings, we must censure Nancy Pelosi emphatically. How dare Nancy decide, "Impeachment is off the table."

Apparently instead of demanding that impeachment investigations begin immediately, Nancy has demanded a larger airplane to supply for herself and those she deems worthy to be taken along for the ride, at taxpayer expense, of course.


Elizabeth Walter of Seattle told the editors of the Seattle Times her views on March 12:
"I believe Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney in order to honor the wisdom of our forefathers and to defend the American experiment.

"Our forefathers knew that there would be corrupt people in the executive office who would abuse the people and abuse the power bestowed by the people. Those corrupt people are in the executive office today, and we need to hold them to account.

"Bush and Cheney have repeatedly violated the Constitution, our laws, and lied to Congress and the public over and over."

After launching the Iraq War with a well orchestrated media blitz of lies and fear tactics which did dispose of a former ally, Saddam Hussein, we have demolished the Iraq infrastructure, sent everyday Iraq citizens fleeing by the millions to Jordan, Syria, anywhere on earth just to survive.

The unforgivable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,500 U.S. service personnel, and over 50,000 combatants and non-combatants are a tragic stain on U.S. history.

What does Bush fantasize chasing around South America now in Air Force One can achieve with his terrifying track record? CNN Worldwide TV has repeatedly shown all the hellish death, destruction, and debt this Administration must be held accountable for right now!

What does Bush fantasize chasing around South America now in Air Force One can achieve with his terrifying track record? CNN Worldwide TV has repeatedly shown all the hellish death, destruction, and debt this Administration must be held accountable for right now!

If they lose their role of allegedly representing the people they can become lobbyists themselves. Before they were accepting cash lobbyist contributions. Now they can hand out cash contributions. It has been called the slippery hand syndrome.

But not to worry; we are blessed with moral guardians like that Republican icon Newt Gingrich.

Gary Clark of Marysville, Washington told it like it is in a letter to the Seattle Times, which was published on March 12:

"It was stunning to read that Newt Gingrich crawled out of his septic tank to admit or confess that he had an extramarital affair during his pursuit of charges against President Clinton.

"Imagine that! Somehow Newt suckered all the conservative Republicans into believing he was indeed the compass for moral values and family values."

And this is one from Ripley's "Believe It or Not". Apparently born again Newt calculates that after this "public confession" he should consider running for president."


The groundswell continues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 04:07 PM

my cartoon of Bush with Harriet Myers and Gonzales on his arm:

SURGE THE TROOPS AND PURGE THE JUDGES !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:36 PM

And the FDR rabbit appears AGAIN! Please kill the rabbit!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

I notice you have cleverly avoided addressing the actual logical fallacy of comparing WW II fiscal management with the fiscal management in later years.

My argument with you was couched in ad hominem terms, but it is quite clear there is a substantive distinction in the center of it which you have twisted to your own purposes.

I have frankly had enough of this ducking, twisting. squirming and viperous inanity. The thinking is too corkscrewed around and bass-ackwards for me to even begin to understand it. Sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

Amos: Please be advised that Ad Hominem attacks are a logical fallacy that indicate you have nothing to offer but personal attacks and rhetoric.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks.

As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness, because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:06 PM

Dickey, you blithering dog's breath, that was the middle of WW II!! Jaysus!! You would turn Christ's own crutch into a political football if someone dropped it on your head!! LOL!





A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:09 PM

"Spend our grandchildren's legacy & dowery"

FDR, one of Amos's good guys, spent ours. See Chart

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:52 AM

The chart you refer to says that Clinton's talley was a net gain of 526 billion. George Bush's first term was a net deficit of -648 billion. This loss has been reduced to -496 billion to date. These numbers do not reflect the national indebtedness, merely the budget deficit. Bush effectively wiped out all Clinton's gains, according to this chart, and is barely back to square zero or one in recovering them as far as the budget deficit is concerned. Also note the chart ends on 1-29, before present surge outlays have been fully assessed.

BB: I did.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM

"Our surplus went from billions at the end of the Clinton era to negative trillions under Bush."

Will Mr. fixated narrow focus please see this chart and notice the the Clinton "surplus" started a precipitous down hill decline in 2000, before Bush took office because there was a recession underway.

Also notice that the deficit was decreasing before Clinton took office.

Right now it is decreasing and will likely be decreasing when the next president takes office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 10:17 AM

"What you are doing is tantamount to fear-mongering, in an effort to scrabble for some kind of cheap factional angle with no concern for the public weal yourself.

By all means, expose graft and shine the light on evil. But don't go doing it on a partisan ballyhoo basis. It is tedious and counterproductive. I predict you will find some more, and it will not stop, because power corrupts human beings in general, with delightful rare exceptions. Blow all the whistles you like, but do it from a sense of decency, not a lust for slander."


I wonder who said this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 08:16 AM

Well, feel free to add popular views in support of the "doing well" part, if you can find some. Our surplus went from billions at the end of the Clinton era to negative trillions under Bush. I am not sure why that constitutes doing a good job on the economy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:26 PM

PS:

I don't see this thread as a discussion of anything. Just a gathering of anything negative that Amos can find.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

"What can you add to the discussion of popular views of the Bush administration?

Do you concur they are as profoundly corrupt as some say? Do you think Bush is the worst President ever?

What do _you_ feel he has done well?"

Given the difficult circumstances inherited from previous adminstrations, I feel that the Bush Administration has done no worse that previous administrations and is no more corrupt.

In handling the economy he has done well. If you look back in history and at the economy of other countries, you will see what I mean.

On curbing illegal immigration he has done poorly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:39 PM

A scandalous story of genuine jackbootery on a Denver busline has crossed my plate. It reflects not on the Bush Administration directly but on the reign of terror that the Bush Administration has promulgated. It is a really ugly tale of the kind of thuggery that people should never have to put up with in this country. Unfortunately, in the days of Home Land Security panic-mongering, it occurs too often -- at airports, in meetings on city streets, and on public transport.

You read the facts of the case, and a legal analysis of it, here.

If this is the kind of country that Bush's people want to have, they should be put on trial for treason.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

IF you have ever wondered how you compared to Bush on the morality scale here is an easy quiz that will let you find out. Enjoy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 10:42 AM

From Bangor, Maine, in the Daily News:

"Politicized justice
By BDN Staff
Monday, March 12, 2007 - Bangor Daily News


What began as scattered reports of the firing of some top federal prosecutors has suddenly erupted into a full-blown scandal with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the defensive, scrambling to appease his critics and possibly even to hold onto his job.

As recently as Wednesday, in a column in USA Today, he brushed aside questions about the firings as "an overblown personnel matter." And he sought to explain the dismissals by saying merely "they lost my confidence."

But on Thursday afternoon Mr. Gonzales reversed himself, went to the Capitol for a private meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and agreed to let five of his aides involved in the firings testify without subpoena. He also dropped his objection to a pending bill that would withdraw his year-old power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation.

Most striking of all was a cryptic remark by Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the committee and a frequent critic of the Bush administration. Mr. Specter, stung by the Gonzales column, said, "One day, there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner than later." (He later said that he hadn't meant to suggest that Mr. Gonzales was stepping down.)

The concessions came after a week of hearings in which the fired prosecutors told of Republican pressure to hasten investigation of alleged Democratic wrongdoing and go easy in investigating Republicans. In one case, Daniel G. Bogden, an 11-year Justice Department veteran, tried to learn why he was dismissed as U.S. attorney in Nevada. He said he finally reached a senior department official who told him they were attempting to open a slot and bring someone else in, a return to the old discredited spoils system.

This evident politicization of the Justice Department might never have been known if the Republicans hadn't lost the leadership of both houses last November. The Democrats' victory put gave them the committee chairmanships and, above all, the power to subpoena testimony.

..."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

Another facet of the obsessive secretiveness and below-board style of the Resident:

"In November 2001, while the world was focused on terrorism, President Bush issued an executive order making it significantly harder for historians and the public to gain access to a former president's official papers. The House has a chance tomorrow to reverse this damaging decree.

Mr. Bush's decision effectively repealed the presumption of public availability enshrined in the Presidential Records Act of 1978, a post-Watergate reform that established that the treasure trove of historical material amassed by a president belongs to the American people.

In the place of these open government principles, Mr. Bush established cumbersome review procedures that give former presidents, and even their heirs, unprecedented authority to selectively withhold sensitive records indefinitely. The backlog of presidential document requests now extends to five years or longer, compared with 18 months in 2001, according to recent testimony in the House.

The bill to undo Mr. Bush's order, sponsored by Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and colleagues from both parties, would re-establish sensible procedures to ensure timely release of presidential documents. It would retract the authority Mr. Bush granted presidential descendants and vice presidents to withhold records. "

(Editorial NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 09:23 AM

"Bob Herbert presents the Walter Reed scandal as a much broader issue, something much of the mainstream press and our government are refusing to believe.

There can be no more contempt for our troops than concocting a lie to send them into harm's way and not providing adequate resources for them to accomplish their job — however impossible it may be to begin with.

The responsibility rests with the Republican Party, which has offered unapologetic canards for Iraq from the beginning.

The G.O.P. is the first to accuse critics of draining troop morale, developing new catch phrases like "a Democratic 'slow bleed' strategy."

What the G.O.P. must realize is that our troops have been slowly bleeding since the day President Bush began this blunder of a war, and they will continue to do so until we bring them home.

Randy LoBasso
Philadelphia, March 8, 2007"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 09:07 AM

Krugman (Times) on Gozales and the political manipulation of Justice:

"Nobody is surprised to learn that the Justice Department was lying when it claimed that recently fired federal prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance. Nor is anyone surprised to learn that White House political operatives were pulling the strings.

What is surprising is how fast the truth is emerging about what Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, dismissed just five days ago as an "overblown personnel matter."

Sources told Newsweek that the list of prosecutors to be fired was drawn up by Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff, "with input from the White House." And Allen Weh, the chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, told McClatchy News that he twice sought Karl Rove's help — the first time via a liaison, the second time in person — in getting David Iglesias, the state's U.S. attorney, fired for failing to indict Democrats. "He's gone," he claims Mr. Rove said.

After that story hit the wires, Mr. Weh claimed that his conversation with Mr. Rove took place after the decision to fire Mr. Iglesias had already been taken. Even if that's true, Mr. Rove should have told Mr. Weh that political interference in matters of justice is out of bounds; Mr. Weh's account of what he said sounds instead like the swaggering of a two-bit thug.

And the thuggishness seems to have gone beyond firing prosecutors who didn't deliver the goods for the G.O.P. One of the fired prosecutors was — as he saw it — threatened with retaliation by a senior Justice Department official if he discussed his dismissal in public. Another was rejected for a federal judgeship after administration officials, including then-White House counsel Harriet Miers, informed him that he had "mishandled" the 2004 governor's race in Washington, won by a Democrat, by failing to pursue vote-fraud charges.

As I said, none of this is surprising. The Bush administration has been purging, politicizing and de-professionalizing federal agencies since the day it came to power. But in the past it was able to do its business with impunity; this time Democrats have subpoena power, and the old slime-and-defend strategy isn't working.

You also have to wonder whether new signs that Mr. Gonzales and other administration officials are willing to cooperate with Congress reflect the verdict in the Libby trial. It probably comes as a shock to realize that even Republicans can face jail time for lying under oath..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 12:59 AM

Dickey;

What can you add to the discussion of popular views of the Bush administration?

Do you concur they are as profoundly corrupt as some say? Do you think Bush is the worst President ever?

What do _you_ feel he has done well?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM

I new that rabbit couldn't stay in the hat.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM

There -- don't you feel safer? Yes

Amos was the one that brought up FDR.

FDR stayed out of the war until he was forced to Fight Japan but how was he forced to fight in Europe?

If FDR had joined in the war in Europe earlier, lives would have been
saved.


Here Amos, this is by a fellow anti war person like yourself:
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War



Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the United States out of World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt promised never to send American boys onto foreign battlefields, even as each was doing his best to do otherwise.

Who attacked the US in WW1?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 09:16 AM

Ibid:

"What Mr. Libby did — fabricating nuclear threats at WHIG and then lying under oath when he feared that sordid Pandora's box might be pried open by the Wilson case — was despicable. Had there been no WHIG or other White House operation for drumming up fictional rationales for war, there would have been no bogus uranium from Africa in a presidential speech, no leak to commit perjury about, no amputees to shut away in filthy rooms at Walter Reed.

Listening to Ms. Matalin and her fellow apparatchiks emote publicly about the punishment being inflicted on poor Mr. Libby and his family, you wonder what world they live in. They seem clueless about how ugly their sympathy for a conniving courtier sounds against the testimony of those wounded troops and their families who bear the most searing burdens of the unnecessary war WHIG sped to market."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 09:14 AM

On Libby's role as a central team player for the WHite House Gang:

"Mr. Libby's novel was called "The Apprentice." His memoir could be titled "The Accomplice." Its first chapter would open in August 2002, when he and a small cadre of administration officials including Karl Rove formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secret task force to sell the Iraq war to the American people. The climactic chapter of the Libby saga unfolded last week when the guilty verdict in his trial coincided, all too fittingly, with the Congressional appearance of two Iraq veterans, one without an ear and one without an eye, to recount their subhuman treatment at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

It was WHIG's secret machinations more than four years ago that led directly to those shredded lives. WHIG had been tasked, as The Washington Post would later uncover, to portray Iraq's supposedly imminent threat to America with "gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence." In other words, WHIG was to cook up the sexiest recipe for promoting the war, facts be damned. So it did, by hyping the scariest possible scenario: nuclear apocalypse. As Michael Isikoff and David Corn report in "Hubris," it was WHIG (equipped with the slick phrase-making of the White House speechwriter Michael Gerson) that gave the administration its Orwellian bumper sticker, the constantly reiterated warning that Saddam's "smoking gun" could be "a mushroom cloud."

Ever since all the W.M.D. claims proved false, the administration has pleaded that it was duped by the same bad intelligence everyone else saw. But the nuclear card, the most persistent and gripping weapon in the prewar propaganda arsenal, was this White House's own special contrivance. Mr. Libby was present at its creation. He knows what Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney knew about the manufacture of this fiction and when they knew it.

Clearly they knew it early on. The administration's guilt (or at least embarrassment) about its lies in fomenting the war quickly drove it to hide the human price being paid for those lies. (It also tried to hide the financial cost of the war by keeping it out of the regular defense budget, but that's another, if related, story.) The steps the White House took to keep casualties out of view were extraordinary, even as it deployed troops to decorate every presidential victory rally and gave the Pentagon free rein to exploit the sacrifices of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in mendacious P.R. stunts."

(Frank Rich, NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:39 PM

Reflections on British politics:

"But why do people stand as politicians if they have no policies? Many politicians claim privately that they are simply concealing their policies until they are elected. It is more likely that when the winds of office change in their favor, they will find their faces frozen into an expression of affable inaction. The role of a modern politician is apparently to be likable, to tinker with existing institutions and to manage occasional crises.

Churchill has been replaced by Bertie Wooster.

In Iraq, hundreds of thousands have died over the last few years and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by the U.S.-led coalition. The international system is fractured; the Islamic world is angry. Yet both major British political parties still refuse to admit the problem and instead tweak the current mission: withdraw some troops from Iraq, put a few more in Afghanistan.

A million people took to London's streets to stop the invasion. Thirty million now think we should withdraw from Iraq. Whatever the correct policy, there should be a fierce practical and ideological political debate. But it is not happening in Parliament."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:28 PM

Too Many Secrets

(NY Times editorial)

It is a challenge to keep track of all the ways the Bush administration is eroding constitutional protections, but one that should get more attention is its abuse of the state secrets doctrine. A federal appeals court in Virginia this month accepted the administration's claim that the doctrine barred a lawsuit of a torture victim from going forward, and the government is using the defense in another torture case in New York. The Supreme Court needs to scale back the use of this dangerous legal defense.

Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, says he was picked up in Macedonia and flown to Afghanistan, where he was questioned about ties to terrorist groups and beaten by his captors, some of whom were Americans. He was apparently subjected to "extraordinary rendition," the practice of taking foreign nationals to be interrogated in other countries where, the Bush administration believes, American law does not reach.

Mr. Masri sued, charging the C.I.A. with violating the Constitution and international law. The government argued that if the case went forward, it would put national security secrets at risk. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, agreed and threw out the case, insisting that the "very subject matter" of Mr. Masri's encounter with the rendition program was too secret for his case to go forward.

The court erred badly. The government has already spoken publicly about its rendition program, which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has hailed as "a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism," and Mr. Masri's case has been widely covered in the media. If there are particular facts that need to be kept secret, the court could have found a way to separate them out, while letting the case proceed.

The government has raised a similar defense in the case of Maher Arar, who was sent to Syria and tortured. That case is on its way to a federal appeals court in New York.

If the state secrets doctrine is allowed to grow to the scope the Fourth Circuit stretched it to, it could prevent judicial review of a wide array of unconstitutional actions by the executive branch. The Supreme Court should reverse this ruling and hold the executive branch accountable, in Mr. Masri's case and others, when it acts outside the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 05:16 AM

"To the Editor:

David Brooks rationalizes the Bush administration's appalling failures in the so-called war on terror with the statement that "wisdom comes from suffering and error, and when the passions die down and observation begins."

There was no pre-existing shortage of wisdom. Among the many who eloquently expressed such wisdom were the former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

But such wisdom was absent from, rejected by and disparaged by the Bush administration and its cheerleaders in the media, including Mr. Brooks.

Kenneth J. Kahn"

Long Beach, N.Y., March 8, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:48 AM

From an essay by the founder of the Crossroads Baptist Church of Pensacola, FL:

"...One juror, Denis Collins, asked, "What is he [Libby] doing here? Where's [Karl] Rove? Where are these other guys?" Several jurors publicly questioned why Vice President Cheney or President Bush were not in the courtroom.

At issue is whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney deliberately manipulated evidence regarding Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and whether they deliberately lied to and deceived the American people and Congress in order to invade Iraq.

Of course, all this was brought to light when the White House made the decision to "out" CIA operative Valerie Plame after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly suggested that Bush and Cheney had lied and manipulated evidence in order to launch the Iraq invasion. To date, no one has been charged with leaking Plame's identity, but the Libby trial has clearly implicated Bush and Cheney in the whole affair. The jurors seemed convinced of that much, that is for sure.

It has been reported that George W. Bush began planning an invasion of Iraq almost immediately after being elected president in 2000, which was long before the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, President Bush has since acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and that it had no WMD capable of threatening the United States. However, he has constantly blamed "bad intelligence" for the decision to launch the preemptive invasion of Iraq.

The American people and history may forgive a leader for an erroneous decision predicated upon bad intelligence. However, neither the American people nor history will forgive a leader for deliberately manipulating evidence and lying to Congress in order to satisfy a personal bloodlust.

Therefore, Congress should immediately commission an independent counsel to investigate whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney did indeed manipulate evidence and deliberately lie to the American people. If that investigation proves that President Bush acted in good faith and with no ulterior motives, his decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as a colossal lapse in judgment. If, on the other hand, the investigation proves that he manipulated evidence and lied to the American people, his actions most definitely rise to the constitutional standard for impeachment. We need a thorough investigation to find the truth."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:43 AM

The Times' Krugman adds:

"In fact, it's becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration's attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.

For now, the nation's focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he "would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons." But it's already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn't use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.

In the last few days we've also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.

The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn't go along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 01:09 AM

Dickey lost the script long ago. You start spouting facts and he gets all messed up right quick. He is a diehard Bush fan, and he lives in a world where right is determined by his politics, not his brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Barry
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 01:02 AM

Be careful Amos, love. FDR is gonna get pulled out of that black hat again like a rabbit in rebuttal. Not that FDR has anything in common here but he just keeps popping up as an example. Go figure. WWII has got nothing in common with our present day situation. Each day it seems as if (ok maybe each week) we take one more step back into the dark ages, (not the middle ages, we are now past that) & we had come such a long way, baby (sarcasm) since WWII, not that far from Viet Nam though. It's enough to make a grown man or woman cry. The firing of the 8 AG's is only symtomatic of an administration gone beserk. This in itself is tragic that an effort like this would or could be even attempted never mind excuted. But this is just one example of many that keeps getting repeated & defended that at present it's becoming overwhelming to just keep track of these blows upon our justice system never mind trying to right the wrongs & to attempt bring those responsible to justice. At this rate with the barrage of assults & the steamrolling over of our rights we'll (we the people) will have nothing left & nothing left to fight with.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:15 AM

ASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI is guilty of "serious misuse" of the power to secretly obtain private information under the Patriot Act, a government audit said Friday.

The Justice Department's inspector general looked at the FBI's use of national security letters, in which agents demand personal and business information about individuals -- such as financial, phone, and Internet records -- without court orders.

The audit found the letters were issued without proper authority, cited incorrect statutes or obtained information they weren't supposed to.

As many as 22 percent of national security letters were not recorded, the audit said.

"We concluded that many of the problems we identified constituted serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities," Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said in the report.

The audit said there were no indications that the FBI's use of the letters "constituted criminal misconduct."

The audit sparked a new stage in the ongoing battle over the Patriot Act, which was put into place after the September 11 attacks. Critics have slammed some of its provisions for intruding on civil liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to "act immediately to repeal these dangerous Patriot Act provisions."

The FBI has made as many as 56,000 requests a year for information using the letters since the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001, the audit found.

A single letter can contain multiple information requests, and multiple letters may target one individual.

The audit found that in 2004 and 2005, more than half of the targets of the national security letters were U.S. citizens.

---

There -- don't you feel safer?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:04 AM

You have missed the "big picture" yourself. For FDR, war was inevitable, forced on him by the insanity of others. For Bush, war was a willful step, taken in a hasty gluttonous anxiety fed by the proddings of fat, meat-minded men. Willful entry into a state of war, not as a last resort but as an act of intended choice, is about as bad a misstep in statesmanship as anyone in this nation's history has made. But you keep slinging the two about in meaningless comparisons as if their situations were comparable. You miss the big factor that makes all the difference. Bush had a choice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:21 PM

You are right Amos what FDR did was much worse, So is he off of your good guy list now.

A trillion dollars does not buy what it used to and the total GDP is much higher than it was during WW2. A 1940 dollar is worth $.05 so that puts things into perspective, that is for people who want to see things in perspective.

If you take the number of Americans that died in WW2 as a percentage of the population and compare that to the percentage of Americans that have died so far in Iraq, how does it compare? I get .34% compared to .00001%

And another one of your drumbeats is about the approval rating of GWB. How does that compare with Truman's approval rating during the Korean war? 25%. Gerald Ford dropped to 39% How does that compare with Bush's current 35%?

I thought Liberal thinkers could see the big picture, things in perspective as opposed to a narrow minded focus and fixations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM

I see, Dickey, and thanks for the link. Seems to me that squirming out of things must run in the same genes that makes people vote for dipwads. You would like to propose that FR's situation is "just like" Bush's, which is pure fantasy and conflation of dissimilarities on your part. This escapade of Mister Bush's has cost the US taxpayer one trillion dollars, approximately. Bush had a choice in dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. His nation was attacked by thugs, evidently, if messianic thugs. FDR's was attacked by two industrialized nation. I suspect your graph is badly distorted. I wonder where those numbers come from. But even if it is correct, it does reflect the fiscal management or the situation of the two men.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:00 PM

You see Amos, Here is a chart that shows the federal deficit as a percentage of the GDP. The gray block on the left is WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:45 PM

But Amos, FDR is on your good guys list.

Now if Bush would only overspend by 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire federal budget, he could be on your good guys list too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: jeffp
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:53 PM

It ain't Bush's fault after all. It's Johannes's. Just watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3934788900154749704 (video)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:01 PM

Yeah. I understand some of the medieval barons overspent their budgets too. Terrible things were done during the Crusades, also.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:59 PM

In campaigning for the presidency in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American public that a balanced budget would be maintained. In fact, during all his years in the White House, prior to our buildup for World War II, a balanced budget was uppermost in his mind. Philosophically, he was against the government's going further into debt -- but, in order to support his many relief programs, his advisors felt that it was necessary to spend more. As program after program was passed -- programs that would cost taxpayers billions of dollars -- the choices were increased taxes or government borrowing. So, to give the American people a "New Deal," a budget deficit was needed.

When he first took over the presidency, Roosevelt had the backing of many segments of society -- not only the general public but bankers and businessmen. The depression affected everyone. Business was hurt badly; government borrowing was far more acceptable to the business community than higher taxes. Such was the attitude until 1936, when bankers and businessmen began to change their views. As recovery began to take effect, the deficit was not considered necessary. Even though he did not favor greater debt, Roosevelt had his priorities. Convinced that deficits were temporary and not a permanent fact of fiscal life, he was exultant about the pump-priming consequences of spending. In his budget message of 1936 he stated:

    Our policy is succeeding. The figures prove it Secure in the knowledge that steadily decreasing deficits will turn in time into steadily increasing surpluses, and that it is the deficit of today which is making possible the surplus of tomorrow, let us pursue the course we have mapped.

As unemployment decreased during those early years of pump-priming, there seemed to be some grounds for President Roosevelt's optimism. Then, one year after his second inauguration, unemployment began to rise. Why, in spite of this pump priming, was there a recession within a depression? The pump was not running; prosperity generated by deficits had not survived the withdrawal of the stimulus. Were deficits to become a permanent part of government policy?

Looking back upon those deficit days of the New Deal, it is well to note that the average yearly federal budget deficit was about three billion dollars, out of an entire federal budget of six to nine billion dollars. The federal government was borrowing a larger portion of its operating expenses in the 30s than it is today.

http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us19.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

More on the Republic manner of doing business in managing the nation:

"Americans often suspect that their political leaders are arrogant and out of touch. But even then it is nearly impossible to fathom what self-delusion could have convinced Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico that he had a right to call a federal prosecutor at home and question him about a politically sensitive investigation.

That disturbing tale is one of several revealed this week in Congressional hearings called to look into the firing of eight United States attorneys. The hearings left little doubt that the Bush administration had all eight — an unprecedented number — ousted for political reasons. But it points to even wider abuse; prosecutors suggest that three Republican members of Congress may have tried to pressure the attorneys into doing their political bidding.

It already seemed clear that the Bush administration's purge had trampled on prosecutorial independence. Now Congress and the Justice Department need to investigate possible ethics violations, and perhaps illegality. Two of the fired prosecutors testified that they had been dismissed after resisting what they suspected were importunings to use their offices to help Republicans win elections. A third described what may have been a threat of retaliation if he talked publicly about his firing.

David Iglesias, who was removed as the United States attorney in Albuquerque, said that he was first contacted before last fall's election by Representative Heather Wilson, Republican of New Mexico. Ms. Wilson, who was in a tough re-election fight, asked about sealed indictments — criminal charges that are not public.

Two weeks later, he said, he got a call from Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, asking whether he intended to indict Democrats before the election in a high-profile corruption case. When Mr. Iglesias said no, he said, Mr. Domenici replied that he was very sorry to hear it, and the line went dead. Mr. Iglesias said he'd felt "sick." Within six weeks, he was fired. Ms. Wilson and Mr. Domenici both deny that they had tried to exert pressure.

John McKay of Seattle testified that the chief of staff for Representative Doc Hastings, Republican of Washington, called to ask whether he intended to investigate the 2004 governor's race, which a Democrat won after two recounts. Mr. McKay says that when he went to the White House later to discuss a possible judicial nomination (which he did not get), he was told of concerns about how he'd handled the election. H. E. Cummins, a fired prosecutor from Arkansas, said that a Justice Department official, in what appeared to be a warning, said that if he kept talking about his firing, the department would release negative information about him."

---

So now we have adulterated the separation of church and state AND corroded the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches of government.

I wonder what else they can find to break in the noble prusuit of the Imperialist Mandate?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:06 AM

"...In fact, it's becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration's attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.

For now, the nation's focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he "would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons." But it's already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn't use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.

In the last few days we've also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.

The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn't go along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."

And let's not forget that Karl Rove's candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove's time in Texas: "In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished."

Fortunately, Mr. Rove's smear-and-fear tactics fell short last November. I say fortunately, because without Democrats in control of Congress, able to hold hearings and issue subpoenas, the prosecutor purge would probably have become yet another suppressed Bush-era scandal — a huge abuse of power that somehow never became front-page news.

Before the midterm election, I wrote that what the election was really about could be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Well, the Democrats now have that power, and the hearings on the prosecutor purge look like the shape of things to come.

In the months ahead, we'll hear a lot about what's really been going on these past six years. And I predict that we'll learn about abuses of power that would have made Richard Nixon green with envy. "

Paul Krugman, NY Times Op-Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:01 AM

As I see it Al Queda has done very well by our Village Idiot. They weren't really hurt, actually they're probably doing very well. They spent very little in their quest to harm the US & forced us to spend ourselves into what may be bankruptcy, turned our hand in the invasion of 2 nations, one who's leader they disliked, so they are now thanking us for the vacumm we've created for them & the foothold that they now hold there. We've lost many of our rights & freedoms in our battle, which is now (the battle) not even with them. We've probably made them far more wealthy that they had been prior to 9/11 (stock) & richer in recruits too. The nation is now divided over many issues. Our economy has been ripped apart & our way of life has been changed forever. This you can thank the Bush network for. All because of the way they chose to knee-jerk react to a horrid situation. We have shown the world how nasty we can be to others & towards our own, the rest of the world looks on us with disgust. We heed the will, the ways, the worries & the wisdom of none, including our own & we show that we can go to hell by ourselves we don't need any nation to help us do it. Just show us a gang of thugs & we'll handle the rest. THAT'S ALL IT TOOK! ONE GANG!

I don't care about what FDR or Linclon or Bill Clinton did. None were ever so stupid to land us in a mess so tragic as this. Habe the Corpse was never hung by the neck until dead before, domistic spying was never law before, maybe done against the law, 40 years ago many of us fought for our civil rights & it was a long time coming, what a swift goodbye. Torture, rendition, by passing the UN, the Geneva Conventions, the "Go It Alone" & danm all who aren't with US, all this because we couldn't figure out a better way to find a gang of thugs in a desert & deal with them in a proper manner. We had to blame the world & tear it apart in our haste to lay waste to what wasn't even there in the first place.

How stupid does all this make US? Has any other nation anywhere ever been so foolish? Attack 2 nations because of a gang of thugs attacked US! Spend our grandchildren's legacy & dowery over a handful of fanatics! Anyone supporting this kind of thought or rational has clearly been blindsided! Was all this worth it? Did we get our man, I mean the real man behind the start of all this? No we didn't & if we did he's old, probably nearing the end of his sickly life anyway. Would it heal 3 nations if we had him & shot him? There will be no satisfaction, NEVER, there may be no recovery either & if so we won't see it in this generation! Can there be justification for what we've gone & done to ourselves? NO! They didn't do this, they only only attacked some buildings & killed a lot of innocent people, we did the rest to ourselves. There were better ways, we just didn't have the time to look for them. The trust from the Viet Nam War still hasn't returned when do you think we will see trust in this government again? NOT IN THIS LIFE TIME! Did we win yet? Mission Abort!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM

Tell me about the Geneva convention in regards to the Japanese interment.

The Geneva convention was for how a country with a military would treat prisioners of war another country with a military.

al-Qaeda is not a military force, no uniforms or rankings, they do not have a country and they don't give a hoot about how they treat American prisoners and never signed anything but the signs they hang around the neck of cililian prisoners while the behead them on videotape.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:16 AM

This would all be well and good, Dickey, except that you have asserted the gloss of things without regard for their substance. For example, you lightly gloss over the inhumane violations of the Geneva Convention as thought it were actually necessary to set aside the normal protections of human rights. It was not necessary and I am sure that the years those men spent in their rendition centers or Guantanamo were not spent in the difficult task of ascertaining their status--I think tha is a fairy tale.

The only counter-attack against those who launched 9-11 that seems to have come anywhere close is the botched offensive at Bora Bora, where the Conglomerate forces allowed (apparently--this is all information at a distance) the head of Al queda to escape. Our offensive against Al Queda has been seriously compromised by the half-wit decision to invade a foreign country for other reasons on a "preventivce" basis, an immoral proposition in my opinion.

As for my trying to control the conversation, I was simply pointing out what this thread is about, which is not FDR. Say what you like, old fruit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:18 PM

So in other words Amos, you define what people can say on this thread. No one can have any objections to what you say or make any comparisons or tell you that you are wrong.

You complain about the president. I ask you who would be a good president. You mentioned Lincoln and FDR. When I compare their actions to Bush you tell me it is about Bush, not them.

My freedom of speech is subjugated by your freedom of speech. Correct?

Well I am still going to say what I want to say but I am not going to indulge in the name calling you seem to feel is necessary to prove your point.

The USA was attacked on American soil and American lives were lost. Whomever or whatever attacked us, whether they had an industrial base or not, still deserved a counter attack. They got it.

Whether you believe invading Iraq was justified or not, the Clinton administration thought so and that was inherited by the Bush administration. Actually Clinton, whom you said "seemed to hold to those values" did attack Iraq on the grounds that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs.

Notice the the Muslims in America were not rounded up and put into interment camps and held indefinitely with no charges without the approval of congress.

Enemy combatants were captured on the battlefield and held indefinitely until it could be determined if they were a threat, with the approval of congress.

Overseas communications and mail from certain sources are being monitored in an effort to detect terrorist activities. I would be pissed off if this were not being done as it was done during WW2 and right after WW2 up to the present time using UKUSA and ECHELON.

It is true things have not gone well but when was the last war the went well? Maybe it was Lincon's civil war or Wilson's WW1 or FDR's WW2 or Trueman's Korean war or Johnson's Vietnam war or Clinton's invasion of Somalia.

It is your namecalling, impassioned and incorrect rhetoric that exposes the incorrectness of your position.

You appear to be an idealist to me, destined to complain no matter what.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:46 PM

Reality check.

This in no way excuses the wholesale round-up of Japanese in the United States shortly after Pearl Harbor, but there were aspects of it that many of those hell-bent-on finding fault with FDR are disinclined to take into consideration. And I might point out that trying to characterize the round-up and detention as "Nazi style" is way over the top:   there was no slave labor, no gas chambers, and no mass exterminations. And provision was made for the continued schooling of the children. It was most certainly a violation of civil rights, but it was not an entirely unmixed curse. The major reason given was to forestall potential sabotage or other activity by Japanese living in the United States who may have remained loyal to Japan. But an additional reason was given:   the protection of the Japanese themselves. Those who were in detention may not have appreciated this much, but it was not without a certain merit. I was a kid at the time, but I was very aware that feelings ran high, there was a lot of anger, and there were plenty of people who had a tendency to act before they thought.

Case in point:   during the Sixties, I met a woman about my age named May Yee. She was a school kid during the war, just as I was. But her school experience was not quite as placid as mine. She told me that her memory of World War II was punctuated by the number of times that kids would walk up to her on the street, on the playground, or in the school halls, say "Take THIS, you lousy Jap!" and punch her in the face.

Small misconception, however. She wasn't Japanese. She was Chinese. The shape of your eyes was enough to get people to gang up and beat the crap out of you.

Since this attitude was pandemic, I've often wondered what might have happened to a lot of Japanese had they not been stashed away—safely—in detention camps.

My father told me that the same kind of collective hatred was felt toward anyone with a Germanic sounding name (which included a number of Austrians, Scandinavians, and Swiss) during Warld War I. A lot of Schmidts and Gottfrieds became Smiths and Godfreys back then as a matter of personal safety.

Don Firth

P. S. There may be a few signs that the world is improving a bit. There is a mosque in Seattle a few blocks to the east of the Northgate shopping mall. Following on the heels of the attack on the World Trade Center, there was a great deal of understandable fear on the part of those who worshipped at this mosque. But they were relieved, and extremely appreciative, when a number of Christian churches and a synagogue or two in the area sent some of the more able-bodied members of their congregations—in force—to patrol the area around the mosque and protect it. Good precaution. Several attempts at vandalism and arson simply died before they got started.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:18 PM

Context is important Dickey. You don't get accurate meaning by taking things out of context. This thread is about W's Administration, not whether FDR was right or not.

A major industrialized nation -- in fact several of them -- were massed against the US and FDR. A known enemy with an industrial base. Al Qeda is less than a nation, a different kind of enemy altogether. If Bush had focused on how to deal with THAT enemy, he would not have been spending a trillion dollars in Iraq. The whole chain of events from 9-11 on has been one bad judgement and mismanaged program on top of another. As a result of his decision to make a sandbox out of Iraq, several thousand more men are dead than might otherwise have been. Well, maybe...who knows. Point is, it was a bad call on his part, blinded by power and greedy advisors and a lack of clear insight.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:02 PM

Bobert:

When I use the word Nazi to describe what FDR (on Amos's approved list of presidents above) did, I am told that I am using "impassioned but inaccurate rhetoric"

I am not saying what FDR did was right but it was a hell of a lot worse that what Bush did. FDR did not even get congressional approval. He lied his ass of to the American people about not getting into the war because the peace mongers said we had no business getting into it while secretly helping with the war effort. If the US had gotten involved sooner, it would have been over sooner and lives would have been saved.

People that go around claiming that this president has done something terrible that none of the other great presidents did or would have done are dead wrong. They lack perspective.

Now were those "Japs" that you refered to captured on the battlefield?

I too am waiting for 09 to see what Obama or more likely Hillary is going to do besides flap their jaws and talk about how horrible things are like the democratic congress is doing.